Dermatology News

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use has recommended approval of baricitinib tablets for adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who are candidates for systemic therapy.

Baricitinib (Olumiant) is already approved in the European Union and the United States to treat moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis.

If approved in Europe, it will be the first Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor and first oral medication indicated to treat patients with AD.

The CHMP’s positive opinion on baricitinib for AD was based on three phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies where the JAK inhibitor was used alone or in combination with topical treatments in adults with moderate to severe AD for whom topical treatments were insufficient or not tolerated. In all three studies, baricitinib was shown to be more effective than placebo in achieving skin that is “clear” or “almost clear” at 16 weeks.

“Patients living with AD face difficulties on a daily basis, and this CHMP opinion marks an important milestone in providing adult AD patients with a new potential treatment option,” Thomas Bieber, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and allergy, University of Bonn (Germany), said in a company news release.

The most common side effects with baricitinib in clinical trials include increased LDL cholesterol, upper respiratory tract infections, and headache.

Patients receiving baricitinib, particularly in combination with immunosuppressants, are at risk of developing serious infections that may lead to hospitalization or death. If a serious infection develops, baricitinib should be stopped until the infection is controlled.

The CHMP’s positive opinion will be sent to the European Commission, which will adopt a final decision regarding an European Union–wide marketing authorization. Once granted, each member state will make decisions about price and reimbursement, taking into account the potential role/use of baricitinib in the context of that country’s national health system.

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use has recommended approval of baricitinib tablets for adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who are candidates for systemic therapy.

Baricitinib (Olumiant) is already approved in the European Union and the United States to treat moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis.

If approved in Europe, it will be the first Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor and first oral medication indicated to treat patients with AD.

The CHMP’s positive opinion on baricitinib for AD was based on three phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies where the JAK inhibitor was used alone or in combination with topical treatments in adults with moderate to severe AD for whom topical treatments were insufficient or not tolerated. In all three studies, baricitinib was shown to be more effective than placebo in achieving skin that is “clear” or “almost clear” at 16 weeks.

“Patients living with AD face difficulties on a daily basis, and this CHMP opinion marks an important milestone in providing adult AD patients with a new potential treatment option,” Thomas Bieber, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and allergy, University of Bonn (Germany), said in a company news release.

The most common side effects with baricitinib in clinical trials include increased LDL cholesterol, upper respiratory tract infections, and headache.

Patients receiving baricitinib, particularly in combination with immunosuppressants, are at risk of developing serious infections that may lead to hospitalization or death. If a serious infection develops, baricitinib should be stopped until the infection is controlled.

The CHMP’s positive opinion will be sent to the European Commission, which will adopt a final decision regarding an European Union–wide marketing authorization. Once granted, each member state will make decisions about price and reimbursement, taking into account the potential role/use of baricitinib in the context of that country’s national health system.

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

The European Medicines Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use has recommended approval of baricitinib tablets for adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) who are candidates for systemic therapy.

Baricitinib (Olumiant) is already approved in the European Union and the United States to treat moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis.

If approved in Europe, it will be the first Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor and first oral medication indicated to treat patients with AD.

The CHMP’s positive opinion on baricitinib for AD was based on three phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies where the JAK inhibitor was used alone or in combination with topical treatments in adults with moderate to severe AD for whom topical treatments were insufficient or not tolerated. In all three studies, baricitinib was shown to be more effective than placebo in achieving skin that is “clear” or “almost clear” at 16 weeks.

“Patients living with AD face difficulties on a daily basis, and this CHMP opinion marks an important milestone in providing adult AD patients with a new potential treatment option,” Thomas Bieber, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology and allergy, University of Bonn (Germany), said in a company news release.

The most common side effects with baricitinib in clinical trials include increased LDL cholesterol, upper respiratory tract infections, and headache.

Patients receiving baricitinib, particularly in combination with immunosuppressants, are at risk of developing serious infections that may lead to hospitalization or death. If a serious infection develops, baricitinib should be stopped until the infection is controlled.

The CHMP’s positive opinion will be sent to the European Commission, which will adopt a final decision regarding an European Union–wide marketing authorization. Once granted, each member state will make decisions about price and reimbursement, taking into account the potential role/use of baricitinib in the context of that country’s national health system.

A version of this story originally appeared on Medscape.com.

More female physicians are becoming specialists, a Medscape survey finds, and five specialties have seen particularly large increases during the last 5 years.

kate_sept2004/E+

Obstetrician/gynecologists and pediatricians had the largest female representation at 58% and those percentages were both up from 50% in 2015, according to the Medscape Female Physician Compensation Report 2020.

Rheumatology saw a dramatic jump in numbers of women from 29% in 2015 to 54% now. Dermatology increased from 32% to 49%, and family medicine rose from 35% to 43% during that time.
 

Specialist pay gap narrows slightly

As in the past 10 years of the survey, female physicians continue to make less than their male colleagues. The gender gap was the same this year in primary care — women made 25% less ($212,000 vs. $264,000).

The gap in specialists narrowed slightly. Women made 31% less this year ($286,000 vs $375,000) instead of the 33% less reported in last year’s survey, a difference of $89,000 this year.

The gender pay gap was consistent across all race and age groups and was consistent in responses about net worth. Whereas 57% of male physicians had a net worth of $1 million or more, only 40% of female physicians did. Twice as many male physicians as female physicians had a net worth of more than $5 million (10% vs. 5%).

“Many physicians expect the gender pay gap to narrow in the coming years,” John Prescott, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges, said in an interview.

“Yet, it is a challenging task, requiring an institutional commitment to transparency, cross-campus collaboration, ongoing communication, dedicated resources, and enlightened leadership,” he said.

Female physicians working in office-based, solo practices made the most overall at $290,000; women in outpatient settings made the least at $223,000.

The survey included more than 4,500 responses. The responses were collected during the early part of the year and do not reflect changes in income expected from the COVID-19 pandemic.

An analysis in Health Affairs, for instance, predicted that primary care practices would lose $67,774 in gross revenue per full-time-equivalent physician in calendar year 2020 because of the pandemic.

Most physicians did not experience a significant financial loss in 2019, but COVID-19 may, at least temporarily, change those answers in next year’s report, physicians predicted.
 

Women more likely than men to live above their means

More women this year (39%) said they live below their means than answered that way last year (31%). Female physicians were more likely to say they lived above their means than were their male counterparts (8% vs. 6%).

Greenwald Wealth Management in St. Louis Park, Minn., says aiming for putting away 20% of total gross salary is a good financial goal.

Women in this year’s survey spent about 7% less time seeing patients than did their male counterparts (35.9 hours a week vs. 38.8). The average for all physicians was 37.8 hours a week. Add the 15.6 average hours per week physicians spend on paperwork, and they are putting in 53-hour workweeks on average overall.

Asked what parts of their job they found most rewarding, women were more likely than were men to say “gratitude/relationships with patients” (31% vs. 25%). They were less likely than were men to answer that the most rewarding part was “being very good at what I do/finding answers/diagnoses” (22% vs. 25%) or “making good money at a job I like” (9% vs. 13%).

Most female physicians — and physicians overall — said they would choose medicine again. But two specialties saw a substantial increase in that answer.

This year, 79% of those in physical medicine and rehabilitation said they would choose medicine again (compared with 66% last year) and 84% of gastroenterologists answered that way (compared with 76% in 2019).

Psychiatrists, however, were in the group least likely to say they would choose their specialty again along with those in internal medicine, family medicine, and diabetes and endocrinology.

Female physicians in orthopedics, radiology, and dermatology were most likely to choose their specialties again (91% - 92%).

Female physicians were less likely to use physician assistants in their practices than were their male colleagues (31% vs. 38%) but more likely to use NPs (52% vs. 50%). More than a third (38%) of male and female physicians reported they use neither.
 

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

More female physicians are becoming specialists, a Medscape survey finds, and five specialties have seen particularly large increases during the last 5 years.

kate_sept2004/E+

Obstetrician/gynecologists and pediatricians had the largest female representation at 58% and those percentages were both up from 50% in 2015, according to the Medscape Female Physician Compensation Report 2020.

Rheumatology saw a dramatic jump in numbers of women from 29% in 2015 to 54% now. Dermatology increased from 32% to 49%, and family medicine rose from 35% to 43% during that time.
 

Specialist pay gap narrows slightly

As in the past 10 years of the survey, female physicians continue to make less than their male colleagues. The gender gap was the same this year in primary care — women made 25% less ($212,000 vs. $264,000).

The gap in specialists narrowed slightly. Women made 31% less this year ($286,000 vs $375,000) instead of the 33% less reported in last year’s survey, a difference of $89,000 this year.

The gender pay gap was consistent across all race and age groups and was consistent in responses about net worth. Whereas 57% of male physicians had a net worth of $1 million or more, only 40% of female physicians did. Twice as many male physicians as female physicians had a net worth of more than $5 million (10% vs. 5%).

“Many physicians expect the gender pay gap to narrow in the coming years,” John Prescott, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges, said in an interview.

“Yet, it is a challenging task, requiring an institutional commitment to transparency, cross-campus collaboration, ongoing communication, dedicated resources, and enlightened leadership,” he said.

Female physicians working in office-based, solo practices made the most overall at $290,000; women in outpatient settings made the least at $223,000.

The survey included more than 4,500 responses. The responses were collected during the early part of the year and do not reflect changes in income expected from the COVID-19 pandemic.

An analysis in Health Affairs, for instance, predicted that primary care practices would lose $67,774 in gross revenue per full-time-equivalent physician in calendar year 2020 because of the pandemic.

Most physicians did not experience a significant financial loss in 2019, but COVID-19 may, at least temporarily, change those answers in next year’s report, physicians predicted.
 

Women more likely than men to live above their means

More women this year (39%) said they live below their means than answered that way last year (31%). Female physicians were more likely to say they lived above their means than were their male counterparts (8% vs. 6%).

Greenwald Wealth Management in St. Louis Park, Minn., says aiming for putting away 20% of total gross salary is a good financial goal.

Women in this year’s survey spent about 7% less time seeing patients than did their male counterparts (35.9 hours a week vs. 38.8). The average for all physicians was 37.8 hours a week. Add the 15.6 average hours per week physicians spend on paperwork, and they are putting in 53-hour workweeks on average overall.

Asked what parts of their job they found most rewarding, women were more likely than were men to say “gratitude/relationships with patients” (31% vs. 25%). They were less likely than were men to answer that the most rewarding part was “being very good at what I do/finding answers/diagnoses” (22% vs. 25%) or “making good money at a job I like” (9% vs. 13%).

Most female physicians — and physicians overall — said they would choose medicine again. But two specialties saw a substantial increase in that answer.

This year, 79% of those in physical medicine and rehabilitation said they would choose medicine again (compared with 66% last year) and 84% of gastroenterologists answered that way (compared with 76% in 2019).

Psychiatrists, however, were in the group least likely to say they would choose their specialty again along with those in internal medicine, family medicine, and diabetes and endocrinology.

Female physicians in orthopedics, radiology, and dermatology were most likely to choose their specialties again (91% - 92%).

Female physicians were less likely to use physician assistants in their practices than were their male colleagues (31% vs. 38%) but more likely to use NPs (52% vs. 50%). More than a third (38%) of male and female physicians reported they use neither.
 

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

More female physicians are becoming specialists, a Medscape survey finds, and five specialties have seen particularly large increases during the last 5 years.

kate_sept2004/E+

Obstetrician/gynecologists and pediatricians had the largest female representation at 58% and those percentages were both up from 50% in 2015, according to the Medscape Female Physician Compensation Report 2020.

Rheumatology saw a dramatic jump in numbers of women from 29% in 2015 to 54% now. Dermatology increased from 32% to 49%, and family medicine rose from 35% to 43% during that time.
 

Specialist pay gap narrows slightly

As in the past 10 years of the survey, female physicians continue to make less than their male colleagues. The gender gap was the same this year in primary care — women made 25% less ($212,000 vs. $264,000).

The gap in specialists narrowed slightly. Women made 31% less this year ($286,000 vs $375,000) instead of the 33% less reported in last year’s survey, a difference of $89,000 this year.

The gender pay gap was consistent across all race and age groups and was consistent in responses about net worth. Whereas 57% of male physicians had a net worth of $1 million or more, only 40% of female physicians did. Twice as many male physicians as female physicians had a net worth of more than $5 million (10% vs. 5%).

“Many physicians expect the gender pay gap to narrow in the coming years,” John Prescott, MD, chief academic officer of the Association of American Medical Colleges, said in an interview.

“Yet, it is a challenging task, requiring an institutional commitment to transparency, cross-campus collaboration, ongoing communication, dedicated resources, and enlightened leadership,” he said.

Female physicians working in office-based, solo practices made the most overall at $290,000; women in outpatient settings made the least at $223,000.

The survey included more than 4,500 responses. The responses were collected during the early part of the year and do not reflect changes in income expected from the COVID-19 pandemic.

An analysis in Health Affairs, for instance, predicted that primary care practices would lose $67,774 in gross revenue per full-time-equivalent physician in calendar year 2020 because of the pandemic.

Most physicians did not experience a significant financial loss in 2019, but COVID-19 may, at least temporarily, change those answers in next year’s report, physicians predicted.
 

Women more likely than men to live above their means

More women this year (39%) said they live below their means than answered that way last year (31%). Female physicians were more likely to say they lived above their means than were their male counterparts (8% vs. 6%).

Greenwald Wealth Management in St. Louis Park, Minn., says aiming for putting away 20% of total gross salary is a good financial goal.

Women in this year’s survey spent about 7% less time seeing patients than did their male counterparts (35.9 hours a week vs. 38.8). The average for all physicians was 37.8 hours a week. Add the 15.6 average hours per week physicians spend on paperwork, and they are putting in 53-hour workweeks on average overall.

Asked what parts of their job they found most rewarding, women were more likely than were men to say “gratitude/relationships with patients” (31% vs. 25%). They were less likely than were men to answer that the most rewarding part was “being very good at what I do/finding answers/diagnoses” (22% vs. 25%) or “making good money at a job I like” (9% vs. 13%).

Most female physicians — and physicians overall — said they would choose medicine again. But two specialties saw a substantial increase in that answer.

This year, 79% of those in physical medicine and rehabilitation said they would choose medicine again (compared with 66% last year) and 84% of gastroenterologists answered that way (compared with 76% in 2019).

Psychiatrists, however, were in the group least likely to say they would choose their specialty again along with those in internal medicine, family medicine, and diabetes and endocrinology.

Female physicians in orthopedics, radiology, and dermatology were most likely to choose their specialties again (91% - 92%).

Female physicians were less likely to use physician assistants in their practices than were their male colleagues (31% vs. 38%) but more likely to use NPs (52% vs. 50%). More than a third (38%) of male and female physicians reported they use neither.
 

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

President Donald Trump, who seems intent on announcing a COVID-19 vaccine before Election Day, could legally authorize a vaccine over the objections of experts, officials at the Food and Drug Administration and even vaccine manufacturers, who have pledged not to release any vaccine unless it’s proved safe and effective.

In podcasts, public forums, social media and medical journals, a growing number of prominent health leaders say they fear that Mr. Trump – who has repeatedly signaled his desire for the swift approval of a vaccine and his displeasure with perceived delays at the FDA – will take matters into his own hands, running roughshod over the usual regulatory process.

It would reflect another attempt by a norm-breaking administration, poised to ram through a Supreme Court nominee opposed to existing abortion rights and the Affordable Care Act, to inject politics into sensitive public health decisions. Mr. Trump has repeatedly contradicted the advice of senior scientists on COVID-19 while pushing controversial treatments for the disease.

If the executive branch were to overrule the FDA’s scientific judgment, a vaccine of limited efficacy and, worse, unknown side effects could be rushed to market.

The worries intensified over the weekend, after Alex Azar, the administration’s secretary of Health & Human Services, asserted his agency’s rule-making authority over the FDA. HHS spokesperson Caitlin Oakley said Mr. Azar’s decision had no bearing on the vaccine approval process.

Vaccines are typically approved by the FDA. Alternatively, Mr. Azar – who reports directly to Mr. Trump – can issue an emergency use authorization, even before any vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in late-stage clinical trials.

“Yes, this scenario is certainly possible legally and politically,” said Jerry Avorn, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, who outlined such an event in the New England Journal of Medicine. He said it “seems frighteningly more plausible each day.”

Vaccine experts and public health officials are particularly vexed by the possibility because it could ruin the fragile public confidence in a COVID-19 vaccine. It might put scientific authorities in the position of urging people not to be vaccinated after years of coaxing hesitant parents to ignore baseless fears.

Physicians might refuse to administer a vaccine approved with inadequate data, said Preeti Malani, MD, chief health officer and professor of medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, in a recent webinar. “You could have a safe, effective vaccine that no one wants to take.” A recent KFF poll found that 54% of Americans would not submit to a COVID-19 vaccine authorized before Election Day.

After this story was published, an HHS official said that Mr. Azar “will defer completely to the FDA” as the agency weighs whether to approve a vaccine produced through the government’s Operation Warp Speed effort.

“The idea the Secretary would approve or authorize a vaccine over the FDA’s objections is preposterous and betrays ignorance of the transparent process that we’re following for the development of the OWS vaccines,” HHS chief of staff Brian Harrison wrote in an email.

White House spokesperson Judd Deere dismissed the scientists’ concerns, saying Trump cared only about the public’s safety and health. “This false narrative that the media and Democrats have created that politics is influencing approvals is not only false but is a danger to the American public,” he said.

Usually, the FDA approves vaccines only after companies submit years of data proving that a vaccine is safe and effective. But a 2004 law allows the FDA to issue an emergency use authorization with much less evidence, as long as the vaccine “may be effective” and its “known and potential benefits” outweigh its “known and potential risks.”

Many scientists doubt a vaccine could meet those criteria before the election. But the terms might be legally vague enough to allow the administration to take such steps.

Moncef Slaoui, chief scientific adviser to Operation Warp Speed, the government program aiming to more quickly develop COVID-19 vaccines, said it’s “extremely unlikely” that vaccine trial results will be ready before the end of October.

Mr. Trump, however, has insisted repeatedly that a vaccine to fight the pandemic that has claimed 200,000 American lives will be distributed starting next month. He reiterated that claim Saturday at a campaign rally in Fayetteville, N.C.

The vaccine will be ready “in a matter of weeks,” he said. “We will end the pandemic from China.”

Although pharmaceutical companies have launched three clinical trials in the United States, no one can say with certainty when those trials will have enough data to determine whether the vaccines are safe and effective.

Officials at Moderna, whose vaccine is being tested in 30,000 volunteers, have said their studies could produce a result by the end of the year, although the final analysis could take place next spring.

Pfizer executives, who have expanded their clinical trial to 44,000 participants, boast that they could know their vaccine works by the end of October.

AstraZeneca’s U.S. vaccine trial, which was scheduled to enroll 30,000 volunteers, is on hold pending an investigation of a possible vaccine-related illness.

Scientists have warned for months that the Trump administration could try to win the election with an “October surprise,” authorizing a vaccine that hasn’t been fully tested. “I don’t think people are crazy to be thinking about all of this,” said William Schultz, a partner in a Washington, D.C., law firm who served as a former FDA commissioner for policy and as general counsel for HHS.

“You’ve got a president saying you’ll have an approval in October. Everybody’s wondering how that could happen.”

In an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal, conservative former FDA commissioners Scott Gottlieb and Mark McClellan argued that presidential intrusion was unlikely because the FDA’s “thorough and transparent process doesn’t lend itself to meddling. Any deviation would quickly be apparent.”

But the administration has demonstrated a willingness to bend the agency to its will. The FDA has been criticized for issuing emergency authorizations for two COVID-19 treatments that were boosted by the president but lacked strong evidence to support them: hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma.

Mr. Azar has sidelined the FDA in other ways, such as by blocking the agency from regulating lab-developed tests, including tests for the novel coronavirus.

Although FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn told the Financial Times he would be willing to approve emergency use of a vaccine before large-scale studies conclude, agency officials also have pledged to ensure the safety of any COVID-19 vaccines.

A senior FDA official who oversees vaccine approvals, Peter Marks, MD, has said he will quit if his agency rubber-stamps an unproven COVID-19 vaccine.

“I think there would be an outcry from the public health community second to none, which is my worst nightmare – my worst nightmare – because we will so confuse the public,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, in his weekly podcast.

Still, “even if a company did not want it to be done, even if the FDA did not want it to be done, he could still do that,” said Dr. Osterholm, in his podcast. “I hope that we’d never see that happen, but we have to entertain that’s a possibility.”

In the New England Journal editorial, Dr. Avorn and coauthor Aaron Kesselheim, MD, wondered whether Mr. Trump might invoke the 1950 Defense Production Act to force reluctant drug companies to manufacture their vaccines.

But Mr. Trump would have to sue a company to enforce the Defense Production Act, and the company would have a strong case in refusing, said Lawrence Gostin, director of Georgetown’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law.

Also, he noted that Mr. Trump could not invoke the Defense Production Act unless a vaccine were “scientifically justified and approved by the FDA.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

President Donald Trump, who seems intent on announcing a COVID-19 vaccine before Election Day, could legally authorize a vaccine over the objections of experts, officials at the Food and Drug Administration and even vaccine manufacturers, who have pledged not to release any vaccine unless it’s proved safe and effective.

In podcasts, public forums, social media and medical journals, a growing number of prominent health leaders say they fear that Mr. Trump – who has repeatedly signaled his desire for the swift approval of a vaccine and his displeasure with perceived delays at the FDA – will take matters into his own hands, running roughshod over the usual regulatory process.

It would reflect another attempt by a norm-breaking administration, poised to ram through a Supreme Court nominee opposed to existing abortion rights and the Affordable Care Act, to inject politics into sensitive public health decisions. Mr. Trump has repeatedly contradicted the advice of senior scientists on COVID-19 while pushing controversial treatments for the disease.

If the executive branch were to overrule the FDA’s scientific judgment, a vaccine of limited efficacy and, worse, unknown side effects could be rushed to market.

The worries intensified over the weekend, after Alex Azar, the administration’s secretary of Health & Human Services, asserted his agency’s rule-making authority over the FDA. HHS spokesperson Caitlin Oakley said Mr. Azar’s decision had no bearing on the vaccine approval process.

Vaccines are typically approved by the FDA. Alternatively, Mr. Azar – who reports directly to Mr. Trump – can issue an emergency use authorization, even before any vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in late-stage clinical trials.

“Yes, this scenario is certainly possible legally and politically,” said Jerry Avorn, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, who outlined such an event in the New England Journal of Medicine. He said it “seems frighteningly more plausible each day.”

Vaccine experts and public health officials are particularly vexed by the possibility because it could ruin the fragile public confidence in a COVID-19 vaccine. It might put scientific authorities in the position of urging people not to be vaccinated after years of coaxing hesitant parents to ignore baseless fears.

Physicians might refuse to administer a vaccine approved with inadequate data, said Preeti Malani, MD, chief health officer and professor of medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, in a recent webinar. “You could have a safe, effective vaccine that no one wants to take.” A recent KFF poll found that 54% of Americans would not submit to a COVID-19 vaccine authorized before Election Day.

After this story was published, an HHS official said that Mr. Azar “will defer completely to the FDA” as the agency weighs whether to approve a vaccine produced through the government’s Operation Warp Speed effort.

“The idea the Secretary would approve or authorize a vaccine over the FDA’s objections is preposterous and betrays ignorance of the transparent process that we’re following for the development of the OWS vaccines,” HHS chief of staff Brian Harrison wrote in an email.

White House spokesperson Judd Deere dismissed the scientists’ concerns, saying Trump cared only about the public’s safety and health. “This false narrative that the media and Democrats have created that politics is influencing approvals is not only false but is a danger to the American public,” he said.

Usually, the FDA approves vaccines only after companies submit years of data proving that a vaccine is safe and effective. But a 2004 law allows the FDA to issue an emergency use authorization with much less evidence, as long as the vaccine “may be effective” and its “known and potential benefits” outweigh its “known and potential risks.”

Many scientists doubt a vaccine could meet those criteria before the election. But the terms might be legally vague enough to allow the administration to take such steps.

Moncef Slaoui, chief scientific adviser to Operation Warp Speed, the government program aiming to more quickly develop COVID-19 vaccines, said it’s “extremely unlikely” that vaccine trial results will be ready before the end of October.

Mr. Trump, however, has insisted repeatedly that a vaccine to fight the pandemic that has claimed 200,000 American lives will be distributed starting next month. He reiterated that claim Saturday at a campaign rally in Fayetteville, N.C.

The vaccine will be ready “in a matter of weeks,” he said. “We will end the pandemic from China.”

Although pharmaceutical companies have launched three clinical trials in the United States, no one can say with certainty when those trials will have enough data to determine whether the vaccines are safe and effective.

Officials at Moderna, whose vaccine is being tested in 30,000 volunteers, have said their studies could produce a result by the end of the year, although the final analysis could take place next spring.

Pfizer executives, who have expanded their clinical trial to 44,000 participants, boast that they could know their vaccine works by the end of October.

AstraZeneca’s U.S. vaccine trial, which was scheduled to enroll 30,000 volunteers, is on hold pending an investigation of a possible vaccine-related illness.

Scientists have warned for months that the Trump administration could try to win the election with an “October surprise,” authorizing a vaccine that hasn’t been fully tested. “I don’t think people are crazy to be thinking about all of this,” said William Schultz, a partner in a Washington, D.C., law firm who served as a former FDA commissioner for policy and as general counsel for HHS.

“You’ve got a president saying you’ll have an approval in October. Everybody’s wondering how that could happen.”

In an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal, conservative former FDA commissioners Scott Gottlieb and Mark McClellan argued that presidential intrusion was unlikely because the FDA’s “thorough and transparent process doesn’t lend itself to meddling. Any deviation would quickly be apparent.”

But the administration has demonstrated a willingness to bend the agency to its will. The FDA has been criticized for issuing emergency authorizations for two COVID-19 treatments that were boosted by the president but lacked strong evidence to support them: hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma.

Mr. Azar has sidelined the FDA in other ways, such as by blocking the agency from regulating lab-developed tests, including tests for the novel coronavirus.

Although FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn told the Financial Times he would be willing to approve emergency use of a vaccine before large-scale studies conclude, agency officials also have pledged to ensure the safety of any COVID-19 vaccines.

A senior FDA official who oversees vaccine approvals, Peter Marks, MD, has said he will quit if his agency rubber-stamps an unproven COVID-19 vaccine.

“I think there would be an outcry from the public health community second to none, which is my worst nightmare – my worst nightmare – because we will so confuse the public,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, in his weekly podcast.

Still, “even if a company did not want it to be done, even if the FDA did not want it to be done, he could still do that,” said Dr. Osterholm, in his podcast. “I hope that we’d never see that happen, but we have to entertain that’s a possibility.”

In the New England Journal editorial, Dr. Avorn and coauthor Aaron Kesselheim, MD, wondered whether Mr. Trump might invoke the 1950 Defense Production Act to force reluctant drug companies to manufacture their vaccines.

But Mr. Trump would have to sue a company to enforce the Defense Production Act, and the company would have a strong case in refusing, said Lawrence Gostin, director of Georgetown’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law.

Also, he noted that Mr. Trump could not invoke the Defense Production Act unless a vaccine were “scientifically justified and approved by the FDA.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

President Donald Trump, who seems intent on announcing a COVID-19 vaccine before Election Day, could legally authorize a vaccine over the objections of experts, officials at the Food and Drug Administration and even vaccine manufacturers, who have pledged not to release any vaccine unless it’s proved safe and effective.

In podcasts, public forums, social media and medical journals, a growing number of prominent health leaders say they fear that Mr. Trump – who has repeatedly signaled his desire for the swift approval of a vaccine and his displeasure with perceived delays at the FDA – will take matters into his own hands, running roughshod over the usual regulatory process.

It would reflect another attempt by a norm-breaking administration, poised to ram through a Supreme Court nominee opposed to existing abortion rights and the Affordable Care Act, to inject politics into sensitive public health decisions. Mr. Trump has repeatedly contradicted the advice of senior scientists on COVID-19 while pushing controversial treatments for the disease.

If the executive branch were to overrule the FDA’s scientific judgment, a vaccine of limited efficacy and, worse, unknown side effects could be rushed to market.

The worries intensified over the weekend, after Alex Azar, the administration’s secretary of Health & Human Services, asserted his agency’s rule-making authority over the FDA. HHS spokesperson Caitlin Oakley said Mr. Azar’s decision had no bearing on the vaccine approval process.

Vaccines are typically approved by the FDA. Alternatively, Mr. Azar – who reports directly to Mr. Trump – can issue an emergency use authorization, even before any vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in late-stage clinical trials.

“Yes, this scenario is certainly possible legally and politically,” said Jerry Avorn, MD, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, who outlined such an event in the New England Journal of Medicine. He said it “seems frighteningly more plausible each day.”

Vaccine experts and public health officials are particularly vexed by the possibility because it could ruin the fragile public confidence in a COVID-19 vaccine. It might put scientific authorities in the position of urging people not to be vaccinated after years of coaxing hesitant parents to ignore baseless fears.

Physicians might refuse to administer a vaccine approved with inadequate data, said Preeti Malani, MD, chief health officer and professor of medicine at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, in a recent webinar. “You could have a safe, effective vaccine that no one wants to take.” A recent KFF poll found that 54% of Americans would not submit to a COVID-19 vaccine authorized before Election Day.

After this story was published, an HHS official said that Mr. Azar “will defer completely to the FDA” as the agency weighs whether to approve a vaccine produced through the government’s Operation Warp Speed effort.

“The idea the Secretary would approve or authorize a vaccine over the FDA’s objections is preposterous and betrays ignorance of the transparent process that we’re following for the development of the OWS vaccines,” HHS chief of staff Brian Harrison wrote in an email.

White House spokesperson Judd Deere dismissed the scientists’ concerns, saying Trump cared only about the public’s safety and health. “This false narrative that the media and Democrats have created that politics is influencing approvals is not only false but is a danger to the American public,” he said.

Usually, the FDA approves vaccines only after companies submit years of data proving that a vaccine is safe and effective. But a 2004 law allows the FDA to issue an emergency use authorization with much less evidence, as long as the vaccine “may be effective” and its “known and potential benefits” outweigh its “known and potential risks.”

Many scientists doubt a vaccine could meet those criteria before the election. But the terms might be legally vague enough to allow the administration to take such steps.

Moncef Slaoui, chief scientific adviser to Operation Warp Speed, the government program aiming to more quickly develop COVID-19 vaccines, said it’s “extremely unlikely” that vaccine trial results will be ready before the end of October.

Mr. Trump, however, has insisted repeatedly that a vaccine to fight the pandemic that has claimed 200,000 American lives will be distributed starting next month. He reiterated that claim Saturday at a campaign rally in Fayetteville, N.C.

The vaccine will be ready “in a matter of weeks,” he said. “We will end the pandemic from China.”

Although pharmaceutical companies have launched three clinical trials in the United States, no one can say with certainty when those trials will have enough data to determine whether the vaccines are safe and effective.

Officials at Moderna, whose vaccine is being tested in 30,000 volunteers, have said their studies could produce a result by the end of the year, although the final analysis could take place next spring.

Pfizer executives, who have expanded their clinical trial to 44,000 participants, boast that they could know their vaccine works by the end of October.

AstraZeneca’s U.S. vaccine trial, which was scheduled to enroll 30,000 volunteers, is on hold pending an investigation of a possible vaccine-related illness.

Scientists have warned for months that the Trump administration could try to win the election with an “October surprise,” authorizing a vaccine that hasn’t been fully tested. “I don’t think people are crazy to be thinking about all of this,” said William Schultz, a partner in a Washington, D.C., law firm who served as a former FDA commissioner for policy and as general counsel for HHS.

“You’ve got a president saying you’ll have an approval in October. Everybody’s wondering how that could happen.”

In an opinion piece published in the Wall Street Journal, conservative former FDA commissioners Scott Gottlieb and Mark McClellan argued that presidential intrusion was unlikely because the FDA’s “thorough and transparent process doesn’t lend itself to meddling. Any deviation would quickly be apparent.”

But the administration has demonstrated a willingness to bend the agency to its will. The FDA has been criticized for issuing emergency authorizations for two COVID-19 treatments that were boosted by the president but lacked strong evidence to support them: hydroxychloroquine and convalescent plasma.

Mr. Azar has sidelined the FDA in other ways, such as by blocking the agency from regulating lab-developed tests, including tests for the novel coronavirus.

Although FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn told the Financial Times he would be willing to approve emergency use of a vaccine before large-scale studies conclude, agency officials also have pledged to ensure the safety of any COVID-19 vaccines.

A senior FDA official who oversees vaccine approvals, Peter Marks, MD, has said he will quit if his agency rubber-stamps an unproven COVID-19 vaccine.

“I think there would be an outcry from the public health community second to none, which is my worst nightmare – my worst nightmare – because we will so confuse the public,” said Michael Osterholm, PhD, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, in his weekly podcast.

Still, “even if a company did not want it to be done, even if the FDA did not want it to be done, he could still do that,” said Dr. Osterholm, in his podcast. “I hope that we’d never see that happen, but we have to entertain that’s a possibility.”

In the New England Journal editorial, Dr. Avorn and coauthor Aaron Kesselheim, MD, wondered whether Mr. Trump might invoke the 1950 Defense Production Act to force reluctant drug companies to manufacture their vaccines.

But Mr. Trump would have to sue a company to enforce the Defense Production Act, and the company would have a strong case in refusing, said Lawrence Gostin, director of Georgetown’s O’Neill Institute for National and Global Health Law.

Also, he noted that Mr. Trump could not invoke the Defense Production Act unless a vaccine were “scientifically justified and approved by the FDA.”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today abruptly deleted information from its website that it had updated Friday on how COVID-19 is spread.

The CDC had updated information on coronavirus spread and had acknowledged the prominence of aerosol transmission.

CDC’s new information still says that Sars-CoV-2 is commonly spread between people who are within about 6 feet of each other, which has been the agency’s stance for months now.

However, the deleted update had added it is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection. This is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

Responding to Medscape Medical News questions about the update, Jasmine Reed, spokesperson for the CDC, told Medscape Medical News, “A draft version of proposed changes to these recommendations was posted in error to the agency’s official website. CDC is currently updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). Once this process has been completed, the updated language will be posted.”

Previous information

Previously, the CDC said the virus is spread mainly among people who are within about 6 feet of each another through respiratory droplets propelled when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.

Previous guidance also said, “These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.”

The now deleted update said, “There is growing evidence that droplets and airborne particles can remain suspended in the air and be breathed in by others, and travel distances beyond 6 feet (for example, during choir practice, in restaurants, or in fitness classes).”

On July 6, Clinical Infectious Diseases published the paper “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors write, “There is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).

The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged after this research was published that airborne transmission of the virus may play a role in infection, especially in poorly ventilated rooms and buildings, but have yet to declare aerosols as a definitive contributor.

WHO has long stated that coronavirus is spread mainly by droplets that, once expelled by coughs and sneezes of infected people, fall quickly to the floor.

The CDC update was made Friday without announcement.

“This has been one of the problems all along,” said Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “The guidance from CDC changes on their website, but there’s no press conference, there’s no explanation of why they’re changing this now.”

Again Monday, there was no announcement that information had changed.

Update added air purifiers for prevention

The CDC continues to recommend staying 6 feet from others, washing hands, wearing a mask and routinely disinfecting frequently touched surfaces.

The update had added, “Use air purifiers to help reduce airborne germs in indoor spaces.”

Marcia Frellick is a freelance journalist based in Chicago. She has previously written for the Chicago Tribune, Science News and Nurse.com and was an editor at the Chicago Sun-Times, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the St. Cloud (Minnesota) Times. Follow her on Twitter at @mfrellick

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today abruptly deleted information from its website that it had updated Friday on how COVID-19 is spread.

The CDC had updated information on coronavirus spread and had acknowledged the prominence of aerosol transmission.

CDC’s new information still says that Sars-CoV-2 is commonly spread between people who are within about 6 feet of each other, which has been the agency’s stance for months now.

However, the deleted update had added it is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection. This is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

Responding to Medscape Medical News questions about the update, Jasmine Reed, spokesperson for the CDC, told Medscape Medical News, “A draft version of proposed changes to these recommendations was posted in error to the agency’s official website. CDC is currently updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). Once this process has been completed, the updated language will be posted.”

Previous information

Previously, the CDC said the virus is spread mainly among people who are within about 6 feet of each another through respiratory droplets propelled when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.

Previous guidance also said, “These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.”

The now deleted update said, “There is growing evidence that droplets and airborne particles can remain suspended in the air and be breathed in by others, and travel distances beyond 6 feet (for example, during choir practice, in restaurants, or in fitness classes).”

On July 6, Clinical Infectious Diseases published the paper “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors write, “There is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).

The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged after this research was published that airborne transmission of the virus may play a role in infection, especially in poorly ventilated rooms and buildings, but have yet to declare aerosols as a definitive contributor.

WHO has long stated that coronavirus is spread mainly by droplets that, once expelled by coughs and sneezes of infected people, fall quickly to the floor.

The CDC update was made Friday without announcement.

“This has been one of the problems all along,” said Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “The guidance from CDC changes on their website, but there’s no press conference, there’s no explanation of why they’re changing this now.”

Again Monday, there was no announcement that information had changed.

Update added air purifiers for prevention

The CDC continues to recommend staying 6 feet from others, washing hands, wearing a mask and routinely disinfecting frequently touched surfaces.

The update had added, “Use air purifiers to help reduce airborne germs in indoor spaces.”

Marcia Frellick is a freelance journalist based in Chicago. She has previously written for the Chicago Tribune, Science News and Nurse.com and was an editor at the Chicago Sun-Times, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the St. Cloud (Minnesota) Times. Follow her on Twitter at @mfrellick

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) today abruptly deleted information from its website that it had updated Friday on how COVID-19 is spread.

The CDC had updated information on coronavirus spread and had acknowledged the prominence of aerosol transmission.

CDC’s new information still says that Sars-CoV-2 is commonly spread between people who are within about 6 feet of each other, which has been the agency’s stance for months now.

However, the deleted update had added it is spread “through respiratory droplets or small particles, such as those in aerosols, produced when an infected person coughs, sneezes, sings, talks, or breathes. These particles can be inhaled into the nose, mouth, airways, and lungs and cause infection. This is thought to be the main way the virus spreads.”

Responding to Medscape Medical News questions about the update, Jasmine Reed, spokesperson for the CDC, told Medscape Medical News, “A draft version of proposed changes to these recommendations was posted in error to the agency’s official website. CDC is currently updating its recommendations regarding airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (the virus that causes COVID-19). Once this process has been completed, the updated language will be posted.”

Previous information

Previously, the CDC said the virus is spread mainly among people who are within about 6 feet of each another through respiratory droplets propelled when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks.

Previous guidance also said, “These droplets can land in the mouths or noses of people who are nearby or possibly be inhaled into the lungs.”

The now deleted update said, “There is growing evidence that droplets and airborne particles can remain suspended in the air and be breathed in by others, and travel distances beyond 6 feet (for example, during choir practice, in restaurants, or in fitness classes).”

On July 6, Clinical Infectious Diseases published the paper “It Is Time to Address Airborne Transmission of Coronavirus Disease 2019,” which was supported by 239 scientists.

The authors write, “There is significant potential for inhalation exposure to viruses in microscopic respiratory droplets (microdroplets) at short to medium distances (up to several meters, or room scale).

The World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged after this research was published that airborne transmission of the virus may play a role in infection, especially in poorly ventilated rooms and buildings, but have yet to declare aerosols as a definitive contributor.

WHO has long stated that coronavirus is spread mainly by droplets that, once expelled by coughs and sneezes of infected people, fall quickly to the floor.

The CDC update was made Friday without announcement.

“This has been one of the problems all along,” said Leana Wen, MD, an emergency physician and public health professor at George Washington University, Washington, DC. “The guidance from CDC changes on their website, but there’s no press conference, there’s no explanation of why they’re changing this now.”

Again Monday, there was no announcement that information had changed.

Update added air purifiers for prevention

The CDC continues to recommend staying 6 feet from others, washing hands, wearing a mask and routinely disinfecting frequently touched surfaces.

The update had added, “Use air purifiers to help reduce airborne germs in indoor spaces.”

Marcia Frellick is a freelance journalist based in Chicago. She has previously written for the Chicago Tribune, Science News and Nurse.com and was an editor at the Chicago Sun-Times, the Cincinnati Enquirer, and the St. Cloud (Minnesota) Times. Follow her on Twitter at @mfrellick

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A three-step approach may help relieve itch in patients with lichen simplex chronicus, “one of the itchiest conditions that we ever see on the vulva,” an expert advised at the virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

For some patients, such as those with excessive sweating or underlying psoriasis, seeing a dermatologist may be beneficial, physicians at the meeting suggested.

Treatment should aim to optimize epithelial barrier function, reduce inflammation, and stop scratching, Lynette Margesson, MD, said in a lecture at the biennial meeting, which is held by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD). “With this condition, please look always for more than one problem.”

Lichen simplex chronicus is a thick, hyperkeratotic, firm, itchy rash that can develop on top of any dermatitis. “It doesn’t show up out of nowhere,” said Dr. Margesson, an obstetrician and gynecologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, N.H. “It is because of chronic rubbing and scratching on top of something else.”

It may develop on top of atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, or contact dermatitis, as well as infection, lichen sclerosus, lichen planus, or neoplasia.

Lichen simplex chronicus is characterized by years of relentless itching, and patients may wake up at night scratching. The skin looks and feels leathery, and the condition can be localized or around the entire vulva. Heat, humidity, stress, and irritants may exacerbate the condition.

Patients often try to wash the rash away with scrubbers and cleansers, which only makes it worse, Dr. Margesson said.

To get patients better, improve barrier function, such as by controlling infections, reducing sweating, avoiding irritants, and stopping excessive hygiene. Immediate therapy may include soaks, cool compresses, and ointments.

A superpotent steroid taper (e.g., clobetasol 0.05% ointment), a prednisone taper, or intramuscular triamcinolone may reduce inflammation. Dr. Margesson usually uses clobetasol, although this treatment or halobetasol can burn if patients have open skin. In such cases, she uses prednisone or intramuscular triamcinolone.

Sedating medications may help patients stop scratching, especially at night. Hydroxyzine, doxepin, or amitriptyline 2-3 hours before bedtime can help. Scratching can be a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder, and a small dose of citalopram may help during the day. Patients with significant psychological factors can be difficult to manage and tend to relapse easily, Dr. Margesson said.

If lichen simplex chronicus recurs, test for infections and allergies. “Maybe they need a mild corticosteroid all the time, like 2.5% hydrocortisone to alternate with your superpotent steroid so you can use it longer without thinning the skin,” she suggested.

Although Dr. Margesson does not often treat hyperhidrosis, addressing excessive sweating can make a big difference for patients, she said.

If a gynecologist identifies a patient who may benefit from treatment of hyperhidrosis but has limited experience with medications for this condition, it might make sense to work with a dermatologist, Aruna Venkatesan, MD, chief of dermatology and director of the genital dermatology clinic at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., suggested during a panel discussion. Most dermatologists treat hyperhidrosis regularly, she said.

Dermatologists also may help treat patients with psoriasis who need systemic medication, Dr. Margesson said.

“In terms of ... doing the lab monitoring and knowing what side effects to look out for, your colleagues who use these medicines more are going to be more comfortable with that,” Dr. Venkatesan said. They also may have more experience navigating insurance denials to obtain a therapy. “Don’t think you are passing the buck to someone else. Sometimes that is the right thing to do, to get that help from someone else.”

Dr. Margesson is an author for UpToDate. Dr. Venkatesan had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

A three-step approach may help relieve itch in patients with lichen simplex chronicus, “one of the itchiest conditions that we ever see on the vulva,” an expert advised at the virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

For some patients, such as those with excessive sweating or underlying psoriasis, seeing a dermatologist may be beneficial, physicians at the meeting suggested.

Treatment should aim to optimize epithelial barrier function, reduce inflammation, and stop scratching, Lynette Margesson, MD, said in a lecture at the biennial meeting, which is held by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD). “With this condition, please look always for more than one problem.”

Lichen simplex chronicus is a thick, hyperkeratotic, firm, itchy rash that can develop on top of any dermatitis. “It doesn’t show up out of nowhere,” said Dr. Margesson, an obstetrician and gynecologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, N.H. “It is because of chronic rubbing and scratching on top of something else.”

It may develop on top of atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, or contact dermatitis, as well as infection, lichen sclerosus, lichen planus, or neoplasia.

Lichen simplex chronicus is characterized by years of relentless itching, and patients may wake up at night scratching. The skin looks and feels leathery, and the condition can be localized or around the entire vulva. Heat, humidity, stress, and irritants may exacerbate the condition.

Patients often try to wash the rash away with scrubbers and cleansers, which only makes it worse, Dr. Margesson said.

To get patients better, improve barrier function, such as by controlling infections, reducing sweating, avoiding irritants, and stopping excessive hygiene. Immediate therapy may include soaks, cool compresses, and ointments.

A superpotent steroid taper (e.g., clobetasol 0.05% ointment), a prednisone taper, or intramuscular triamcinolone may reduce inflammation. Dr. Margesson usually uses clobetasol, although this treatment or halobetasol can burn if patients have open skin. In such cases, she uses prednisone or intramuscular triamcinolone.

Sedating medications may help patients stop scratching, especially at night. Hydroxyzine, doxepin, or amitriptyline 2-3 hours before bedtime can help. Scratching can be a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder, and a small dose of citalopram may help during the day. Patients with significant psychological factors can be difficult to manage and tend to relapse easily, Dr. Margesson said.

If lichen simplex chronicus recurs, test for infections and allergies. “Maybe they need a mild corticosteroid all the time, like 2.5% hydrocortisone to alternate with your superpotent steroid so you can use it longer without thinning the skin,” she suggested.

Although Dr. Margesson does not often treat hyperhidrosis, addressing excessive sweating can make a big difference for patients, she said.

If a gynecologist identifies a patient who may benefit from treatment of hyperhidrosis but has limited experience with medications for this condition, it might make sense to work with a dermatologist, Aruna Venkatesan, MD, chief of dermatology and director of the genital dermatology clinic at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., suggested during a panel discussion. Most dermatologists treat hyperhidrosis regularly, she said.

Dermatologists also may help treat patients with psoriasis who need systemic medication, Dr. Margesson said.

“In terms of ... doing the lab monitoring and knowing what side effects to look out for, your colleagues who use these medicines more are going to be more comfortable with that,” Dr. Venkatesan said. They also may have more experience navigating insurance denials to obtain a therapy. “Don’t think you are passing the buck to someone else. Sometimes that is the right thing to do, to get that help from someone else.”

Dr. Margesson is an author for UpToDate. Dr. Venkatesan had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

A three-step approach may help relieve itch in patients with lichen simplex chronicus, “one of the itchiest conditions that we ever see on the vulva,” an expert advised at the virtual conference on diseases of the vulva and vagina, hosted by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease.

For some patients, such as those with excessive sweating or underlying psoriasis, seeing a dermatologist may be beneficial, physicians at the meeting suggested.

Treatment should aim to optimize epithelial barrier function, reduce inflammation, and stop scratching, Lynette Margesson, MD, said in a lecture at the biennial meeting, which is held by the International Society for the Study of Vulvovaginal Disease (ISSVD). “With this condition, please look always for more than one problem.”

Lichen simplex chronicus is a thick, hyperkeratotic, firm, itchy rash that can develop on top of any dermatitis. “It doesn’t show up out of nowhere,” said Dr. Margesson, an obstetrician and gynecologist at Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth in Hanover, N.H. “It is because of chronic rubbing and scratching on top of something else.”

It may develop on top of atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, or contact dermatitis, as well as infection, lichen sclerosus, lichen planus, or neoplasia.

Lichen simplex chronicus is characterized by years of relentless itching, and patients may wake up at night scratching. The skin looks and feels leathery, and the condition can be localized or around the entire vulva. Heat, humidity, stress, and irritants may exacerbate the condition.

Patients often try to wash the rash away with scrubbers and cleansers, which only makes it worse, Dr. Margesson said.

To get patients better, improve barrier function, such as by controlling infections, reducing sweating, avoiding irritants, and stopping excessive hygiene. Immediate therapy may include soaks, cool compresses, and ointments.

A superpotent steroid taper (e.g., clobetasol 0.05% ointment), a prednisone taper, or intramuscular triamcinolone may reduce inflammation. Dr. Margesson usually uses clobetasol, although this treatment or halobetasol can burn if patients have open skin. In such cases, she uses prednisone or intramuscular triamcinolone.

Sedating medications may help patients stop scratching, especially at night. Hydroxyzine, doxepin, or amitriptyline 2-3 hours before bedtime can help. Scratching can be a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder, and a small dose of citalopram may help during the day. Patients with significant psychological factors can be difficult to manage and tend to relapse easily, Dr. Margesson said.

If lichen simplex chronicus recurs, test for infections and allergies. “Maybe they need a mild corticosteroid all the time, like 2.5% hydrocortisone to alternate with your superpotent steroid so you can use it longer without thinning the skin,” she suggested.

Although Dr. Margesson does not often treat hyperhidrosis, addressing excessive sweating can make a big difference for patients, she said.

If a gynecologist identifies a patient who may benefit from treatment of hyperhidrosis but has limited experience with medications for this condition, it might make sense to work with a dermatologist, Aruna Venkatesan, MD, chief of dermatology and director of the genital dermatology clinic at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, Calif., suggested during a panel discussion. Most dermatologists treat hyperhidrosis regularly, she said.

Dermatologists also may help treat patients with psoriasis who need systemic medication, Dr. Margesson said.

“In terms of ... doing the lab monitoring and knowing what side effects to look out for, your colleagues who use these medicines more are going to be more comfortable with that,” Dr. Venkatesan said. They also may have more experience navigating insurance denials to obtain a therapy. “Don’t think you are passing the buck to someone else. Sometimes that is the right thing to do, to get that help from someone else.”

Dr. Margesson is an author for UpToDate. Dr. Venkatesan had no conflicts of interest.

[email protected]

On Feb. 27, 2018, I got an email from the Heritage Foundation that alerted me to a news conference that afternoon held by Republican attorneys general of Texas and other states. It was referred to only as a “discussion about the Affordable Care Act lawsuit.”

Supreme Court of the United States

I sent the following note to my editor: “I’m off to the Hill anyway. I could stop by this. You never know what it might morph into.”

Few people took that case very seriously – barely a handful of reporters attended the news conference. But it has now “morphed into” the latest existential threat to the Affordable Care Act, scheduled for oral arguments at the Supreme Court a week after the general election in November. And with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday, that case could well morph into the threat that brings down the law in its entirety.

Democrats are raising alarms about the future of the law without Ms. Ginsburg. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday morning, said that part of the strategy by President Trump and Senate Republicans to quickly fill her seat was to help undermine the ACA.

“The president is rushing to make some kind of a decision because … Nov. 10 is when the arguments begin on the Affordable Care Act,” she said. “He doesn’t want to crush the virus. He wants to crush the Affordable Care Act.”

Ms. Ginsburg’s death could throw an already chaotic general election campaign during a pandemic into even more turmoil. But in the longer term, her absence from the bench could accelerate a trend underway to get cases to the Supreme Court toward invalidating the ACA and rolling back reproductive freedoms for women.

Let’s take them one at a time.
 

The ACA under fire – again

The GOP attorneys general argued in February 2018 that the Republican-sponsored tax cut bill Congress passed two months earlier had rendered the ACA unconstitutional by reducing to zero the ACA’s penalty for not having insurance. They based their argument on Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2012 conclusion that the ACA was valid, interpreting that penalty as a constitutionally appropriate tax.

Most legal scholars, including several who challenged the law before the Supreme Court in 2012 and again in 2015, find the argument that the entire law should fall to be unconvincing. “If courts invalidate an entire law merely because Congress eliminates or revises one part, as happened here, that may well inhibit necessary reform of federal legislation in the future by turning it into an ‘all or nothing’ proposition,” wrote a group of conservative and liberal law professors in a brief filed in the case.

Still, in December 2018, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas accepted the GOP argument and declared the law unconstitutional. In December 2019, a three-judge 5th Circuit appeals court panel in New Orleans agreed that without the penalty the requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional. But it sent the case back to Mr. O’Connor to suggest that perhaps the entire law need not fall.

Not wanting to wait the months or years that reconsideration would take, Democratic attorneys general defending the ACA asked the Supreme Court to hear the case this year. (Democrats are defending the law in court because the Trump administration decided to support the GOP attorneys general’s case.) The court agreed to take the case but scheduled arguments for the week after the November election.

While the fate of the ACA was and is a live political issue, few legal observers were terribly worried about the legal outcome of the case, now known as Texas v. California, if only because the case seemed much weaker than the 2012 and 2015 cases in which Mr. Roberts joined the court’s four liberals. In the 2015 case, which challenged the validity of federal tax subsidies helping millions of Americans buy health insurance on the ACA’s marketplaces, both Mr. Roberts and now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to uphold the law.

But without Ms. Ginsburg, the case could wind up in a 4-4 tie, even if Mr. Roberts supports the law’s constitutionality. That could let the lower-court ruling stand, although it would not be binding on other courts outside of the 5th Circuit. The court could also put off the arguments or, if the Republican Senate replaces Ms. Ginsburg with another conservative justice before arguments are heard, Republicans could secure a 5-4 ruling against the law. Some court observers argue that Justice Brett Kavanaugh has not favored invalidating an entire statute if only part of it is flawed and might not approve overturning the ACA. Still, what started out as an effort to energize Republican voters for the 2018 midterms after Congress failed to “repeal and replace” the health law in 2017 could end up throwing the nation’s entire health system into chaos.

At least 20 million Americans – and likely many more who sought coverage since the start of the coronavirus pandemic — who buy insurance through the ACA marketplaces or have Medicaid through the law’s expansion could lose coverage right away. Many millions more would lose the law’s popular protections guaranteeing coverage for people with preexisting health conditions, including those who have had COVID-19.

Adult children under age 26 years would no longer be guaranteed the right to remain on their parents’ health plans, and Medicare patients would lose enhanced prescription drug coverage. Women would lose guaranteed access to birth control at no out-of-pocket cost.

But a sudden elimination would affect more than just health care consumers. Insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals, and doctors have all changed the way they do business because of incentives and penalties in the health law. If it’s struck down, many of the “rules of the road” would literally be wiped away, including billing and payment mechanisms.

A new Democratic president could not drop the lawsuit because the Trump administration is not the plaintiff (the GOP attorneys general are). But a Democratic Congress and president could in theory make the entire issue go away by reinstating the penalty for failure to have insurance, even at a minimal amount. However, as far as the health law goes, for now, nothing is a sure thing.

As Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who specializes in health issues, tweeted: “Among other things, the Affordable Care Act now dangles from a thread.”
 

Reproductive rights

A woman’s right to abortion – and even to birth control – also has been hanging by a thread at the high court for more than a decade. This past term, Mr. Roberts joined the liberals to invalidate a Louisiana law that would have closed most of the state’s abortion clinics, but he made it clear it was not a vote for abortion rights. The Louisiana law was too similar to a Texas law the court (without his vote) struck down in 2016, Mr. Roberts argued.

Ms. Ginsburg had been a stalwart supporter of reproductive freedom for women. In her nearly 3 decades on the court, she always voted with backers of abortion rights and birth control and led the dissenters in 2007 when the court upheld a federal ban on a specific abortion procedure.

Adding a justice opposed to abortion to the bench – which is what Trump has promised his supporters – would almost certainly tilt the court in favor of far more dramatic restrictions on the procedure and possibly an overturn of the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v. Wade.

But not only is abortion on the line: The court in recent years has repeatedly ruled that employers with religious objections can refuse to provide contraception.

And waiting in the lower-court pipeline are cases involving federal funding of Planned Parenthood in both the Medicaid and federal family planning programs, and the ability of individual health workers to decline to participate in abortion and other procedures.

For Ms. Ginsburg, those issues came down to a clear question of a woman’s guarantee of equal status under the law.

“Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right ‘to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation,’ ” she wrote in her dissent in that 2007 abortion case. “Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to ‘their ability to control their reproductive lives.’ ”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

On Feb. 27, 2018, I got an email from the Heritage Foundation that alerted me to a news conference that afternoon held by Republican attorneys general of Texas and other states. It was referred to only as a “discussion about the Affordable Care Act lawsuit.”

Supreme Court of the United States

I sent the following note to my editor: “I’m off to the Hill anyway. I could stop by this. You never know what it might morph into.”

Few people took that case very seriously – barely a handful of reporters attended the news conference. But it has now “morphed into” the latest existential threat to the Affordable Care Act, scheduled for oral arguments at the Supreme Court a week after the general election in November. And with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday, that case could well morph into the threat that brings down the law in its entirety.

Democrats are raising alarms about the future of the law without Ms. Ginsburg. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday morning, said that part of the strategy by President Trump and Senate Republicans to quickly fill her seat was to help undermine the ACA.

“The president is rushing to make some kind of a decision because … Nov. 10 is when the arguments begin on the Affordable Care Act,” she said. “He doesn’t want to crush the virus. He wants to crush the Affordable Care Act.”

Ms. Ginsburg’s death could throw an already chaotic general election campaign during a pandemic into even more turmoil. But in the longer term, her absence from the bench could accelerate a trend underway to get cases to the Supreme Court toward invalidating the ACA and rolling back reproductive freedoms for women.

Let’s take them one at a time.
 

The ACA under fire – again

The GOP attorneys general argued in February 2018 that the Republican-sponsored tax cut bill Congress passed two months earlier had rendered the ACA unconstitutional by reducing to zero the ACA’s penalty for not having insurance. They based their argument on Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2012 conclusion that the ACA was valid, interpreting that penalty as a constitutionally appropriate tax.

Most legal scholars, including several who challenged the law before the Supreme Court in 2012 and again in 2015, find the argument that the entire law should fall to be unconvincing. “If courts invalidate an entire law merely because Congress eliminates or revises one part, as happened here, that may well inhibit necessary reform of federal legislation in the future by turning it into an ‘all or nothing’ proposition,” wrote a group of conservative and liberal law professors in a brief filed in the case.

Still, in December 2018, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas accepted the GOP argument and declared the law unconstitutional. In December 2019, a three-judge 5th Circuit appeals court panel in New Orleans agreed that without the penalty the requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional. But it sent the case back to Mr. O’Connor to suggest that perhaps the entire law need not fall.

Not wanting to wait the months or years that reconsideration would take, Democratic attorneys general defending the ACA asked the Supreme Court to hear the case this year. (Democrats are defending the law in court because the Trump administration decided to support the GOP attorneys general’s case.) The court agreed to take the case but scheduled arguments for the week after the November election.

While the fate of the ACA was and is a live political issue, few legal observers were terribly worried about the legal outcome of the case, now known as Texas v. California, if only because the case seemed much weaker than the 2012 and 2015 cases in which Mr. Roberts joined the court’s four liberals. In the 2015 case, which challenged the validity of federal tax subsidies helping millions of Americans buy health insurance on the ACA’s marketplaces, both Mr. Roberts and now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to uphold the law.

But without Ms. Ginsburg, the case could wind up in a 4-4 tie, even if Mr. Roberts supports the law’s constitutionality. That could let the lower-court ruling stand, although it would not be binding on other courts outside of the 5th Circuit. The court could also put off the arguments or, if the Republican Senate replaces Ms. Ginsburg with another conservative justice before arguments are heard, Republicans could secure a 5-4 ruling against the law. Some court observers argue that Justice Brett Kavanaugh has not favored invalidating an entire statute if only part of it is flawed and might not approve overturning the ACA. Still, what started out as an effort to energize Republican voters for the 2018 midterms after Congress failed to “repeal and replace” the health law in 2017 could end up throwing the nation’s entire health system into chaos.

At least 20 million Americans – and likely many more who sought coverage since the start of the coronavirus pandemic — who buy insurance through the ACA marketplaces or have Medicaid through the law’s expansion could lose coverage right away. Many millions more would lose the law’s popular protections guaranteeing coverage for people with preexisting health conditions, including those who have had COVID-19.

Adult children under age 26 years would no longer be guaranteed the right to remain on their parents’ health plans, and Medicare patients would lose enhanced prescription drug coverage. Women would lose guaranteed access to birth control at no out-of-pocket cost.

But a sudden elimination would affect more than just health care consumers. Insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals, and doctors have all changed the way they do business because of incentives and penalties in the health law. If it’s struck down, many of the “rules of the road” would literally be wiped away, including billing and payment mechanisms.

A new Democratic president could not drop the lawsuit because the Trump administration is not the plaintiff (the GOP attorneys general are). But a Democratic Congress and president could in theory make the entire issue go away by reinstating the penalty for failure to have insurance, even at a minimal amount. However, as far as the health law goes, for now, nothing is a sure thing.

As Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who specializes in health issues, tweeted: “Among other things, the Affordable Care Act now dangles from a thread.”
 

Reproductive rights

A woman’s right to abortion – and even to birth control – also has been hanging by a thread at the high court for more than a decade. This past term, Mr. Roberts joined the liberals to invalidate a Louisiana law that would have closed most of the state’s abortion clinics, but he made it clear it was not a vote for abortion rights. The Louisiana law was too similar to a Texas law the court (without his vote) struck down in 2016, Mr. Roberts argued.

Ms. Ginsburg had been a stalwart supporter of reproductive freedom for women. In her nearly 3 decades on the court, she always voted with backers of abortion rights and birth control and led the dissenters in 2007 when the court upheld a federal ban on a specific abortion procedure.

Adding a justice opposed to abortion to the bench – which is what Trump has promised his supporters – would almost certainly tilt the court in favor of far more dramatic restrictions on the procedure and possibly an overturn of the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v. Wade.

But not only is abortion on the line: The court in recent years has repeatedly ruled that employers with religious objections can refuse to provide contraception.

And waiting in the lower-court pipeline are cases involving federal funding of Planned Parenthood in both the Medicaid and federal family planning programs, and the ability of individual health workers to decline to participate in abortion and other procedures.

For Ms. Ginsburg, those issues came down to a clear question of a woman’s guarantee of equal status under the law.

“Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right ‘to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation,’ ” she wrote in her dissent in that 2007 abortion case. “Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to ‘their ability to control their reproductive lives.’ ”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

On Feb. 27, 2018, I got an email from the Heritage Foundation that alerted me to a news conference that afternoon held by Republican attorneys general of Texas and other states. It was referred to only as a “discussion about the Affordable Care Act lawsuit.”

Supreme Court of the United States

I sent the following note to my editor: “I’m off to the Hill anyway. I could stop by this. You never know what it might morph into.”

Few people took that case very seriously – barely a handful of reporters attended the news conference. But it has now “morphed into” the latest existential threat to the Affordable Care Act, scheduled for oral arguments at the Supreme Court a week after the general election in November. And with the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday, that case could well morph into the threat that brings down the law in its entirety.

Democrats are raising alarms about the future of the law without Ms. Ginsburg. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday morning, said that part of the strategy by President Trump and Senate Republicans to quickly fill her seat was to help undermine the ACA.

“The president is rushing to make some kind of a decision because … Nov. 10 is when the arguments begin on the Affordable Care Act,” she said. “He doesn’t want to crush the virus. He wants to crush the Affordable Care Act.”

Ms. Ginsburg’s death could throw an already chaotic general election campaign during a pandemic into even more turmoil. But in the longer term, her absence from the bench could accelerate a trend underway to get cases to the Supreme Court toward invalidating the ACA and rolling back reproductive freedoms for women.

Let’s take them one at a time.
 

The ACA under fire – again

The GOP attorneys general argued in February 2018 that the Republican-sponsored tax cut bill Congress passed two months earlier had rendered the ACA unconstitutional by reducing to zero the ACA’s penalty for not having insurance. They based their argument on Chief Justice John Roberts’ 2012 conclusion that the ACA was valid, interpreting that penalty as a constitutionally appropriate tax.

Most legal scholars, including several who challenged the law before the Supreme Court in 2012 and again in 2015, find the argument that the entire law should fall to be unconvincing. “If courts invalidate an entire law merely because Congress eliminates or revises one part, as happened here, that may well inhibit necessary reform of federal legislation in the future by turning it into an ‘all or nothing’ proposition,” wrote a group of conservative and liberal law professors in a brief filed in the case.

Still, in December 2018, U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas accepted the GOP argument and declared the law unconstitutional. In December 2019, a three-judge 5th Circuit appeals court panel in New Orleans agreed that without the penalty the requirement to buy insurance is unconstitutional. But it sent the case back to Mr. O’Connor to suggest that perhaps the entire law need not fall.

Not wanting to wait the months or years that reconsideration would take, Democratic attorneys general defending the ACA asked the Supreme Court to hear the case this year. (Democrats are defending the law in court because the Trump administration decided to support the GOP attorneys general’s case.) The court agreed to take the case but scheduled arguments for the week after the November election.

While the fate of the ACA was and is a live political issue, few legal observers were terribly worried about the legal outcome of the case, now known as Texas v. California, if only because the case seemed much weaker than the 2012 and 2015 cases in which Mr. Roberts joined the court’s four liberals. In the 2015 case, which challenged the validity of federal tax subsidies helping millions of Americans buy health insurance on the ACA’s marketplaces, both Mr. Roberts and now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy voted to uphold the law.

But without Ms. Ginsburg, the case could wind up in a 4-4 tie, even if Mr. Roberts supports the law’s constitutionality. That could let the lower-court ruling stand, although it would not be binding on other courts outside of the 5th Circuit. The court could also put off the arguments or, if the Republican Senate replaces Ms. Ginsburg with another conservative justice before arguments are heard, Republicans could secure a 5-4 ruling against the law. Some court observers argue that Justice Brett Kavanaugh has not favored invalidating an entire statute if only part of it is flawed and might not approve overturning the ACA. Still, what started out as an effort to energize Republican voters for the 2018 midterms after Congress failed to “repeal and replace” the health law in 2017 could end up throwing the nation’s entire health system into chaos.

At least 20 million Americans – and likely many more who sought coverage since the start of the coronavirus pandemic — who buy insurance through the ACA marketplaces or have Medicaid through the law’s expansion could lose coverage right away. Many millions more would lose the law’s popular protections guaranteeing coverage for people with preexisting health conditions, including those who have had COVID-19.

Adult children under age 26 years would no longer be guaranteed the right to remain on their parents’ health plans, and Medicare patients would lose enhanced prescription drug coverage. Women would lose guaranteed access to birth control at no out-of-pocket cost.

But a sudden elimination would affect more than just health care consumers. Insurance companies, drug companies, hospitals, and doctors have all changed the way they do business because of incentives and penalties in the health law. If it’s struck down, many of the “rules of the road” would literally be wiped away, including billing and payment mechanisms.

A new Democratic president could not drop the lawsuit because the Trump administration is not the plaintiff (the GOP attorneys general are). But a Democratic Congress and president could in theory make the entire issue go away by reinstating the penalty for failure to have insurance, even at a minimal amount. However, as far as the health law goes, for now, nothing is a sure thing.

As Nicholas Bagley, a law professor at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, who specializes in health issues, tweeted: “Among other things, the Affordable Care Act now dangles from a thread.”
 

Reproductive rights

A woman’s right to abortion – and even to birth control – also has been hanging by a thread at the high court for more than a decade. This past term, Mr. Roberts joined the liberals to invalidate a Louisiana law that would have closed most of the state’s abortion clinics, but he made it clear it was not a vote for abortion rights. The Louisiana law was too similar to a Texas law the court (without his vote) struck down in 2016, Mr. Roberts argued.

Ms. Ginsburg had been a stalwart supporter of reproductive freedom for women. In her nearly 3 decades on the court, she always voted with backers of abortion rights and birth control and led the dissenters in 2007 when the court upheld a federal ban on a specific abortion procedure.

Adding a justice opposed to abortion to the bench – which is what Trump has promised his supporters – would almost certainly tilt the court in favor of far more dramatic restrictions on the procedure and possibly an overturn of the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v. Wade.

But not only is abortion on the line: The court in recent years has repeatedly ruled that employers with religious objections can refuse to provide contraception.

And waiting in the lower-court pipeline are cases involving federal funding of Planned Parenthood in both the Medicaid and federal family planning programs, and the ability of individual health workers to decline to participate in abortion and other procedures.

For Ms. Ginsburg, those issues came down to a clear question of a woman’s guarantee of equal status under the law.

“Women, it is now acknowledged, have the talent, capacity, and right ‘to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation,’ ” she wrote in her dissent in that 2007 abortion case. “Their ability to realize their full potential, the Court recognized, is intimately connected to ‘their ability to control their reproductive lives.’ ”

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation), which is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Amid all the chaos and problems caused by COVID-19, one might hope that physicians would get a break on their complicated payment-reporting programs.

But that’s not the case: The government recently released the 2021 proposed rule for the Quality Payment Program (QPP), often referred to by its most popular participation track, the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The program, which launched in 2017, gets annual updates, and this year is no different.

Some good news has made primary care and some other physicians happy.

The government’s proposal includes significant changes to reimbursement for all physicians. Most important, the government is boosting rates for the office/outpatient evaluation and management (E/M) codes, combined with simplifying coding requirements.

Specialties that rely heavily on office-based E/M services are delighted at this change. Those include internists, family physicians, neurologists, pulmonologists, dermatologists, and all other specialties that rely heavily on office encounters.

According to the estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), endocrinologists and rheumatologists are the big winners, at 17% and 16% projected increases, respectively. The government has been pushing to make this shift in reimbursement from surgeries and procedures to office visits for years. Although some physicians may celebrate the change, others will not.

The reimbursement plan for professional services depends on budget neutrality, meaning that the budget increases need to be counterbalanced by budget declines. Specialties that rely heavily on procedures and surgeries will suffer losses. These corresponding reductions felt by proceduralists and surgeons will counterbalance the good fortune of physicians who rely on office visits for the bulk of their revenue. Radiologists, for example, are projected by CMS to experience a 11% downturn, and cardiac surgeons face a 9% decline.

These consequences are significant. The 2021 shift may be the single biggest transfer of reimbursement in the history of the scale, which was adopted in the early 1990s.

If the change affected only Medicare reimbursement, perhaps it would be less significant. Because the majority of private payers use the government’s scale – the resource-based relative value scale – the impact will reverberate across physicians’ bottom lines. Given the state of many physicians’ finances, driven by the pandemic, this may send some affected physicians into a downward spiral.

The boost to E/M reimbursement – which represents approximately 20% of the overall Medicare payout to physicians each year – puts downward pressure on the professional services conversion factor as well.

For 2021, it is proposed to be $32.2605, representing a decrease of $3.83 from the 2020 conversion factor of $36.0896. The resultant conversion factor – which serves as a multiplier applied to the relative value unit to come up with the payment – effectively reduces payments to physicians across the board by 10.6%. Thus, even those who enjoy the benefits of the new E/M increases will see the potential reimbursement high point cut down.

Before launching into the changes in store for 2021, it’s good to determine whether you are an eligible clinician: You need to have more than $90,000 in Medicare Part B charges per year, see more than 200 Medicare Part B patients per year, and provide 200 or more covered professional services to Part B patients.

The program is voluntary, but there are steep penalties for eligible clinicians who don’t participate. For the 2021 reporting year, a 9% penalty will be imposed on Medicare reimbursement in 2023 in the event of participation failure. You can verify your participation status here; you’ll need your National Provider Identifier to run the search, but it takes only seconds to determine your eligibility.

A 9% penalty is a pretty big hit to your income. With 9% at stake, eligible clinicians need to actively engage in the program. Although there have been changes, the basic four-category system remains the same for the MIPS track, as follows: quality, cost, improvement activities, and promoting interoperability.

The four category weights, used to evaluate performance, are changing in 2021. Cost category weight goes up by 5 percentage points, to be 20% of the clinician’s score, and the quality category goes down by 5 percentage points to contribute 40% to the weight. Promoting interoperability remains 25% of the score, with improvement activities constituting the final 15%.

Other key changes include the following:

• The CMS’s Web interface for submission for quality measures will be shuttered in 2021. Users of this submission method will have to find and use another way to report their quality measures.
• Quality measures will be scored against pre-COVID benchmarks in lieu of comparisons with the 2020 reporting year; 206 quality measures are proposed for 2021, compared with the current list of 219.
• Telehealth will be incorporated in the cost category by updates to the measure specifications for the episode-based and total per capita cost measures.
• A new health information exchange measure is added to the promoting interoperability category, and “incorporating” replaces “reconciling” in the reporting requirement “Support Electronic Referral Loops by Receiving and Incorporating Health Information.”

To avoid the 9% penalty, eligible clinicians must earn 50 points in 2021, up from 45 in the current year. Achieving “exceptional performance” remains at 85 points. This elevated level of engagement allows access to a pot of money Congress set aside for high performers.

Many physicians feel that too much work is required to earn the “paltry” bonuses; even a perfect score of 100 has only resulted in bonuses of 1.88% and 1.68%, respectively, in the past 2 years. That includes the $500 million allocation that Congress set aside; this extra funding to reward exceptional performance is only available for the first 6 years of the law. Although the 2019 scores have been released to participants, CMS has not yet announced the overall national average, but it’s expected to be minimal.

The combination of meager payouts and a diminishing funding mechanism has physicians questioning participation altogether. My recent conversations with physicians who qualify for the program revealed their intention to participate, but only at a level to achieve the minimum threshold of 45 points this year and 50 in 2021. With so little upside, it’s impossible to make a business case to aim for the stars.

Perhaps the biggest change in 2021, however, is that the program is not making the previously planned switch to MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs). MVPs were designed to align the four performance categories around a specialty, medical condition, or patient population.

CMS introduced MVPs by giving an example of diabetes: “Endocrinologist reports same ‘foundation’ of PI [promoting interoperability] and population health measures as all other clinicians but now has a MIPS Value Pathway with measures and activities that focus on diabetes prevention and treatment.” CMS had expected MVPs to launch in 2021 for all program participants; because of the pandemic, CMS announced an extension for at least 1 year. This comes as a relief to physicians who are just trying to keep the lights on given the financial pressures brought on by the pandemic.

MVPs, however, will be incorporated into the MIPS Alternative Payment Model (APM) participation segment. This will affect many physicians because this is the path that accountable care organizations (ACOs) have taken. If you are part of an ACO and you report through it, you’ll see some more changes than your colleagues in 2021.

The good news is that ACOs that participate in MIPS and the Medicare Shared Savings Program will have to report only once to satisfy the requirements for both programs. The construct for this new APM-based program is called the “APM Performance Pathway.” This pathway incorporates six population health–based measures that cross-cut specialties.

CMS is also proposing that telemedicine reimbursement will become permanent. As of now, telemedicine services will only be paid when a public health emergency has been declared. This ability to reimburse physicians for telemedicine would end when the current public health emergency is over. CMS is proposing to extend reimbursement beyond the pandemic, which will benefit all physicians who perform these remote encounters.

The CMS proposal would also make some other requirements easier to achieve. The use of codes 99495 and 99496 – the transitional care management codes – is expanding by reducing several key accompanying-services restrictions. Before the public health emergency, there were constraints related to scope of practice; the proposal would extend the ability of advanced practice providers to order diagnostic tests, even after the public health emergency ends.

Furthermore, the proposal reduces restrictions related to billing for remote physiologic monitoring services and outlines the possibility of a new, higher-paying virtual visit code.

Although the Quality Payment Program will undergo some changes, they are minor. Be aware of the requirement to hit the 50-point mark to avoid the steep penalties, however. Perhaps greater benefit will be achieved through the government’s continued push to refine the reimbursement system. As a result of budget neutrality, however, these changes will boost some physicians while resulting in losses for others.

The government’s proposed changes are not final, and there is a period during which they are accepting comments on the proposal; the final rule will be announced in November.

If you want to wash your hands of this now, apply for the 2020 performance year hardship for the Quality Payment Program. The application is now open and available through December 31, 2020; completing it will release you of any program requirements in 2020 (and avoid that hefty 9% penalty on your 2022 reimbursement).

This way, you won’t have to concern yourself with any of these rules until next year; the government’s extension of this “get out of jail free” card is a welcome relief for physicians who are frustrated by the regulatory burdens despite the pressure exerted by COVID. Spending 15 minutes to complete this form is well worth your time and may eliminate much of your worry.
 

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

Amid all the chaos and problems caused by COVID-19, one might hope that physicians would get a break on their complicated payment-reporting programs.

But that’s not the case: The government recently released the 2021 proposed rule for the Quality Payment Program (QPP), often referred to by its most popular participation track, the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The program, which launched in 2017, gets annual updates, and this year is no different.

Some good news has made primary care and some other physicians happy.

The government’s proposal includes significant changes to reimbursement for all physicians. Most important, the government is boosting rates for the office/outpatient evaluation and management (E/M) codes, combined with simplifying coding requirements.

Specialties that rely heavily on office-based E/M services are delighted at this change. Those include internists, family physicians, neurologists, pulmonologists, dermatologists, and all other specialties that rely heavily on office encounters.

According to the estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), endocrinologists and rheumatologists are the big winners, at 17% and 16% projected increases, respectively. The government has been pushing to make this shift in reimbursement from surgeries and procedures to office visits for years. Although some physicians may celebrate the change, others will not.

The reimbursement plan for professional services depends on budget neutrality, meaning that the budget increases need to be counterbalanced by budget declines. Specialties that rely heavily on procedures and surgeries will suffer losses. These corresponding reductions felt by proceduralists and surgeons will counterbalance the good fortune of physicians who rely on office visits for the bulk of their revenue. Radiologists, for example, are projected by CMS to experience a 11% downturn, and cardiac surgeons face a 9% decline.

These consequences are significant. The 2021 shift may be the single biggest transfer of reimbursement in the history of the scale, which was adopted in the early 1990s.

If the change affected only Medicare reimbursement, perhaps it would be less significant. Because the majority of private payers use the government’s scale – the resource-based relative value scale – the impact will reverberate across physicians’ bottom lines. Given the state of many physicians’ finances, driven by the pandemic, this may send some affected physicians into a downward spiral.

The boost to E/M reimbursement – which represents approximately 20% of the overall Medicare payout to physicians each year – puts downward pressure on the professional services conversion factor as well.

For 2021, it is proposed to be $32.2605, representing a decrease of $3.83 from the 2020 conversion factor of $36.0896. The resultant conversion factor – which serves as a multiplier applied to the relative value unit to come up with the payment – effectively reduces payments to physicians across the board by 10.6%. Thus, even those who enjoy the benefits of the new E/M increases will see the potential reimbursement high point cut down.

Before launching into the changes in store for 2021, it’s good to determine whether you are an eligible clinician: You need to have more than $90,000 in Medicare Part B charges per year, see more than 200 Medicare Part B patients per year, and provide 200 or more covered professional services to Part B patients.

The program is voluntary, but there are steep penalties for eligible clinicians who don’t participate. For the 2021 reporting year, a 9% penalty will be imposed on Medicare reimbursement in 2023 in the event of participation failure. You can verify your participation status here; you’ll need your National Provider Identifier to run the search, but it takes only seconds to determine your eligibility.

A 9% penalty is a pretty big hit to your income. With 9% at stake, eligible clinicians need to actively engage in the program. Although there have been changes, the basic four-category system remains the same for the MIPS track, as follows: quality, cost, improvement activities, and promoting interoperability.

The four category weights, used to evaluate performance, are changing in 2021. Cost category weight goes up by 5 percentage points, to be 20% of the clinician’s score, and the quality category goes down by 5 percentage points to contribute 40% to the weight. Promoting interoperability remains 25% of the score, with improvement activities constituting the final 15%.

Other key changes include the following:

• The CMS’s Web interface for submission for quality measures will be shuttered in 2021. Users of this submission method will have to find and use another way to report their quality measures.
• Quality measures will be scored against pre-COVID benchmarks in lieu of comparisons with the 2020 reporting year; 206 quality measures are proposed for 2021, compared with the current list of 219.
• Telehealth will be incorporated in the cost category by updates to the measure specifications for the episode-based and total per capita cost measures.
• A new health information exchange measure is added to the promoting interoperability category, and “incorporating” replaces “reconciling” in the reporting requirement “Support Electronic Referral Loops by Receiving and Incorporating Health Information.”

To avoid the 9% penalty, eligible clinicians must earn 50 points in 2021, up from 45 in the current year. Achieving “exceptional performance” remains at 85 points. This elevated level of engagement allows access to a pot of money Congress set aside for high performers.

Many physicians feel that too much work is required to earn the “paltry” bonuses; even a perfect score of 100 has only resulted in bonuses of 1.88% and 1.68%, respectively, in the past 2 years. That includes the $500 million allocation that Congress set aside; this extra funding to reward exceptional performance is only available for the first 6 years of the law. Although the 2019 scores have been released to participants, CMS has not yet announced the overall national average, but it’s expected to be minimal.

The combination of meager payouts and a diminishing funding mechanism has physicians questioning participation altogether. My recent conversations with physicians who qualify for the program revealed their intention to participate, but only at a level to achieve the minimum threshold of 45 points this year and 50 in 2021. With so little upside, it’s impossible to make a business case to aim for the stars.

Perhaps the biggest change in 2021, however, is that the program is not making the previously planned switch to MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs). MVPs were designed to align the four performance categories around a specialty, medical condition, or patient population.

CMS introduced MVPs by giving an example of diabetes: “Endocrinologist reports same ‘foundation’ of PI [promoting interoperability] and population health measures as all other clinicians but now has a MIPS Value Pathway with measures and activities that focus on diabetes prevention and treatment.” CMS had expected MVPs to launch in 2021 for all program participants; because of the pandemic, CMS announced an extension for at least 1 year. This comes as a relief to physicians who are just trying to keep the lights on given the financial pressures brought on by the pandemic.

MVPs, however, will be incorporated into the MIPS Alternative Payment Model (APM) participation segment. This will affect many physicians because this is the path that accountable care organizations (ACOs) have taken. If you are part of an ACO and you report through it, you’ll see some more changes than your colleagues in 2021.

The good news is that ACOs that participate in MIPS and the Medicare Shared Savings Program will have to report only once to satisfy the requirements for both programs. The construct for this new APM-based program is called the “APM Performance Pathway.” This pathway incorporates six population health–based measures that cross-cut specialties.

CMS is also proposing that telemedicine reimbursement will become permanent. As of now, telemedicine services will only be paid when a public health emergency has been declared. This ability to reimburse physicians for telemedicine would end when the current public health emergency is over. CMS is proposing to extend reimbursement beyond the pandemic, which will benefit all physicians who perform these remote encounters.

The CMS proposal would also make some other requirements easier to achieve. The use of codes 99495 and 99496 – the transitional care management codes – is expanding by reducing several key accompanying-services restrictions. Before the public health emergency, there were constraints related to scope of practice; the proposal would extend the ability of advanced practice providers to order diagnostic tests, even after the public health emergency ends.

Furthermore, the proposal reduces restrictions related to billing for remote physiologic monitoring services and outlines the possibility of a new, higher-paying virtual visit code.

Although the Quality Payment Program will undergo some changes, they are minor. Be aware of the requirement to hit the 50-point mark to avoid the steep penalties, however. Perhaps greater benefit will be achieved through the government’s continued push to refine the reimbursement system. As a result of budget neutrality, however, these changes will boost some physicians while resulting in losses for others.

The government’s proposed changes are not final, and there is a period during which they are accepting comments on the proposal; the final rule will be announced in November.

If you want to wash your hands of this now, apply for the 2020 performance year hardship for the Quality Payment Program. The application is now open and available through December 31, 2020; completing it will release you of any program requirements in 2020 (and avoid that hefty 9% penalty on your 2022 reimbursement).

This way, you won’t have to concern yourself with any of these rules until next year; the government’s extension of this “get out of jail free” card is a welcome relief for physicians who are frustrated by the regulatory burdens despite the pressure exerted by COVID. Spending 15 minutes to complete this form is well worth your time and may eliminate much of your worry.
 

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

Amid all the chaos and problems caused by COVID-19, one might hope that physicians would get a break on their complicated payment-reporting programs.

But that’s not the case: The government recently released the 2021 proposed rule for the Quality Payment Program (QPP), often referred to by its most popular participation track, the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). The program, which launched in 2017, gets annual updates, and this year is no different.

Some good news has made primary care and some other physicians happy.

The government’s proposal includes significant changes to reimbursement for all physicians. Most important, the government is boosting rates for the office/outpatient evaluation and management (E/M) codes, combined with simplifying coding requirements.

Specialties that rely heavily on office-based E/M services are delighted at this change. Those include internists, family physicians, neurologists, pulmonologists, dermatologists, and all other specialties that rely heavily on office encounters.

According to the estimates from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), endocrinologists and rheumatologists are the big winners, at 17% and 16% projected increases, respectively. The government has been pushing to make this shift in reimbursement from surgeries and procedures to office visits for years. Although some physicians may celebrate the change, others will not.

The reimbursement plan for professional services depends on budget neutrality, meaning that the budget increases need to be counterbalanced by budget declines. Specialties that rely heavily on procedures and surgeries will suffer losses. These corresponding reductions felt by proceduralists and surgeons will counterbalance the good fortune of physicians who rely on office visits for the bulk of their revenue. Radiologists, for example, are projected by CMS to experience a 11% downturn, and cardiac surgeons face a 9% decline.

These consequences are significant. The 2021 shift may be the single biggest transfer of reimbursement in the history of the scale, which was adopted in the early 1990s.

If the change affected only Medicare reimbursement, perhaps it would be less significant. Because the majority of private payers use the government’s scale – the resource-based relative value scale – the impact will reverberate across physicians’ bottom lines. Given the state of many physicians’ finances, driven by the pandemic, this may send some affected physicians into a downward spiral.

The boost to E/M reimbursement – which represents approximately 20% of the overall Medicare payout to physicians each year – puts downward pressure on the professional services conversion factor as well.

For 2021, it is proposed to be $32.2605, representing a decrease of $3.83 from the 2020 conversion factor of $36.0896. The resultant conversion factor – which serves as a multiplier applied to the relative value unit to come up with the payment – effectively reduces payments to physicians across the board by 10.6%. Thus, even those who enjoy the benefits of the new E/M increases will see the potential reimbursement high point cut down.

Before launching into the changes in store for 2021, it’s good to determine whether you are an eligible clinician: You need to have more than $90,000 in Medicare Part B charges per year, see more than 200 Medicare Part B patients per year, and provide 200 or more covered professional services to Part B patients.

The program is voluntary, but there are steep penalties for eligible clinicians who don’t participate. For the 2021 reporting year, a 9% penalty will be imposed on Medicare reimbursement in 2023 in the event of participation failure. You can verify your participation status here; you’ll need your National Provider Identifier to run the search, but it takes only seconds to determine your eligibility.

A 9% penalty is a pretty big hit to your income. With 9% at stake, eligible clinicians need to actively engage in the program. Although there have been changes, the basic four-category system remains the same for the MIPS track, as follows: quality, cost, improvement activities, and promoting interoperability.

The four category weights, used to evaluate performance, are changing in 2021. Cost category weight goes up by 5 percentage points, to be 20% of the clinician’s score, and the quality category goes down by 5 percentage points to contribute 40% to the weight. Promoting interoperability remains 25% of the score, with improvement activities constituting the final 15%.

Other key changes include the following:

• The CMS’s Web interface for submission for quality measures will be shuttered in 2021. Users of this submission method will have to find and use another way to report their quality measures.
• Quality measures will be scored against pre-COVID benchmarks in lieu of comparisons with the 2020 reporting year; 206 quality measures are proposed for 2021, compared with the current list of 219.
• Telehealth will be incorporated in the cost category by updates to the measure specifications for the episode-based and total per capita cost measures.
• A new health information exchange measure is added to the promoting interoperability category, and “incorporating” replaces “reconciling” in the reporting requirement “Support Electronic Referral Loops by Receiving and Incorporating Health Information.”

To avoid the 9% penalty, eligible clinicians must earn 50 points in 2021, up from 45 in the current year. Achieving “exceptional performance” remains at 85 points. This elevated level of engagement allows access to a pot of money Congress set aside for high performers.

Many physicians feel that too much work is required to earn the “paltry” bonuses; even a perfect score of 100 has only resulted in bonuses of 1.88% and 1.68%, respectively, in the past 2 years. That includes the $500 million allocation that Congress set aside; this extra funding to reward exceptional performance is only available for the first 6 years of the law. Although the 2019 scores have been released to participants, CMS has not yet announced the overall national average, but it’s expected to be minimal.

The combination of meager payouts and a diminishing funding mechanism has physicians questioning participation altogether. My recent conversations with physicians who qualify for the program revealed their intention to participate, but only at a level to achieve the minimum threshold of 45 points this year and 50 in 2021. With so little upside, it’s impossible to make a business case to aim for the stars.

Perhaps the biggest change in 2021, however, is that the program is not making the previously planned switch to MIPS Value Pathways (MVPs). MVPs were designed to align the four performance categories around a specialty, medical condition, or patient population.

CMS introduced MVPs by giving an example of diabetes: “Endocrinologist reports same ‘foundation’ of PI [promoting interoperability] and population health measures as all other clinicians but now has a MIPS Value Pathway with measures and activities that focus on diabetes prevention and treatment.” CMS had expected MVPs to launch in 2021 for all program participants; because of the pandemic, CMS announced an extension for at least 1 year. This comes as a relief to physicians who are just trying to keep the lights on given the financial pressures brought on by the pandemic.

MVPs, however, will be incorporated into the MIPS Alternative Payment Model (APM) participation segment. This will affect many physicians because this is the path that accountable care organizations (ACOs) have taken. If you are part of an ACO and you report through it, you’ll see some more changes than your colleagues in 2021.

The good news is that ACOs that participate in MIPS and the Medicare Shared Savings Program will have to report only once to satisfy the requirements for both programs. The construct for this new APM-based program is called the “APM Performance Pathway.” This pathway incorporates six population health–based measures that cross-cut specialties.

CMS is also proposing that telemedicine reimbursement will become permanent. As of now, telemedicine services will only be paid when a public health emergency has been declared. This ability to reimburse physicians for telemedicine would end when the current public health emergency is over. CMS is proposing to extend reimbursement beyond the pandemic, which will benefit all physicians who perform these remote encounters.

The CMS proposal would also make some other requirements easier to achieve. The use of codes 99495 and 99496 – the transitional care management codes – is expanding by reducing several key accompanying-services restrictions. Before the public health emergency, there were constraints related to scope of practice; the proposal would extend the ability of advanced practice providers to order diagnostic tests, even after the public health emergency ends.

Furthermore, the proposal reduces restrictions related to billing for remote physiologic monitoring services and outlines the possibility of a new, higher-paying virtual visit code.

Although the Quality Payment Program will undergo some changes, they are minor. Be aware of the requirement to hit the 50-point mark to avoid the steep penalties, however. Perhaps greater benefit will be achieved through the government’s continued push to refine the reimbursement system. As a result of budget neutrality, however, these changes will boost some physicians while resulting in losses for others.

The government’s proposed changes are not final, and there is a period during which they are accepting comments on the proposal; the final rule will be announced in November.

If you want to wash your hands of this now, apply for the 2020 performance year hardship for the Quality Payment Program. The application is now open and available through December 31, 2020; completing it will release you of any program requirements in 2020 (and avoid that hefty 9% penalty on your 2022 reimbursement).

This way, you won’t have to concern yourself with any of these rules until next year; the government’s extension of this “get out of jail free” card is a welcome relief for physicians who are frustrated by the regulatory burdens despite the pressure exerted by COVID. Spending 15 minutes to complete this form is well worth your time and may eliminate much of your worry.
 

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

Having low serum vitamin D levels was an independent risk factor for having symptomatic COVID-19 with respiratory distress requiring admission to intensive care – as opposed to having mild COVID-19 – and for not surviving, in a new study from Italy.

“Our data give strong observational support to previous suggestions that reduced vitamin D levels may favor the appearance of severe respiratory dysfunction and increase the mortality risk in patients affected with COVID-19,” the researchers report.

Luigi Gennari, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Italy, presented these findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting.

Gennari told Medscape Medical News that this analysis suggests determining vitamin D levels (25 hydroxyvitamin D) in people testing positive for SARS-Cov-2 infection might help predict their risk of severe disease.

However, further research is needed to explore whether vitamin D supplements could prevent the risk of respiratory failure in patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection, he stressed.

In the meantime, Gennari said: “I believe that, particularly in the winter season (when the solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation exposure does not allow the skin to synthesize vitamin D in most countries), the use of vitamin D supplementation and correction of vitamin D deficiency might be of major relevance for the reduction of the clinical burden of the ongoing and future outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Invited to comment, David Meltzer, MD, PhD, chief of hospital medicine at University of Chicago Medicine, Illinois, who was not involved with the study, agrees.

“I think this body of work suggests that people should be taking supplements if they cannot increase sun exposure on a sustained basis,” Meltzer said. “The abstract supports multiple prior findings that suggest that higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes.”

And JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved with the research but has spoken about the topic in a video report for Medscape, said: “We know from several studies that a low vitamin D level is associated with a higher risk of having COVID-19 and severe illness, but correlation does not prove causation.”

“I think that improving vitamin D status is a promising way to reduce the risk of severe illness, but we need randomized controlled trials to prove cause and effect,” she told Medscape Medical News.

103 patients with severe COVID-19, 52 with mild COVID-19, 206 controls

Gennari said several lines of evidence suggest that vitamin D deficiency might be a risk factor for COVID-19 severity.

Countries with lower average levels of vitamin D or lower UVB radiation exposure have higher COVID-19 mortality, and “demographic groups known to be at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency (such as black individuals, the elderly, nursing home residents, and those with obesity and diabetes) are at high risk of COVID-19 hospitalization/mortality, he noted.

There is a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Italy, where mortality rates from COVID-19 have been particularly high.

To examine the relationship between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity/mortality, the researchers studied three groups:

• 103 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 with respiratory insufficiency who were admitted to a Milan hospital from March 9 to April 30.
• 52 patients with mild COVID-19, recruited from patients and staff from a nearby nursing home who had a positive test for COVID-19.
• 206 healthy controls, matched 2:1 with symptomatic patients of the same age, weight, and gender, from 3174 patients who had vitamin D measured during a routine check-up from January to March 2020.

Patients in the hospitalized group had lower mean vitamin D levels (18.2 ng/mL) than those with mild COVID-19 (30.3 ng/mL) or those in the control group (25.4 ng/mL).

Patients with symptomatic versus mild COVID-19 were slightly older and more likely to have at least one comorbidity and less likely to be taking a vitamin D supplement at baseline (30% vs 79%).

Among symptomatic patients, mean vitamin D levels were inversely associated with interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein, “both of which are a direct expression of the inflammatory status,” Gennari noted.

About half of the hospitalized patients (49) were admitted to a ward and discharged after a mean stay of 16 days (none died).

The other 54 hospitalized patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe acute respiratory distress; 38 patients received continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and 16 patients received endotracheal intubation.

Of the 54 patients admitted to ICU, 19 patients died from respiratory distress after a mean of 19 days, “consistent with the literature,” and the other 35 patients were discharged after a mean of 21 days.

Patients with severe COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICU, as opposed to a ward, were more likely to be male, have at least one comorbidity, have higher baseline IL-6 levels and neutrophil counts, and lower lymphocyte and platelet counts.

They also had lower mean vitamin D levels (14.4 vs 22.4 ng/mL) and were more likely to have vitamin D deficiency (vitamin D <20 ng/mL; 80% vs. 45%).  

Patients admitted to ICU who died had lower baseline vitamin D levels than those who survived (13.2 vs. 19.3 ng/mL).

Vitamin D levels were inversely associated with respiratory distress requiring ICU admission (odds ratio, 1.06; P = .038) and with mortality (OR, 1.18, P = 029), independent of IL-6 levels and other comorbidities.

“That vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes independent of IL-6 could reflect that IL-6 is an imperfect measure of the inflammatory process or that vitamin D is related to outcomes for other reasons, such as enhancement of innate or adaptive immunity,” said Meltzer.

He added that “this is not to exclude the possibility that vitamin D has important immunomodulatory effects.”

Gennari, Meltzer, and Manson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Having low serum vitamin D levels was an independent risk factor for having symptomatic COVID-19 with respiratory distress requiring admission to intensive care – as opposed to having mild COVID-19 – and for not surviving, in a new study from Italy.

“Our data give strong observational support to previous suggestions that reduced vitamin D levels may favor the appearance of severe respiratory dysfunction and increase the mortality risk in patients affected with COVID-19,” the researchers report.

Luigi Gennari, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Italy, presented these findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting.

Gennari told Medscape Medical News that this analysis suggests determining vitamin D levels (25 hydroxyvitamin D) in people testing positive for SARS-Cov-2 infection might help predict their risk of severe disease.

However, further research is needed to explore whether vitamin D supplements could prevent the risk of respiratory failure in patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection, he stressed.

In the meantime, Gennari said: “I believe that, particularly in the winter season (when the solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation exposure does not allow the skin to synthesize vitamin D in most countries), the use of vitamin D supplementation and correction of vitamin D deficiency might be of major relevance for the reduction of the clinical burden of the ongoing and future outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Invited to comment, David Meltzer, MD, PhD, chief of hospital medicine at University of Chicago Medicine, Illinois, who was not involved with the study, agrees.

“I think this body of work suggests that people should be taking supplements if they cannot increase sun exposure on a sustained basis,” Meltzer said. “The abstract supports multiple prior findings that suggest that higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes.”

And JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved with the research but has spoken about the topic in a video report for Medscape, said: “We know from several studies that a low vitamin D level is associated with a higher risk of having COVID-19 and severe illness, but correlation does not prove causation.”

“I think that improving vitamin D status is a promising way to reduce the risk of severe illness, but we need randomized controlled trials to prove cause and effect,” she told Medscape Medical News.

103 patients with severe COVID-19, 52 with mild COVID-19, 206 controls

Gennari said several lines of evidence suggest that vitamin D deficiency might be a risk factor for COVID-19 severity.

Countries with lower average levels of vitamin D or lower UVB radiation exposure have higher COVID-19 mortality, and “demographic groups known to be at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency (such as black individuals, the elderly, nursing home residents, and those with obesity and diabetes) are at high risk of COVID-19 hospitalization/mortality, he noted.

There is a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Italy, where mortality rates from COVID-19 have been particularly high.

To examine the relationship between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity/mortality, the researchers studied three groups:

• 103 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 with respiratory insufficiency who were admitted to a Milan hospital from March 9 to April 30.
• 52 patients with mild COVID-19, recruited from patients and staff from a nearby nursing home who had a positive test for COVID-19.
• 206 healthy controls, matched 2:1 with symptomatic patients of the same age, weight, and gender, from 3174 patients who had vitamin D measured during a routine check-up from January to March 2020.

Patients in the hospitalized group had lower mean vitamin D levels (18.2 ng/mL) than those with mild COVID-19 (30.3 ng/mL) or those in the control group (25.4 ng/mL).

Patients with symptomatic versus mild COVID-19 were slightly older and more likely to have at least one comorbidity and less likely to be taking a vitamin D supplement at baseline (30% vs 79%).

Among symptomatic patients, mean vitamin D levels were inversely associated with interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein, “both of which are a direct expression of the inflammatory status,” Gennari noted.

About half of the hospitalized patients (49) were admitted to a ward and discharged after a mean stay of 16 days (none died).

The other 54 hospitalized patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe acute respiratory distress; 38 patients received continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and 16 patients received endotracheal intubation.

Of the 54 patients admitted to ICU, 19 patients died from respiratory distress after a mean of 19 days, “consistent with the literature,” and the other 35 patients were discharged after a mean of 21 days.

Patients with severe COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICU, as opposed to a ward, were more likely to be male, have at least one comorbidity, have higher baseline IL-6 levels and neutrophil counts, and lower lymphocyte and platelet counts.

They also had lower mean vitamin D levels (14.4 vs 22.4 ng/mL) and were more likely to have vitamin D deficiency (vitamin D <20 ng/mL; 80% vs. 45%).  

Patients admitted to ICU who died had lower baseline vitamin D levels than those who survived (13.2 vs. 19.3 ng/mL).

Vitamin D levels were inversely associated with respiratory distress requiring ICU admission (odds ratio, 1.06; P = .038) and with mortality (OR, 1.18, P = 029), independent of IL-6 levels and other comorbidities.

“That vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes independent of IL-6 could reflect that IL-6 is an imperfect measure of the inflammatory process or that vitamin D is related to outcomes for other reasons, such as enhancement of innate or adaptive immunity,” said Meltzer.

He added that “this is not to exclude the possibility that vitamin D has important immunomodulatory effects.”

Gennari, Meltzer, and Manson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Having low serum vitamin D levels was an independent risk factor for having symptomatic COVID-19 with respiratory distress requiring admission to intensive care – as opposed to having mild COVID-19 – and for not surviving, in a new study from Italy.

“Our data give strong observational support to previous suggestions that reduced vitamin D levels may favor the appearance of severe respiratory dysfunction and increase the mortality risk in patients affected with COVID-19,” the researchers report.

Luigi Gennari, MD, PhD, Department of Medicine, Surgery, and Neurosciences, University of Siena, Italy, presented these findings during the virtual American Society of Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR) 2020 annual meeting.

Gennari told Medscape Medical News that this analysis suggests determining vitamin D levels (25 hydroxyvitamin D) in people testing positive for SARS-Cov-2 infection might help predict their risk of severe disease.

However, further research is needed to explore whether vitamin D supplements could prevent the risk of respiratory failure in patients with SARS-Cov-2 infection, he stressed.

In the meantime, Gennari said: “I believe that, particularly in the winter season (when the solar ultraviolet-B (UVB) radiation exposure does not allow the skin to synthesize vitamin D in most countries), the use of vitamin D supplementation and correction of vitamin D deficiency might be of major relevance for the reduction of the clinical burden of the ongoing and future outbreaks of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Invited to comment, David Meltzer, MD, PhD, chief of hospital medicine at University of Chicago Medicine, Illinois, who was not involved with the study, agrees.

“I think this body of work suggests that people should be taking supplements if they cannot increase sun exposure on a sustained basis,” Meltzer said. “The abstract supports multiple prior findings that suggest that higher vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes.”

And JoAnn E. Manson, MD, DrPH, of Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, who was not involved with the research but has spoken about the topic in a video report for Medscape, said: “We know from several studies that a low vitamin D level is associated with a higher risk of having COVID-19 and severe illness, but correlation does not prove causation.”

“I think that improving vitamin D status is a promising way to reduce the risk of severe illness, but we need randomized controlled trials to prove cause and effect,” she told Medscape Medical News.

103 patients with severe COVID-19, 52 with mild COVID-19, 206 controls

Gennari said several lines of evidence suggest that vitamin D deficiency might be a risk factor for COVID-19 severity.

Countries with lower average levels of vitamin D or lower UVB radiation exposure have higher COVID-19 mortality, and “demographic groups known to be at higher risk of vitamin D deficiency (such as black individuals, the elderly, nursing home residents, and those with obesity and diabetes) are at high risk of COVID-19 hospitalization/mortality, he noted.

There is a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in Italy, where mortality rates from COVID-19 have been particularly high.

To examine the relationship between vitamin D levels and COVID-19 severity/mortality, the researchers studied three groups:

• 103 symptomatic patients with COVID-19 with respiratory insufficiency who were admitted to a Milan hospital from March 9 to April 30.
• 52 patients with mild COVID-19, recruited from patients and staff from a nearby nursing home who had a positive test for COVID-19.
• 206 healthy controls, matched 2:1 with symptomatic patients of the same age, weight, and gender, from 3174 patients who had vitamin D measured during a routine check-up from January to March 2020.

Patients in the hospitalized group had lower mean vitamin D levels (18.2 ng/mL) than those with mild COVID-19 (30.3 ng/mL) or those in the control group (25.4 ng/mL).

Patients with symptomatic versus mild COVID-19 were slightly older and more likely to have at least one comorbidity and less likely to be taking a vitamin D supplement at baseline (30% vs 79%).

Among symptomatic patients, mean vitamin D levels were inversely associated with interleukin (IL)-6 and C-reactive protein, “both of which are a direct expression of the inflammatory status,” Gennari noted.

About half of the hospitalized patients (49) were admitted to a ward and discharged after a mean stay of 16 days (none died).

The other 54 hospitalized patients were admitted to the intensive care unit with severe acute respiratory distress; 38 patients received continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and 16 patients received endotracheal intubation.

Of the 54 patients admitted to ICU, 19 patients died from respiratory distress after a mean of 19 days, “consistent with the literature,” and the other 35 patients were discharged after a mean of 21 days.

Patients with severe COVID-19 who were admitted to the ICU, as opposed to a ward, were more likely to be male, have at least one comorbidity, have higher baseline IL-6 levels and neutrophil counts, and lower lymphocyte and platelet counts.

They also had lower mean vitamin D levels (14.4 vs 22.4 ng/mL) and were more likely to have vitamin D deficiency (vitamin D <20 ng/mL; 80% vs. 45%).  

Patients admitted to ICU who died had lower baseline vitamin D levels than those who survived (13.2 vs. 19.3 ng/mL).

Vitamin D levels were inversely associated with respiratory distress requiring ICU admission (odds ratio, 1.06; P = .038) and with mortality (OR, 1.18, P = 029), independent of IL-6 levels and other comorbidities.

“That vitamin D levels are associated with improved outcomes independent of IL-6 could reflect that IL-6 is an imperfect measure of the inflammatory process or that vitamin D is related to outcomes for other reasons, such as enhancement of innate or adaptive immunity,” said Meltzer.

He added that “this is not to exclude the possibility that vitamin D has important immunomodulatory effects.”

Gennari, Meltzer, and Manson have reported no relevant financial relationships.

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Initiating treatment with the interleukin-12/23p40–targeting monoclonal antibody ustekinumab may trigger early severe cardiovascular events (SCEs) in susceptible patients, according to a large French case-time-control analysis.

Investigators led by Florence Poizeau, MD, of the department of dermatology at Rennes (France) University Hospital, found high-risk patients had more than four times the risk of an acute SCE in the 6 months after starting treatment. Although ustekinumab (Stelara) effectively treats moderate to severe psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and Crohn’s disease (indications approved by the Food and Drug Administration), the early months after ustekinumab initiation may be associated with atherosclerotic plaque destabilization via the inhibition of helper T cell subtype 17, the group reported in JAMA Dermatology.

The observational study drew on France’s 66 million–registrant health insurance database to identify all patients exposed to ustekinumab between April 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2016. Classified by high or low cardiovascular risk level, ustekinumab recipients served as their own controls, being compared during two time windows: the risk period covered the 6 months after initiating treatment and leading up to the SCE, defined as acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or stroke, while a reference period spanned the 6-12 months leading up to the risk period.

In the statistical analysis of 9,290 ustekinumab-exposed patients (mean age 43 years, 52% male), conducted from September 2017 to July 2018, 7,588 (82%) received ustekinumab for psoriasis or PsA, and 724 (8%) for Crohn’s disease. (The remaining indications were for psoriasis or PsA and Crohn’s disease, or were undetermined.)

Of these patients, 98 experienced SCEs (52 with ACS admitted to the ICU and 46 with strokes). In patients deemed at high cardiovascular risk – those with two risk factors or a personal history of atherosclerotic disease – there was a statistically significant association between starting ustekinumab and SCE occurrence, for an odds ratio of 4.17 (95% confidence interval, 1.19-14.59). In contrast, no such association emerged in ustekinumab users at low cardiovascular risk, for an OR of 0.30 (95% CI, 0.03-3.13). The OR for all was 2.41 (95% CI, 0.83-7.01).

Of the 98 patients included in the final case-time-control analysis, 62 were men (63%), the median age was 57 years, and 76 (78%) were at high cardiovascular risk. A total of 89 patients (91%) had psoriasis, four (4%) had Crohn’s disease, and two (2%) had both.

The investigators also did an analysis including these 98 patients plus 13 patients with ACS who were not hospitalized in an ICU, and 68 with unstable angina, for a total of 179. In this group, the ORs for SCE were 1.75 (95% CI, 0.86-3.56) overall, compared with 3.20 (95% CI, 1.29-7.92) among those at high cardiovascular risk and 0.21 (95% CI, 0.02-1.69) among those at low cardiovascular risk.

The Rennes investigators’ decision to focus on early SCEs stemmed in part from a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that reported a possible excess of early SCEs in adults exposed to anti–IL-12/23p40 antibodies, which at that time included the now-discontinued experimental antibody briakinumab. Briakinumab trials were aborted and the drug was never brought to market, leaving ustekinumab as the only antibody of this type.

The finding of “an association between ustekinumab initiation and SCE among patients with cardiovascular risk factors suggests the need for caution regarding the prescription of ustekinumab in this population,” Dr. Poizeau and colleagues wrote. The risk “seems to concern patients with psoriasis” rather than Crohn’s disease, which may be related to the older age and greater cardiovascular risk of the former. “A close collaboration between cardiologists and biologic prescribers could be beneficial to evaluate the risk of SCEs for patients who are receiving ustekinumab,” they added, recommending further research into the physiopathological mechanisms of action.

Offering a U.S. clinician’s perspective on the French study, Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, director of medical dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic, called the findings “unique and interesting with very robust odds ratios. These posttreatment associations have actually been a big area of research over the past decade but not with such defined time periods.”

No significant increases in risk have been seen with other biologics, Dr. Fernandez added, with the exception of briakinumab. “But still, the current study does not definitively answer the question whether ustekinumab can trigger acute events within 6 months of treatment. There’s smoke, but we haven’t clearly seen a fire.”

As to ustekinumab’s possible pathogenic mechanism of action, Dr. Fernandez pointed to data suggesting that IL-17A can be stabilizing to atherosclerotic plaques. “So there’s a hypothesis that blocking the 17/23 pathway may destabilize plaques and make patients more prone to acute cardiovascular events.”

In other comments from clinicians not involved in the study, Seoyoung Kim, MD, ScD, MSCE, director of the program in rheumatologic, immunologic, and musculoskeletal pharmacoepidemiology (PRIME) at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that, while the investigators controlled for the trend over time and their design choice included time-fixed covariates such as age, sex, and family history within individuals, the case-crossover study could not control for time-varying confounders within individuals.

“In other words, it’s possible that some of the patients had a lot more disease activity and systemic inflammation and used more NSAIDs, steroids, and other medications potentially related to cardiovascular risk a few months before they started ustekinumab, compared with 6-12 months prior,“ Dr. Kim said in an interview. “I would be curious to know if they would find the same thing or not if they studied a different type of biologic drug.”

She also pointed out that the number of outcomes overall was small, leading to imprecise estimates and wide confidence intervals.

Last year Dr. Kim and associates published a study comparing ustekinumab with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy in younger psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patients and found no difference between the two groups in major cardiovascular events or atrial fibrillation.

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, has more reservations about the findings. “The Poizeau study was methodologically flawed, making the results unreliable,” he said in an interview. “There is a breadth of data from clinical trials and observational studies that do not demonstrate an increased risk of major acute cardiovascular events with ustekinumab and the results of the Poizeau study should not impact clinical practice.”

In an interview, Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor and chairman of the department of dermatology and chief for clinical therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that, in his view, the investigators used early reports of a small number cardiovascular events to look at the issue from a faulty perspective, and hence their findings would have no impact on his clinical practice.

“This study looked at the issue incorrectly. It looked at people put on drug who already had two risk factors for heart attack. And psoriasis itself is a third risk factor,” he said. “So lo and behold, big surprise, some of them had cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Lebwohl noted that a wealth of carefully compiled data has found no increase over time in cardiovascular events with this drug in psoriasis patients. The risk of cardiovascular events actually goes down with time because of the drug’s anti-inflammatory effects.

Dr. Fernandez takes a more positive view of the French findings. “The data certainly support the need for further research in this area,” he said in an interview, “and in the meantime this paper will probably make me extra cautious in using ustekinumab in those at significant risk.”

The French study was supported by a grant from the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety. Dr. Poizeau and seven coauthors had no disclosures. The remaining five reported disclosures that included receiving fees from AbbVie, Admiral, Amgen, Baxalta, Cologne, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Mylan, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB, as well as grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Leo Pharma, and Pfizer outside the submitted work, and personal fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB Pharma, and Lilly during the conduct of the study. Dr. Fernandez reported consulting work for AbbVie and research grants from Novartis. Dr. Kim disclosed research grants from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and from Pfizer, Abbvie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb for unrelated studies. Dr. Gelfand reported varying financial ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Biologics, Regeneron, UCB, Sanofi, Pfizer, Celgene, OrthoDermatolgics, AbbVie, Novartis, and Eli Lilly. He is copatent holder of a treatment for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Dr. Lebwohl reported unpaid consulting for most manufacturers of psoriasis drugs, with all fees going directly to Mount Sinai.

Source: Poizeau F et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Sep 9. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.2977.
 

Initiating treatment with the interleukin-12/23p40–targeting monoclonal antibody ustekinumab may trigger early severe cardiovascular events (SCEs) in susceptible patients, according to a large French case-time-control analysis.

Investigators led by Florence Poizeau, MD, of the department of dermatology at Rennes (France) University Hospital, found high-risk patients had more than four times the risk of an acute SCE in the 6 months after starting treatment. Although ustekinumab (Stelara) effectively treats moderate to severe psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and Crohn’s disease (indications approved by the Food and Drug Administration), the early months after ustekinumab initiation may be associated with atherosclerotic plaque destabilization via the inhibition of helper T cell subtype 17, the group reported in JAMA Dermatology.

The observational study drew on France’s 66 million–registrant health insurance database to identify all patients exposed to ustekinumab between April 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2016. Classified by high or low cardiovascular risk level, ustekinumab recipients served as their own controls, being compared during two time windows: the risk period covered the 6 months after initiating treatment and leading up to the SCE, defined as acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or stroke, while a reference period spanned the 6-12 months leading up to the risk period.

In the statistical analysis of 9,290 ustekinumab-exposed patients (mean age 43 years, 52% male), conducted from September 2017 to July 2018, 7,588 (82%) received ustekinumab for psoriasis or PsA, and 724 (8%) for Crohn’s disease. (The remaining indications were for psoriasis or PsA and Crohn’s disease, or were undetermined.)

Of these patients, 98 experienced SCEs (52 with ACS admitted to the ICU and 46 with strokes). In patients deemed at high cardiovascular risk – those with two risk factors or a personal history of atherosclerotic disease – there was a statistically significant association between starting ustekinumab and SCE occurrence, for an odds ratio of 4.17 (95% confidence interval, 1.19-14.59). In contrast, no such association emerged in ustekinumab users at low cardiovascular risk, for an OR of 0.30 (95% CI, 0.03-3.13). The OR for all was 2.41 (95% CI, 0.83-7.01).

Of the 98 patients included in the final case-time-control analysis, 62 were men (63%), the median age was 57 years, and 76 (78%) were at high cardiovascular risk. A total of 89 patients (91%) had psoriasis, four (4%) had Crohn’s disease, and two (2%) had both.

The investigators also did an analysis including these 98 patients plus 13 patients with ACS who were not hospitalized in an ICU, and 68 with unstable angina, for a total of 179. In this group, the ORs for SCE were 1.75 (95% CI, 0.86-3.56) overall, compared with 3.20 (95% CI, 1.29-7.92) among those at high cardiovascular risk and 0.21 (95% CI, 0.02-1.69) among those at low cardiovascular risk.

The Rennes investigators’ decision to focus on early SCEs stemmed in part from a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that reported a possible excess of early SCEs in adults exposed to anti–IL-12/23p40 antibodies, which at that time included the now-discontinued experimental antibody briakinumab. Briakinumab trials were aborted and the drug was never brought to market, leaving ustekinumab as the only antibody of this type.

The finding of “an association between ustekinumab initiation and SCE among patients with cardiovascular risk factors suggests the need for caution regarding the prescription of ustekinumab in this population,” Dr. Poizeau and colleagues wrote. The risk “seems to concern patients with psoriasis” rather than Crohn’s disease, which may be related to the older age and greater cardiovascular risk of the former. “A close collaboration between cardiologists and biologic prescribers could be beneficial to evaluate the risk of SCEs for patients who are receiving ustekinumab,” they added, recommending further research into the physiopathological mechanisms of action.

Offering a U.S. clinician’s perspective on the French study, Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, director of medical dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic, called the findings “unique and interesting with very robust odds ratios. These posttreatment associations have actually been a big area of research over the past decade but not with such defined time periods.”

No significant increases in risk have been seen with other biologics, Dr. Fernandez added, with the exception of briakinumab. “But still, the current study does not definitively answer the question whether ustekinumab can trigger acute events within 6 months of treatment. There’s smoke, but we haven’t clearly seen a fire.”

As to ustekinumab’s possible pathogenic mechanism of action, Dr. Fernandez pointed to data suggesting that IL-17A can be stabilizing to atherosclerotic plaques. “So there’s a hypothesis that blocking the 17/23 pathway may destabilize plaques and make patients more prone to acute cardiovascular events.”

In other comments from clinicians not involved in the study, Seoyoung Kim, MD, ScD, MSCE, director of the program in rheumatologic, immunologic, and musculoskeletal pharmacoepidemiology (PRIME) at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that, while the investigators controlled for the trend over time and their design choice included time-fixed covariates such as age, sex, and family history within individuals, the case-crossover study could not control for time-varying confounders within individuals.

“In other words, it’s possible that some of the patients had a lot more disease activity and systemic inflammation and used more NSAIDs, steroids, and other medications potentially related to cardiovascular risk a few months before they started ustekinumab, compared with 6-12 months prior,“ Dr. Kim said in an interview. “I would be curious to know if they would find the same thing or not if they studied a different type of biologic drug.”

She also pointed out that the number of outcomes overall was small, leading to imprecise estimates and wide confidence intervals.

Last year Dr. Kim and associates published a study comparing ustekinumab with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy in younger psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patients and found no difference between the two groups in major cardiovascular events or atrial fibrillation.

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, has more reservations about the findings. “The Poizeau study was methodologically flawed, making the results unreliable,” he said in an interview. “There is a breadth of data from clinical trials and observational studies that do not demonstrate an increased risk of major acute cardiovascular events with ustekinumab and the results of the Poizeau study should not impact clinical practice.”

In an interview, Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor and chairman of the department of dermatology and chief for clinical therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that, in his view, the investigators used early reports of a small number cardiovascular events to look at the issue from a faulty perspective, and hence their findings would have no impact on his clinical practice.

“This study looked at the issue incorrectly. It looked at people put on drug who already had two risk factors for heart attack. And psoriasis itself is a third risk factor,” he said. “So lo and behold, big surprise, some of them had cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Lebwohl noted that a wealth of carefully compiled data has found no increase over time in cardiovascular events with this drug in psoriasis patients. The risk of cardiovascular events actually goes down with time because of the drug’s anti-inflammatory effects.

Dr. Fernandez takes a more positive view of the French findings. “The data certainly support the need for further research in this area,” he said in an interview, “and in the meantime this paper will probably make me extra cautious in using ustekinumab in those at significant risk.”

The French study was supported by a grant from the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety. Dr. Poizeau and seven coauthors had no disclosures. The remaining five reported disclosures that included receiving fees from AbbVie, Admiral, Amgen, Baxalta, Cologne, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Mylan, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB, as well as grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Leo Pharma, and Pfizer outside the submitted work, and personal fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB Pharma, and Lilly during the conduct of the study. Dr. Fernandez reported consulting work for AbbVie and research grants from Novartis. Dr. Kim disclosed research grants from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and from Pfizer, Abbvie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb for unrelated studies. Dr. Gelfand reported varying financial ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Biologics, Regeneron, UCB, Sanofi, Pfizer, Celgene, OrthoDermatolgics, AbbVie, Novartis, and Eli Lilly. He is copatent holder of a treatment for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Dr. Lebwohl reported unpaid consulting for most manufacturers of psoriasis drugs, with all fees going directly to Mount Sinai.

Source: Poizeau F et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Sep 9. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.2977.
 

Initiating treatment with the interleukin-12/23p40–targeting monoclonal antibody ustekinumab may trigger early severe cardiovascular events (SCEs) in susceptible patients, according to a large French case-time-control analysis.

Investigators led by Florence Poizeau, MD, of the department of dermatology at Rennes (France) University Hospital, found high-risk patients had more than four times the risk of an acute SCE in the 6 months after starting treatment. Although ustekinumab (Stelara) effectively treats moderate to severe psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and Crohn’s disease (indications approved by the Food and Drug Administration), the early months after ustekinumab initiation may be associated with atherosclerotic plaque destabilization via the inhibition of helper T cell subtype 17, the group reported in JAMA Dermatology.

The observational study drew on France’s 66 million–registrant health insurance database to identify all patients exposed to ustekinumab between April 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2016. Classified by high or low cardiovascular risk level, ustekinumab recipients served as their own controls, being compared during two time windows: the risk period covered the 6 months after initiating treatment and leading up to the SCE, defined as acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or stroke, while a reference period spanned the 6-12 months leading up to the risk period.

In the statistical analysis of 9,290 ustekinumab-exposed patients (mean age 43 years, 52% male), conducted from September 2017 to July 2018, 7,588 (82%) received ustekinumab for psoriasis or PsA, and 724 (8%) for Crohn’s disease. (The remaining indications were for psoriasis or PsA and Crohn’s disease, or were undetermined.)

Of these patients, 98 experienced SCEs (52 with ACS admitted to the ICU and 46 with strokes). In patients deemed at high cardiovascular risk – those with two risk factors or a personal history of atherosclerotic disease – there was a statistically significant association between starting ustekinumab and SCE occurrence, for an odds ratio of 4.17 (95% confidence interval, 1.19-14.59). In contrast, no such association emerged in ustekinumab users at low cardiovascular risk, for an OR of 0.30 (95% CI, 0.03-3.13). The OR for all was 2.41 (95% CI, 0.83-7.01).

Of the 98 patients included in the final case-time-control analysis, 62 were men (63%), the median age was 57 years, and 76 (78%) were at high cardiovascular risk. A total of 89 patients (91%) had psoriasis, four (4%) had Crohn’s disease, and two (2%) had both.

The investigators also did an analysis including these 98 patients plus 13 patients with ACS who were not hospitalized in an ICU, and 68 with unstable angina, for a total of 179. In this group, the ORs for SCE were 1.75 (95% CI, 0.86-3.56) overall, compared with 3.20 (95% CI, 1.29-7.92) among those at high cardiovascular risk and 0.21 (95% CI, 0.02-1.69) among those at low cardiovascular risk.

The Rennes investigators’ decision to focus on early SCEs stemmed in part from a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials that reported a possible excess of early SCEs in adults exposed to anti–IL-12/23p40 antibodies, which at that time included the now-discontinued experimental antibody briakinumab. Briakinumab trials were aborted and the drug was never brought to market, leaving ustekinumab as the only antibody of this type.

The finding of “an association between ustekinumab initiation and SCE among patients with cardiovascular risk factors suggests the need for caution regarding the prescription of ustekinumab in this population,” Dr. Poizeau and colleagues wrote. The risk “seems to concern patients with psoriasis” rather than Crohn’s disease, which may be related to the older age and greater cardiovascular risk of the former. “A close collaboration between cardiologists and biologic prescribers could be beneficial to evaluate the risk of SCEs for patients who are receiving ustekinumab,” they added, recommending further research into the physiopathological mechanisms of action.

Offering a U.S. clinician’s perspective on the French study, Anthony Fernandez, MD, PhD, director of medical dermatology at the Cleveland Clinic, called the findings “unique and interesting with very robust odds ratios. These posttreatment associations have actually been a big area of research over the past decade but not with such defined time periods.”

No significant increases in risk have been seen with other biologics, Dr. Fernandez added, with the exception of briakinumab. “But still, the current study does not definitively answer the question whether ustekinumab can trigger acute events within 6 months of treatment. There’s smoke, but we haven’t clearly seen a fire.”

As to ustekinumab’s possible pathogenic mechanism of action, Dr. Fernandez pointed to data suggesting that IL-17A can be stabilizing to atherosclerotic plaques. “So there’s a hypothesis that blocking the 17/23 pathway may destabilize plaques and make patients more prone to acute cardiovascular events.”

In other comments from clinicians not involved in the study, Seoyoung Kim, MD, ScD, MSCE, director of the program in rheumatologic, immunologic, and musculoskeletal pharmacoepidemiology (PRIME) at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, noted that, while the investigators controlled for the trend over time and their design choice included time-fixed covariates such as age, sex, and family history within individuals, the case-crossover study could not control for time-varying confounders within individuals.

“In other words, it’s possible that some of the patients had a lot more disease activity and systemic inflammation and used more NSAIDs, steroids, and other medications potentially related to cardiovascular risk a few months before they started ustekinumab, compared with 6-12 months prior,“ Dr. Kim said in an interview. “I would be curious to know if they would find the same thing or not if they studied a different type of biologic drug.”

She also pointed out that the number of outcomes overall was small, leading to imprecise estimates and wide confidence intervals.

Last year Dr. Kim and associates published a study comparing ustekinumab with tumor necrosis factor inhibitor therapy in younger psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis patients and found no difference between the two groups in major cardiovascular events or atrial fibrillation.

Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, has more reservations about the findings. “The Poizeau study was methodologically flawed, making the results unreliable,” he said in an interview. “There is a breadth of data from clinical trials and observational studies that do not demonstrate an increased risk of major acute cardiovascular events with ustekinumab and the results of the Poizeau study should not impact clinical practice.”

In an interview, Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, professor and chairman of the department of dermatology and chief for clinical therapeutics at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, said that, in his view, the investigators used early reports of a small number cardiovascular events to look at the issue from a faulty perspective, and hence their findings would have no impact on his clinical practice.

“This study looked at the issue incorrectly. It looked at people put on drug who already had two risk factors for heart attack. And psoriasis itself is a third risk factor,” he said. “So lo and behold, big surprise, some of them had cardiovascular events.”

Dr. Lebwohl noted that a wealth of carefully compiled data has found no increase over time in cardiovascular events with this drug in psoriasis patients. The risk of cardiovascular events actually goes down with time because of the drug’s anti-inflammatory effects.

Dr. Fernandez takes a more positive view of the French findings. “The data certainly support the need for further research in this area,” he said in an interview, “and in the meantime this paper will probably make me extra cautious in using ustekinumab in those at significant risk.”

The French study was supported by a grant from the French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety. Dr. Poizeau and seven coauthors had no disclosures. The remaining five reported disclosures that included receiving fees from AbbVie, Admiral, Amgen, Baxalta, Cologne, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Novartis, Mylan, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB, as well as grants and personal fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Leo Pharma, and Pfizer outside the submitted work, and personal fees from Pfizer, AbbVie, UCB Pharma, and Lilly during the conduct of the study. Dr. Fernandez reported consulting work for AbbVie and research grants from Novartis. Dr. Kim disclosed research grants from Brigham and Women’s Hospital and from Pfizer, Abbvie, Roche, and Bristol-Myers Squibb for unrelated studies. Dr. Gelfand reported varying financial ties to Bristol-Myers Squibb, Boehringer Ingelheim, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Biologics, Regeneron, UCB, Sanofi, Pfizer, Celgene, OrthoDermatolgics, AbbVie, Novartis, and Eli Lilly. He is copatent holder of a treatment for cutaneous T-cell lymphoma. Dr. Lebwohl reported unpaid consulting for most manufacturers of psoriasis drugs, with all fees going directly to Mount Sinai.

Source: Poizeau F et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2020 Sep 9. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2020.2977.
 

In a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association that used EHR logs, researchers found that “Clinicians with the highest volume of patient call messages have almost 4 times the odds of burnout compared with clinicians with the fewest.” And they discovered that “No other workload measures were significantly associated with burnout.” Like the majority of papers I skim through, it states the obvious. Doesn’t it makes sense that the busiest of providers should be more vulnerable to stress related symptoms? But is that really true for every provider? Being “busy” doesn’t guarantee that you are productive nor does it mean that the stuff you are doing while you are busy is fulfilling or rewarding either emotionally or financially. Certainly, slogging through a long list of patient call messages at the end of the day does qualify as being busy, but it is more likely to generate anger and frustration than it is fulfillment.

Yuri_Arcurs/DigitalVision/Getty Images

Just because you have a large practice, does that mean that you will necessarily have more messages to review and calls to return than a provider with a smaller practice. Maybe you manage your practice and your time so well that you actually have fewer messages and calls to return and, therefore, are less vulnerable to burnout.

There are three general strategies that you might be employing that result in fewer messages and calls that require your response. It may be that you have developed a handbook of frequently asked questions and trained your staff to use it as a reference in a way that reduces the number of messages that filter to you. Creating this triage book and finding the right personnel took time, but it didn’t necessarily mean that you had to hire staff with extensive training, which can be expensive. In-house training of raw talent that has demonstrated common sense and good communication skills can be cost effective and rewarding. You probably already have discovered that continued attention to quality control is an important part of this strategy. Included in your handbook you may have included a clearcut triage system for the questions that the staff can’t answer. Is it a question you must answer (a) as soon as you finish with this patient, (b) before lunch, or (c) at the end of the day? (Category (c) is of course strongly discouraged).

The second general group of strategies you may be using to keep your calls and messages to a minimum is anticipatory guidance. As you wrap up each visit, are you anticipating what calls it might generate? This of course depends on the nature of the problem and the personality of the patient. From your experience you can probably predict most of the questions that are likely going to crop up after the patient arrives home. Preemptively answering these before patients leave and providing a personalized handout that you discuss with them may easily be saving you two or three calls a day. Because you can’t anticipate every question, you have found that promising a follow-up call in a day or 2 encourages the patients to hold their questions and wait for you or your assistant to call.

Finally, you may have discovered long ago that in many cases it is easier and more efficient to see the patient rather than having your staff spend half their time building and maintaining a communication wall around you. This is particularly true if, during the initial contact with your office, the patients have made it clear that they would like to be seen. This strategy is based on commons sense, but for many physicians and their office staff it may require a dramatic shift in attitude. You may have needed to become more comfortable squeezing in short visits at which the goal is to simply begin the dual processes of anxiety relief and diagnosis. In the beginning, you may have had to frequently remind your staff that their primary goal is patient satisfaction and not protecting you from seeing “too many” patients. Ironically, by being over protective, they may have been contributing to burnout when simply cutting to the chase and having the patient come in to be seen would have generated fewer stress-producing calls and messages.

There are different kinds of busy, and there are strategies to minimize the kind of busy that leads to burnout. Enabling a system that generates an excess of patient messages is looking for trouble.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

In a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association that used EHR logs, researchers found that “Clinicians with the highest volume of patient call messages have almost 4 times the odds of burnout compared with clinicians with the fewest.” And they discovered that “No other workload measures were significantly associated with burnout.” Like the majority of papers I skim through, it states the obvious. Doesn’t it makes sense that the busiest of providers should be more vulnerable to stress related symptoms? But is that really true for every provider? Being “busy” doesn’t guarantee that you are productive nor does it mean that the stuff you are doing while you are busy is fulfilling or rewarding either emotionally or financially. Certainly, slogging through a long list of patient call messages at the end of the day does qualify as being busy, but it is more likely to generate anger and frustration than it is fulfillment.

Yuri_Arcurs/DigitalVision/Getty Images

Just because you have a large practice, does that mean that you will necessarily have more messages to review and calls to return than a provider with a smaller practice. Maybe you manage your practice and your time so well that you actually have fewer messages and calls to return and, therefore, are less vulnerable to burnout.

There are three general strategies that you might be employing that result in fewer messages and calls that require your response. It may be that you have developed a handbook of frequently asked questions and trained your staff to use it as a reference in a way that reduces the number of messages that filter to you. Creating this triage book and finding the right personnel took time, but it didn’t necessarily mean that you had to hire staff with extensive training, which can be expensive. In-house training of raw talent that has demonstrated common sense and good communication skills can be cost effective and rewarding. You probably already have discovered that continued attention to quality control is an important part of this strategy. Included in your handbook you may have included a clearcut triage system for the questions that the staff can’t answer. Is it a question you must answer (a) as soon as you finish with this patient, (b) before lunch, or (c) at the end of the day? (Category (c) is of course strongly discouraged).

The second general group of strategies you may be using to keep your calls and messages to a minimum is anticipatory guidance. As you wrap up each visit, are you anticipating what calls it might generate? This of course depends on the nature of the problem and the personality of the patient. From your experience you can probably predict most of the questions that are likely going to crop up after the patient arrives home. Preemptively answering these before patients leave and providing a personalized handout that you discuss with them may easily be saving you two or three calls a day. Because you can’t anticipate every question, you have found that promising a follow-up call in a day or 2 encourages the patients to hold their questions and wait for you or your assistant to call.

Finally, you may have discovered long ago that in many cases it is easier and more efficient to see the patient rather than having your staff spend half their time building and maintaining a communication wall around you. This is particularly true if, during the initial contact with your office, the patients have made it clear that they would like to be seen. This strategy is based on commons sense, but for many physicians and their office staff it may require a dramatic shift in attitude. You may have needed to become more comfortable squeezing in short visits at which the goal is to simply begin the dual processes of anxiety relief and diagnosis. In the beginning, you may have had to frequently remind your staff that their primary goal is patient satisfaction and not protecting you from seeing “too many” patients. Ironically, by being over protective, they may have been contributing to burnout when simply cutting to the chase and having the patient come in to be seen would have generated fewer stress-producing calls and messages.

There are different kinds of busy, and there are strategies to minimize the kind of busy that leads to burnout. Enabling a system that generates an excess of patient messages is looking for trouble.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].

In a recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association that used EHR logs, researchers found that “Clinicians with the highest volume of patient call messages have almost 4 times the odds of burnout compared with clinicians with the fewest.” And they discovered that “No other workload measures were significantly associated with burnout.” Like the majority of papers I skim through, it states the obvious. Doesn’t it makes sense that the busiest of providers should be more vulnerable to stress related symptoms? But is that really true for every provider? Being “busy” doesn’t guarantee that you are productive nor does it mean that the stuff you are doing while you are busy is fulfilling or rewarding either emotionally or financially. Certainly, slogging through a long list of patient call messages at the end of the day does qualify as being busy, but it is more likely to generate anger and frustration than it is fulfillment.

Yuri_Arcurs/DigitalVision/Getty Images

Just because you have a large practice, does that mean that you will necessarily have more messages to review and calls to return than a provider with a smaller practice. Maybe you manage your practice and your time so well that you actually have fewer messages and calls to return and, therefore, are less vulnerable to burnout.

There are three general strategies that you might be employing that result in fewer messages and calls that require your response. It may be that you have developed a handbook of frequently asked questions and trained your staff to use it as a reference in a way that reduces the number of messages that filter to you. Creating this triage book and finding the right personnel took time, but it didn’t necessarily mean that you had to hire staff with extensive training, which can be expensive. In-house training of raw talent that has demonstrated common sense and good communication skills can be cost effective and rewarding. You probably already have discovered that continued attention to quality control is an important part of this strategy. Included in your handbook you may have included a clearcut triage system for the questions that the staff can’t answer. Is it a question you must answer (a) as soon as you finish with this patient, (b) before lunch, or (c) at the end of the day? (Category (c) is of course strongly discouraged).

The second general group of strategies you may be using to keep your calls and messages to a minimum is anticipatory guidance. As you wrap up each visit, are you anticipating what calls it might generate? This of course depends on the nature of the problem and the personality of the patient. From your experience you can probably predict most of the questions that are likely going to crop up after the patient arrives home. Preemptively answering these before patients leave and providing a personalized handout that you discuss with them may easily be saving you two or three calls a day. Because you can’t anticipate every question, you have found that promising a follow-up call in a day or 2 encourages the patients to hold their questions and wait for you or your assistant to call.

Finally, you may have discovered long ago that in many cases it is easier and more efficient to see the patient rather than having your staff spend half their time building and maintaining a communication wall around you. This is particularly true if, during the initial contact with your office, the patients have made it clear that they would like to be seen. This strategy is based on commons sense, but for many physicians and their office staff it may require a dramatic shift in attitude. You may have needed to become more comfortable squeezing in short visits at which the goal is to simply begin the dual processes of anxiety relief and diagnosis. In the beginning, you may have had to frequently remind your staff that their primary goal is patient satisfaction and not protecting you from seeing “too many” patients. Ironically, by being over protective, they may have been contributing to burnout when simply cutting to the chase and having the patient come in to be seen would have generated fewer stress-producing calls and messages.

There are different kinds of busy, and there are strategies to minimize the kind of busy that leads to burnout. Enabling a system that generates an excess of patient messages is looking for trouble.
 

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Email him at [email protected].