Dermatology News

TOPLINE:

A large international cohort study identified a higher risk for cardiovascular diseases and mortality in patients with prurigo nodularis (PN), particularly among women and White patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies have shown increased risks for cardiovascular diseases in patients with PN, but limited sample sizes have hindered further subgroup analysis. Given PN’s pronounced sex and ethnicity skew, it is important to examine underrepresented groups to accurately assess their cardiovascular risk.
• In this propensity-score matched analysis, researchers identified 64,801 patients (59.44% women) with PN using electronic health reports from the Global Collaborative Network of TriNetX and matched to individuals without PN.
• Researchers calculated risks for 15 cardiovascular endpoints and all-cause mortality within 10 years of diagnosis. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) included acute cerebral and myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, ventricular arrhythmia, and sudden cardiac death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with PN showed a higher risk for death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.1243) and MACE (HR, 1.117) (P < .0001 for both).
• PN was also associated with a higher risk for heart failure (HR, 1.062), thrombotic venous disease (HR, 1.26), angina pectoris (HR, 1.096), and peripheral arterial diseases (HR, 1.082) (P < .0001 for all) and for acute MI (HR, 1.11; P = .0015) and valve disorders (HR, 1.08; P = .0018).
• White patients with PN had a significantly increased risk for MACE, death, heart failure, cardiac arrest, vascular diseases, and acute MI, but this was not observed in people of color.
• Women exhibited a higher risk for MACE, heart failure, peripheral artery disease, acute MI, conduction disease, and valve disorders, while men did not have an increased risk for major or acute cardiovascular events. Both men and women had a higher risk for death, chronic ischemic heart disease, and venous disease.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although no novel PN-specific treatment rationale can be derived from the presented data, the potential risk of subsequent cardiovascular disease should be considered in the care of patients with PN, which includes screening and optimal management of other additional cardiovascular risk factors,” the authors wrote.

LIMITATIONS:

Retrospective observational design introduced inherent biases. Misdiagnosis or false coding in electronic health records could affect the data accuracy and ethnicity-specific analyses.

SOURCE:

This work, led by Henning Olbrich, from the Department of Dermatology, University of Lübeck, Germany, was published online in eBioMedicine.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the University of Lübeck, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, and the State of Schleswig-Holstein. One author declared financial ties outside this work, and one author is an employee of TriNetX.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A large international cohort study identified a higher risk for cardiovascular diseases and mortality in patients with prurigo nodularis (PN), particularly among women and White patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies have shown increased risks for cardiovascular diseases in patients with PN, but limited sample sizes have hindered further subgroup analysis. Given PN’s pronounced sex and ethnicity skew, it is important to examine underrepresented groups to accurately assess their cardiovascular risk.
• In this propensity-score matched analysis, researchers identified 64,801 patients (59.44% women) with PN using electronic health reports from the Global Collaborative Network of TriNetX and matched to individuals without PN.
• Researchers calculated risks for 15 cardiovascular endpoints and all-cause mortality within 10 years of diagnosis. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) included acute cerebral and myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, ventricular arrhythmia, and sudden cardiac death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with PN showed a higher risk for death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.1243) and MACE (HR, 1.117) (P < .0001 for both).
• PN was also associated with a higher risk for heart failure (HR, 1.062), thrombotic venous disease (HR, 1.26), angina pectoris (HR, 1.096), and peripheral arterial diseases (HR, 1.082) (P < .0001 for all) and for acute MI (HR, 1.11; P = .0015) and valve disorders (HR, 1.08; P = .0018).
• White patients with PN had a significantly increased risk for MACE, death, heart failure, cardiac arrest, vascular diseases, and acute MI, but this was not observed in people of color.
• Women exhibited a higher risk for MACE, heart failure, peripheral artery disease, acute MI, conduction disease, and valve disorders, while men did not have an increased risk for major or acute cardiovascular events. Both men and women had a higher risk for death, chronic ischemic heart disease, and venous disease.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although no novel PN-specific treatment rationale can be derived from the presented data, the potential risk of subsequent cardiovascular disease should be considered in the care of patients with PN, which includes screening and optimal management of other additional cardiovascular risk factors,” the authors wrote.

LIMITATIONS:

Retrospective observational design introduced inherent biases. Misdiagnosis or false coding in electronic health records could affect the data accuracy and ethnicity-specific analyses.

SOURCE:

This work, led by Henning Olbrich, from the Department of Dermatology, University of Lübeck, Germany, was published online in eBioMedicine.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the University of Lübeck, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, and the State of Schleswig-Holstein. One author declared financial ties outside this work, and one author is an employee of TriNetX.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A large international cohort study identified a higher risk for cardiovascular diseases and mortality in patients with prurigo nodularis (PN), particularly among women and White patients.

METHODOLOGY:

• Studies have shown increased risks for cardiovascular diseases in patients with PN, but limited sample sizes have hindered further subgroup analysis. Given PN’s pronounced sex and ethnicity skew, it is important to examine underrepresented groups to accurately assess their cardiovascular risk.
• In this propensity-score matched analysis, researchers identified 64,801 patients (59.44% women) with PN using electronic health reports from the Global Collaborative Network of TriNetX and matched to individuals without PN.
• Researchers calculated risks for 15 cardiovascular endpoints and all-cause mortality within 10 years of diagnosis. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) included acute cerebral and myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure, ventricular arrhythmia, and sudden cardiac death.

TAKEAWAY:

• Patients with PN showed a higher risk for death (hazard ratio [HR], 1.1243) and MACE (HR, 1.117) (P < .0001 for both).
• PN was also associated with a higher risk for heart failure (HR, 1.062), thrombotic venous disease (HR, 1.26), angina pectoris (HR, 1.096), and peripheral arterial diseases (HR, 1.082) (P < .0001 for all) and for acute MI (HR, 1.11; P = .0015) and valve disorders (HR, 1.08; P = .0018).
• White patients with PN had a significantly increased risk for MACE, death, heart failure, cardiac arrest, vascular diseases, and acute MI, but this was not observed in people of color.
• Women exhibited a higher risk for MACE, heart failure, peripheral artery disease, acute MI, conduction disease, and valve disorders, while men did not have an increased risk for major or acute cardiovascular events. Both men and women had a higher risk for death, chronic ischemic heart disease, and venous disease.

IN PRACTICE:

“Although no novel PN-specific treatment rationale can be derived from the presented data, the potential risk of subsequent cardiovascular disease should be considered in the care of patients with PN, which includes screening and optimal management of other additional cardiovascular risk factors,” the authors wrote.

LIMITATIONS:

Retrospective observational design introduced inherent biases. Misdiagnosis or false coding in electronic health records could affect the data accuracy and ethnicity-specific analyses.

SOURCE:

This work, led by Henning Olbrich, from the Department of Dermatology, University of Lübeck, Germany, was published online in eBioMedicine.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the University of Lübeck, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, and the State of Schleswig-Holstein. One author declared financial ties outside this work, and one author is an employee of TriNetX.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.

“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia. 

“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”

The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.

The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.

Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.

Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.

Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour. 

A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD. 

While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view. 

“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.

Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”  

The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.

“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire. 

Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”

Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”

“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC. 

The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.

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

As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.

“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia. 

“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”

The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.

The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.

Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.

Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.

Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour. 

A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD. 

While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view. 

“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.

Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”  

The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.

“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire. 

Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”

Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”

“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC. 

The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.

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

As three federal agencies investigate how private equity ownership and consolidation of healthcare organizations affects patient care and costs, physicians are giving them an earful.

“Before I retired, I could already see the damage private equity was doing to hospitals and medical practices. Well-regarded physician groups were being bought and the respected doctors and staff forced out to squeeze out profit for the buyers. Hospital-based physicians were being hit especially hard,” wrote Rhonda Wright, MD, of Brookhaven, Georgia. 

“Now, the rot is setting in for emergency rooms. One in four ERs is now (under-)staffed by private equity firms. This is leading to longer wait times, deterioration in patient care, and higher bills,” Dr. Wright continued. “Private equity takeover of medicine must be stopped. All such deals should be strictly regulated and should be heavily scrutinized, if not barred altogether. Our health depends upon it!”

The federal government is accepting public comments like Dr. Wright’s through June 5 and has even set up a website (healthycompetition.gov) to make it easier to file complaints against health organizations possibly violating antitrust laws.

The US Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Department of Health and Human Services want to hear from physicians and the public about how private equity firms’ investments in healthcare entities, such as hospitals, nursing homes, or specialty service providers, affect patients and healthcare workers. The investigation will also evaluate how market pricing, competition, and referral patterns change when practices and hospitals are acquired by health systems or insurers.

Maintaining competition in the provider and payer markets benefits healthcare workers through higher pay, while patients can access quality care at lower prices, the joint request for information said. However, consolidation and mergers — potentially driven by private equity’s entry into the market — can diminish these benefits.

Investigating private equity and consolidation in medicine is part of the Biden Administration’s focus on lowering medical and prescription drug costs and strengthening competition in healthcare. The FTC’s vote last week to ban noncompete agreements, which business groups have vowed to challenge in court, falls under the same initiative.

Alexandra Nicole Thran, MD, FACEP, president of the Vermont Chapter of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said that the private equity business model is problematic because it ties physicians’ wages to patient satisfaction and the number of patients they see per hour. 

A Connecticut primary care physician expressed similar sentiments. “Physicians are being forced into a system where corporations provide financial incentives and punitive policies to direct healthcare decisions towards a profitable aim,” said Eric Schwaber, MD. 

While a majority of comments criticized the role of private equity and consolidation, some reflected a more positive view. 

“Private equity helps make healthcare more efficient and effective. It brings needed operational and managerial expertise to allow for better patient care,” said Reenie Abraham, MD, an associate professor in the Department of Internal Medicine at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. The University of Texas is facing a lawsuit involving the liability status of its physicians who work for a private equity-backed hospital partly owned by the university.

Several public comments point to the increasing market influence UnitedHealth Group (UHG) and other payers have obtained through recent acquisitions. Retired emergency room physician Scott Davis, MD, said that the “astronomical” rate of burnout among providers has been exacerbated by “the economic takeover of the healthcare system by…United Healthcare [and] private equity groups who put profits over anything else.”  

The healthcare conglomerate employs approximately 10% of active US physicians, including many through its subsidiary, Optum Health, which provides primary, urgent, and surgical care. UHG has also invested heavily in acquiring physician practices to advance its value-based care model.

“If a publicly traded private insurance or private equity company is interested in their short-term quarterly profits or stock price, there is little interest in the…effective management of chronic disease, other than that which fulfills a ‘value-based’ metric,” wrote Kenneth Dolkart, MD, FACP, clinical assistant professor at the Dartmouth Geisel School of Medicine in Hanover, New Hampshire. 

Sarah Ealy, a revenue cycle professional, commented that payers like UHG have outsized bargaining power when negotiating rates with providers. “In many states, United Healthcare and its subsidiaries pay a lower reimbursement rate than state Medicaid plans — these rates are nearly 50% of the breakeven per-visit rate that practices need to keep the lights on.”

Another comment ties the recent cyberattack on UHG-owned Change Healthcare to private equity ownership and “healthcare behemoths buying up practices and data.”

“The ramrodding of consolidation and private oversight with little to no barriers to foreign intrusions…is a testament to how ill prepared [the] US market is to private equity healthcare takeovers,” said SW Dermatology Practice LLC. 

The agencies request comments from all health market participants, including physicians, nurses, employers, administrators, and patients.

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

BALTIMORE — Ice packs or topical anesthesia applied to the face before thermomechanical fractional injury therapy to treat wrinkles around the eyes provided satisfactory comfort to the patient during the procedure without sacrificing posttreatment outcomes, a small study of the recently cleared device found.

The study enrolled 12 patients who were undergoing treatment for periorbital rhytides, or wrinkles, around the eyes. Seven of them received topical anesthetic cream 20 minutes before the procedure, while five were given ice packs to self-apply for 5 minutes beforehand. Patients received four treatment sessions with a month between sessions and were then evaluated up to 3 months after their last session. Study results were presented at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

“Based on the approach that we had used, which was to keep the device parameters the same for those who received topical anesthetics and those who received ice, when we looked at the pain levels that the patients had relayed to us when we were doing the procedure, we found that both of them were almost exactly the same in terms of discomfort, a level of 3-4 out of 10, with 10 being the highest discomfort level,” lead investigator Jerome M. Garden, MD, said in an interview after the conference.

“In terms of patient satisfaction using a range of 0-5, again it was fairly equivalent” between the two groups, said Dr. Garden, professor of clinical dermatology and biomedical engineering at Northwestern University, Chicago. “And the overall satisfaction rate was high.”

Dr. Garden

Study Results

The results for the different anesthetic methods were almost identical. Those using ice reported a 0-10 average pain level of 3.95 ± 1.5, while those who received the topical anesthetic reported a pain level of 3.92 ± 1.5. In terms of self-graded improvement at 3-month follow-up, using a scale of 1-4, with 1 representing up to a 25% improvement and 4 a 75%-100% improvement, the patients using ice had a 2.6 ± 0.5 improvement and those using topical cream a 2.8 ± 0.5 improvement, Dr. Garden said during his presentation.

In terms of patient satisfaction, rated on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being very satisfied, the average grade was 3.9 ± 0.9, Dr. Garden added, with 70% rating ≥ 4.

“This is a relatively new device, which uses an approach to help texture changes in wrinkling on the skin in a different fashion than any of the other devices that are currently out there,” Dr. Garden told this news organization after the conference. “I wanted to understand more in depth the different parameters that may impact the outcome” with this device, he added.

The thermomechanical fractional injury device, originally cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2021, with a second-generation device cleared in June 2023, deposits heat into the skin, producing controlled thermal injury to promote collagen and elastin production. The device uses only heat, not a laser, which penetrates the skin. A heat sensation on the skin during the procedure can affect patients differently depending on their level of tolerance, Dr. Garden said during his presentation. 

Managing Patient Discomfort

Kachiu C. Lee, MD, MPH, of the Main Line Center for Laser Surgery in Ardmore, Pennsylvania, has used the device in her own practice and found that “it can definitely get a little bit uncomfortable for patients,” she said in an interview after the conference. 

“I would say that as the doctor, my number one priority is to always make sure my patients are comfortable, especially when treating a sensitive area like the eyes,” added Dr. Lee, who was not involved with the study. “I don’t want them to suddenly jump or move from the discomfort when I have a device right next to their eye. I think that the patient comfort is very important to make sure that we’re managing their discomfort so that the procedure is tolerable.”

Dr. Lee

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BALTIMORE — Ice packs or topical anesthesia applied to the face before thermomechanical fractional injury therapy to treat wrinkles around the eyes provided satisfactory comfort to the patient during the procedure without sacrificing posttreatment outcomes, a small study of the recently cleared device found.

The study enrolled 12 patients who were undergoing treatment for periorbital rhytides, or wrinkles, around the eyes. Seven of them received topical anesthetic cream 20 minutes before the procedure, while five were given ice packs to self-apply for 5 minutes beforehand. Patients received four treatment sessions with a month between sessions and were then evaluated up to 3 months after their last session. Study results were presented at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

“Based on the approach that we had used, which was to keep the device parameters the same for those who received topical anesthetics and those who received ice, when we looked at the pain levels that the patients had relayed to us when we were doing the procedure, we found that both of them were almost exactly the same in terms of discomfort, a level of 3-4 out of 10, with 10 being the highest discomfort level,” lead investigator Jerome M. Garden, MD, said in an interview after the conference.

“In terms of patient satisfaction using a range of 0-5, again it was fairly equivalent” between the two groups, said Dr. Garden, professor of clinical dermatology and biomedical engineering at Northwestern University, Chicago. “And the overall satisfaction rate was high.”

Dr. Garden

Study Results

The results for the different anesthetic methods were almost identical. Those using ice reported a 0-10 average pain level of 3.95 ± 1.5, while those who received the topical anesthetic reported a pain level of 3.92 ± 1.5. In terms of self-graded improvement at 3-month follow-up, using a scale of 1-4, with 1 representing up to a 25% improvement and 4 a 75%-100% improvement, the patients using ice had a 2.6 ± 0.5 improvement and those using topical cream a 2.8 ± 0.5 improvement, Dr. Garden said during his presentation.

In terms of patient satisfaction, rated on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being very satisfied, the average grade was 3.9 ± 0.9, Dr. Garden added, with 70% rating ≥ 4.

“This is a relatively new device, which uses an approach to help texture changes in wrinkling on the skin in a different fashion than any of the other devices that are currently out there,” Dr. Garden told this news organization after the conference. “I wanted to understand more in depth the different parameters that may impact the outcome” with this device, he added.

The thermomechanical fractional injury device, originally cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2021, with a second-generation device cleared in June 2023, deposits heat into the skin, producing controlled thermal injury to promote collagen and elastin production. The device uses only heat, not a laser, which penetrates the skin. A heat sensation on the skin during the procedure can affect patients differently depending on their level of tolerance, Dr. Garden said during his presentation. 

Managing Patient Discomfort

Kachiu C. Lee, MD, MPH, of the Main Line Center for Laser Surgery in Ardmore, Pennsylvania, has used the device in her own practice and found that “it can definitely get a little bit uncomfortable for patients,” she said in an interview after the conference. 

“I would say that as the doctor, my number one priority is to always make sure my patients are comfortable, especially when treating a sensitive area like the eyes,” added Dr. Lee, who was not involved with the study. “I don’t want them to suddenly jump or move from the discomfort when I have a device right next to their eye. I think that the patient comfort is very important to make sure that we’re managing their discomfort so that the procedure is tolerable.”

Dr. Lee

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

BALTIMORE — Ice packs or topical anesthesia applied to the face before thermomechanical fractional injury therapy to treat wrinkles around the eyes provided satisfactory comfort to the patient during the procedure without sacrificing posttreatment outcomes, a small study of the recently cleared device found.

The study enrolled 12 patients who were undergoing treatment for periorbital rhytides, or wrinkles, around the eyes. Seven of them received topical anesthetic cream 20 minutes before the procedure, while five were given ice packs to self-apply for 5 minutes beforehand. Patients received four treatment sessions with a month between sessions and were then evaluated up to 3 months after their last session. Study results were presented at the annual conference of the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

“Based on the approach that we had used, which was to keep the device parameters the same for those who received topical anesthetics and those who received ice, when we looked at the pain levels that the patients had relayed to us when we were doing the procedure, we found that both of them were almost exactly the same in terms of discomfort, a level of 3-4 out of 10, with 10 being the highest discomfort level,” lead investigator Jerome M. Garden, MD, said in an interview after the conference.

“In terms of patient satisfaction using a range of 0-5, again it was fairly equivalent” between the two groups, said Dr. Garden, professor of clinical dermatology and biomedical engineering at Northwestern University, Chicago. “And the overall satisfaction rate was high.”

Dr. Garden

Study Results

The results for the different anesthetic methods were almost identical. Those using ice reported a 0-10 average pain level of 3.95 ± 1.5, while those who received the topical anesthetic reported a pain level of 3.92 ± 1.5. In terms of self-graded improvement at 3-month follow-up, using a scale of 1-4, with 1 representing up to a 25% improvement and 4 a 75%-100% improvement, the patients using ice had a 2.6 ± 0.5 improvement and those using topical cream a 2.8 ± 0.5 improvement, Dr. Garden said during his presentation.

In terms of patient satisfaction, rated on a scale of 1-5, with 5 being very satisfied, the average grade was 3.9 ± 0.9, Dr. Garden added, with 70% rating ≥ 4.

“This is a relatively new device, which uses an approach to help texture changes in wrinkling on the skin in a different fashion than any of the other devices that are currently out there,” Dr. Garden told this news organization after the conference. “I wanted to understand more in depth the different parameters that may impact the outcome” with this device, he added.

The thermomechanical fractional injury device, originally cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2021, with a second-generation device cleared in June 2023, deposits heat into the skin, producing controlled thermal injury to promote collagen and elastin production. The device uses only heat, not a laser, which penetrates the skin. A heat sensation on the skin during the procedure can affect patients differently depending on their level of tolerance, Dr. Garden said during his presentation. 

Managing Patient Discomfort

Kachiu C. Lee, MD, MPH, of the Main Line Center for Laser Surgery in Ardmore, Pennsylvania, has used the device in her own practice and found that “it can definitely get a little bit uncomfortable for patients,” she said in an interview after the conference. 

“I would say that as the doctor, my number one priority is to always make sure my patients are comfortable, especially when treating a sensitive area like the eyes,” added Dr. Lee, who was not involved with the study. “I don’t want them to suddenly jump or move from the discomfort when I have a device right next to their eye. I think that the patient comfort is very important to make sure that we’re managing their discomfort so that the procedure is tolerable.”

Dr. Lee

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — In the clinical experience of Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, many pediatric dermatology encounters involve shared decision-making (SDM): a collaborative model in which physicians and patients work together to make health care decisions based on the best evidence and on the patient’s values, priorities, and preferences.

“SDM is a cornerstone of person-centered care,” Dr. Cordoro, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, said at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology meeting, held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “We do it all the time. It can be patient-led, clinician-led, or a patient/family dyad approach. If we do it well, it can improve outcomes. Patients report more satisfying interactions with their care team. It brings adolescent patients especially a sense of independence and they adapt faster to their illness.”

Dr. Cordoro

AHRQ’s Five-Step Approach

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality developed a five-step approach to SDM known as SHARE: Seek your patient’s participation; Help your patient explore and compare treatment options; Assess your patient’s values and preferences; Reach a decision with your patient, and Evaluate your patient’s decision. “We do this all the time in practice with adult patients, but may not label it as SDM,” said Dr. Cordoro, chief and fellowship director of pediatric dermatology at UCSF.

“Where it gets a little murkier is in pediatric decision-making, which is a complex type of surrogate decision-making.” In this situation the patient — a minor — does not have full autonomy. The challenge for caregivers is that giving or withholding permission for interventions is a difficult role. “Their job is to protect the patient’s well-being while empowering them toward independence,” she said. “It can be hard for caregivers to understand complex information.” The challenge for clinicians, she continued, is to know when to invite SDM. This requires relational and sharp communication skills. “We must consider our patient’s/family’s health literacy and be sure the information we share is understood,” she said. “What are the social and structural determinants of health that are going to influence decision-making? You want to move into a relationship like this with cultural humility so you can understand what their preferences are and how they’re seeing the problem. Because there’s no universal agreement on the age at which minors should be deemed decision-making competent in health care, the approach is nuanced and depends on each individual patient and family.”

Dr. Cordoro proposed the following four-step approach to SDM to use in pediatric dermatology:

Step 1: Share relevant information about the condition and treatment options in a clear and understandable manner. The average US resident is at the seventh-to eighth-grade level, “so we have to avoid medical jargon and use plain language,” Dr. Cordoro said. Then, use the teach-back approach to assess their understanding. “Ask, ‘What is your understanding of the most important points that we talked about?’ Or, ‘Please share with me what you heard so I’m sure we all understand the plan.’ Using these techniques will reduce the barriers to care such as health literacy.”

Step 2: Solicit and understand patient/patient family perspectives, preferences and priorities. The goal here is to uncover their beliefs, concerns, and assumptions that may influence their decisions. “Be mindful of power asymmetry,” she noted. “Many families still believe the doctor is the boss and they are there to be told what to do. Be clear that the patient has a say. Talk directly to the patient about their interests if developmentally appropriate.”

Step 3: Invite patients/family into a shared decision-making conversation. Consider statements like, “There are many reasonable options here. Let’s work together to come up with the decision that’s right for you.” Or, “Let’s start by exploring your specific goals and concerns. As you think about the options I just talked to you about, what’s important to you?” Or, “Do you want to think about this decision with anyone else?”

Step 4: Check back in frequently. Pause between significant points and check in. “See how they’re doing during the conversation,” she said. “At future appointments, remember to solicit their input on additional decisions.”

In Dr. Cordoro’s opinion, one potential pitfall of SDM is an over-reliance on patient decision aids. “Very few are available in dermatology,” she said. “Some are relevant but none specifically to pediatric dermatology. They are often complex and require a high reading comprehension level. This disadvantages patients and families with low health literacy. Keep it clear and simple. Your patients will appreciate it.”

Dr. Cordoro reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — In the clinical experience of Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, many pediatric dermatology encounters involve shared decision-making (SDM): a collaborative model in which physicians and patients work together to make health care decisions based on the best evidence and on the patient’s values, priorities, and preferences.

“SDM is a cornerstone of person-centered care,” Dr. Cordoro, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, said at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology meeting, held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “We do it all the time. It can be patient-led, clinician-led, or a patient/family dyad approach. If we do it well, it can improve outcomes. Patients report more satisfying interactions with their care team. It brings adolescent patients especially a sense of independence and they adapt faster to their illness.”

Dr. Cordoro

AHRQ’s Five-Step Approach

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality developed a five-step approach to SDM known as SHARE: Seek your patient’s participation; Help your patient explore and compare treatment options; Assess your patient’s values and preferences; Reach a decision with your patient, and Evaluate your patient’s decision. “We do this all the time in practice with adult patients, but may not label it as SDM,” said Dr. Cordoro, chief and fellowship director of pediatric dermatology at UCSF.

“Where it gets a little murkier is in pediatric decision-making, which is a complex type of surrogate decision-making.” In this situation the patient — a minor — does not have full autonomy. The challenge for caregivers is that giving or withholding permission for interventions is a difficult role. “Their job is to protect the patient’s well-being while empowering them toward independence,” she said. “It can be hard for caregivers to understand complex information.” The challenge for clinicians, she continued, is to know when to invite SDM. This requires relational and sharp communication skills. “We must consider our patient’s/family’s health literacy and be sure the information we share is understood,” she said. “What are the social and structural determinants of health that are going to influence decision-making? You want to move into a relationship like this with cultural humility so you can understand what their preferences are and how they’re seeing the problem. Because there’s no universal agreement on the age at which minors should be deemed decision-making competent in health care, the approach is nuanced and depends on each individual patient and family.”

Dr. Cordoro proposed the following four-step approach to SDM to use in pediatric dermatology:

Step 1: Share relevant information about the condition and treatment options in a clear and understandable manner. The average US resident is at the seventh-to eighth-grade level, “so we have to avoid medical jargon and use plain language,” Dr. Cordoro said. Then, use the teach-back approach to assess their understanding. “Ask, ‘What is your understanding of the most important points that we talked about?’ Or, ‘Please share with me what you heard so I’m sure we all understand the plan.’ Using these techniques will reduce the barriers to care such as health literacy.”

Step 2: Solicit and understand patient/patient family perspectives, preferences and priorities. The goal here is to uncover their beliefs, concerns, and assumptions that may influence their decisions. “Be mindful of power asymmetry,” she noted. “Many families still believe the doctor is the boss and they are there to be told what to do. Be clear that the patient has a say. Talk directly to the patient about their interests if developmentally appropriate.”

Step 3: Invite patients/family into a shared decision-making conversation. Consider statements like, “There are many reasonable options here. Let’s work together to come up with the decision that’s right for you.” Or, “Let’s start by exploring your specific goals and concerns. As you think about the options I just talked to you about, what’s important to you?” Or, “Do you want to think about this decision with anyone else?”

Step 4: Check back in frequently. Pause between significant points and check in. “See how they’re doing during the conversation,” she said. “At future appointments, remember to solicit their input on additional decisions.”

In Dr. Cordoro’s opinion, one potential pitfall of SDM is an over-reliance on patient decision aids. “Very few are available in dermatology,” she said. “Some are relevant but none specifically to pediatric dermatology. They are often complex and require a high reading comprehension level. This disadvantages patients and families with low health literacy. Keep it clear and simple. Your patients will appreciate it.”

Dr. Cordoro reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — In the clinical experience of Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, many pediatric dermatology encounters involve shared decision-making (SDM): a collaborative model in which physicians and patients work together to make health care decisions based on the best evidence and on the patient’s values, priorities, and preferences.

“SDM is a cornerstone of person-centered care,” Dr. Cordoro, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, said at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology meeting, held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “We do it all the time. It can be patient-led, clinician-led, or a patient/family dyad approach. If we do it well, it can improve outcomes. Patients report more satisfying interactions with their care team. It brings adolescent patients especially a sense of independence and they adapt faster to their illness.”

Dr. Cordoro

AHRQ’s Five-Step Approach

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality developed a five-step approach to SDM known as SHARE: Seek your patient’s participation; Help your patient explore and compare treatment options; Assess your patient’s values and preferences; Reach a decision with your patient, and Evaluate your patient’s decision. “We do this all the time in practice with adult patients, but may not label it as SDM,” said Dr. Cordoro, chief and fellowship director of pediatric dermatology at UCSF.

“Where it gets a little murkier is in pediatric decision-making, which is a complex type of surrogate decision-making.” In this situation the patient — a minor — does not have full autonomy. The challenge for caregivers is that giving or withholding permission for interventions is a difficult role. “Their job is to protect the patient’s well-being while empowering them toward independence,” she said. “It can be hard for caregivers to understand complex information.” The challenge for clinicians, she continued, is to know when to invite SDM. This requires relational and sharp communication skills. “We must consider our patient’s/family’s health literacy and be sure the information we share is understood,” she said. “What are the social and structural determinants of health that are going to influence decision-making? You want to move into a relationship like this with cultural humility so you can understand what their preferences are and how they’re seeing the problem. Because there’s no universal agreement on the age at which minors should be deemed decision-making competent in health care, the approach is nuanced and depends on each individual patient and family.”

Dr. Cordoro proposed the following four-step approach to SDM to use in pediatric dermatology:

Step 1: Share relevant information about the condition and treatment options in a clear and understandable manner. The average US resident is at the seventh-to eighth-grade level, “so we have to avoid medical jargon and use plain language,” Dr. Cordoro said. Then, use the teach-back approach to assess their understanding. “Ask, ‘What is your understanding of the most important points that we talked about?’ Or, ‘Please share with me what you heard so I’m sure we all understand the plan.’ Using these techniques will reduce the barriers to care such as health literacy.”

Step 2: Solicit and understand patient/patient family perspectives, preferences and priorities. The goal here is to uncover their beliefs, concerns, and assumptions that may influence their decisions. “Be mindful of power asymmetry,” she noted. “Many families still believe the doctor is the boss and they are there to be told what to do. Be clear that the patient has a say. Talk directly to the patient about their interests if developmentally appropriate.”

Step 3: Invite patients/family into a shared decision-making conversation. Consider statements like, “There are many reasonable options here. Let’s work together to come up with the decision that’s right for you.” Or, “Let’s start by exploring your specific goals and concerns. As you think about the options I just talked to you about, what’s important to you?” Or, “Do you want to think about this decision with anyone else?”

Step 4: Check back in frequently. Pause between significant points and check in. “See how they’re doing during the conversation,” she said. “At future appointments, remember to solicit their input on additional decisions.”

In Dr. Cordoro’s opinion, one potential pitfall of SDM is an over-reliance on patient decision aids. “Very few are available in dermatology,” she said. “Some are relevant but none specifically to pediatric dermatology. They are often complex and require a high reading comprehension level. This disadvantages patients and families with low health literacy. Keep it clear and simple. Your patients will appreciate it.”

Dr. Cordoro reported having no relevant disclosures.

TOPLINE:

Overall, patients with solid tumors who receive an investigational cancer drug experience small progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival benefits but much higher toxicity than those who receive a control intervention.

METHODOLOGY:

• The view that patients with cancer benefit from access to investigational drugs in the clinical trial setting is widely held but does necessarily align with trial findings, which often show limited evidence of a clinical benefit. First, most investigational treatments assessed in clinical trials fail to gain regulatory approval, and the minority that are approved tend to offer minimal clinical benefit, experts explained.
• To estimate the survival benefit and toxicities associated with receiving experimental treatments, researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 128 trials comprising 141 comparisons of an investigational drug and a control treatment, which included immunotherapies and targeted therapies.
• The analysis included 42 trials in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 37 in breast cancer, 15 in hepatobiliary cancer, 13 in pancreatic cancer, 12 in colorectal cancer, and 10 in prostate cancer, involving a total of 47,050 patients.
• The primary outcome was PFS and secondary outcomes were overall survival and grades 3-5 serious adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the experimental treatment was associated with a 20% improvement in PFS (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.80), corresponding to a median 1.25-month PFS advantage. The PFS benefit was seen across all cancer types, except pancreatic cancer.
• Overall survival improved by 8% with experimental agents (HR, 0.92), corresponding to 1.18 additional months. A significant overall survival benefit was seen across NSCLC, breast cancer, and hepatobiliary cancer trials but not pancreatic, prostate, colorectal cancer trials.
• Patients in the experimental intervention group, however, experienced much higher risk for grade 3-5 serious adverse events (risk ratio [RR], 1.27), corresponding to 7.40% increase in absolute risk. The greater risk for serious adverse events was significant for all indications except prostate cancer (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.91-1.40).

IN PRACTICE:

“We believe our findings are best interpreted as suggesting that access to experimental interventions that have not yet received full FDA approval is associated with a marginal but nonzero clinical benefit,” the authors wrote. 

“Although our findings seem to reflect poorly on trials as a vehicle for extending survival for participants, they have reassuring implications for clinical investigators, policymakers, and institutional review boards,” the researchers said, explaining that this “scenario allows clinical trials to continue to pursue promising new treatments — supporting incremental advances that sum to large gains over extended periods of research — without disadvantaging patients in comparator groups.”

SOURCE: 

Renata Iskander, MSc, of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, led this work, which was published online on April 29, 2024, in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

There was high heterogeneity across studies due to variations in drugs tested, comparators used, and populations involved. The use of comparators below standard care could have inflated survival benefits. Additionally, data collected from ClinicalTrials.gov might be biased due to some trials not being reported. 

DISCLOSURES:

Canadian Institutes of Health Research supported this work. The authors received grants for this work from McGill University, Rossy Cancer Network, and National Science Foundation. One author received consulting fees outside this work. The other authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Overall, patients with solid tumors who receive an investigational cancer drug experience small progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival benefits but much higher toxicity than those who receive a control intervention.

METHODOLOGY:

• The view that patients with cancer benefit from access to investigational drugs in the clinical trial setting is widely held but does necessarily align with trial findings, which often show limited evidence of a clinical benefit. First, most investigational treatments assessed in clinical trials fail to gain regulatory approval, and the minority that are approved tend to offer minimal clinical benefit, experts explained.
• To estimate the survival benefit and toxicities associated with receiving experimental treatments, researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 128 trials comprising 141 comparisons of an investigational drug and a control treatment, which included immunotherapies and targeted therapies.
• The analysis included 42 trials in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 37 in breast cancer, 15 in hepatobiliary cancer, 13 in pancreatic cancer, 12 in colorectal cancer, and 10 in prostate cancer, involving a total of 47,050 patients.
• The primary outcome was PFS and secondary outcomes were overall survival and grades 3-5 serious adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the experimental treatment was associated with a 20% improvement in PFS (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.80), corresponding to a median 1.25-month PFS advantage. The PFS benefit was seen across all cancer types, except pancreatic cancer.
• Overall survival improved by 8% with experimental agents (HR, 0.92), corresponding to 1.18 additional months. A significant overall survival benefit was seen across NSCLC, breast cancer, and hepatobiliary cancer trials but not pancreatic, prostate, colorectal cancer trials.
• Patients in the experimental intervention group, however, experienced much higher risk for grade 3-5 serious adverse events (risk ratio [RR], 1.27), corresponding to 7.40% increase in absolute risk. The greater risk for serious adverse events was significant for all indications except prostate cancer (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.91-1.40).

IN PRACTICE:

“We believe our findings are best interpreted as suggesting that access to experimental interventions that have not yet received full FDA approval is associated with a marginal but nonzero clinical benefit,” the authors wrote. 

“Although our findings seem to reflect poorly on trials as a vehicle for extending survival for participants, they have reassuring implications for clinical investigators, policymakers, and institutional review boards,” the researchers said, explaining that this “scenario allows clinical trials to continue to pursue promising new treatments — supporting incremental advances that sum to large gains over extended periods of research — without disadvantaging patients in comparator groups.”

SOURCE: 

Renata Iskander, MSc, of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, led this work, which was published online on April 29, 2024, in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

There was high heterogeneity across studies due to variations in drugs tested, comparators used, and populations involved. The use of comparators below standard care could have inflated survival benefits. Additionally, data collected from ClinicalTrials.gov might be biased due to some trials not being reported. 

DISCLOSURES:

Canadian Institutes of Health Research supported this work. The authors received grants for this work from McGill University, Rossy Cancer Network, and National Science Foundation. One author received consulting fees outside this work. The other authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Overall, patients with solid tumors who receive an investigational cancer drug experience small progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival benefits but much higher toxicity than those who receive a control intervention.

METHODOLOGY:

• The view that patients with cancer benefit from access to investigational drugs in the clinical trial setting is widely held but does necessarily align with trial findings, which often show limited evidence of a clinical benefit. First, most investigational treatments assessed in clinical trials fail to gain regulatory approval, and the minority that are approved tend to offer minimal clinical benefit, experts explained.
• To estimate the survival benefit and toxicities associated with receiving experimental treatments, researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 128 trials comprising 141 comparisons of an investigational drug and a control treatment, which included immunotherapies and targeted therapies.
• The analysis included 42 trials in non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 37 in breast cancer, 15 in hepatobiliary cancer, 13 in pancreatic cancer, 12 in colorectal cancer, and 10 in prostate cancer, involving a total of 47,050 patients.
• The primary outcome was PFS and secondary outcomes were overall survival and grades 3-5 serious adverse events.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, the experimental treatment was associated with a 20% improvement in PFS (pooled hazard ratio [HR], 0.80), corresponding to a median 1.25-month PFS advantage. The PFS benefit was seen across all cancer types, except pancreatic cancer.
• Overall survival improved by 8% with experimental agents (HR, 0.92), corresponding to 1.18 additional months. A significant overall survival benefit was seen across NSCLC, breast cancer, and hepatobiliary cancer trials but not pancreatic, prostate, colorectal cancer trials.
• Patients in the experimental intervention group, however, experienced much higher risk for grade 3-5 serious adverse events (risk ratio [RR], 1.27), corresponding to 7.40% increase in absolute risk. The greater risk for serious adverse events was significant for all indications except prostate cancer (RR, 1.13; 95% CI, 0.91-1.40).

IN PRACTICE:

“We believe our findings are best interpreted as suggesting that access to experimental interventions that have not yet received full FDA approval is associated with a marginal but nonzero clinical benefit,” the authors wrote. 

“Although our findings seem to reflect poorly on trials as a vehicle for extending survival for participants, they have reassuring implications for clinical investigators, policymakers, and institutional review boards,” the researchers said, explaining that this “scenario allows clinical trials to continue to pursue promising new treatments — supporting incremental advances that sum to large gains over extended periods of research — without disadvantaging patients in comparator groups.”

SOURCE: 

Renata Iskander, MSc, of McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, led this work, which was published online on April 29, 2024, in Annals of Internal Medicine.

LIMITATIONS:

There was high heterogeneity across studies due to variations in drugs tested, comparators used, and populations involved. The use of comparators below standard care could have inflated survival benefits. Additionally, data collected from ClinicalTrials.gov might be biased due to some trials not being reported. 

DISCLOSURES:

Canadian Institutes of Health Research supported this work. The authors received grants for this work from McGill University, Rossy Cancer Network, and National Science Foundation. One author received consulting fees outside this work. The other authors declared no competing interests.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Health-related social needs and medical financial hardship are associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, based on data from more than 10,000 individuals.

Little is known about the specific association between health-related social needs (HRSNs) and mortality risk even though HRSNs, defined as challenges in affording food, housing, and other necessities of daily living, are potential challenges for cancer survivors, wrote Zhiyuan Zheng, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, and colleagues.

A 2020 study by Dr. Zheng and colleagues published in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) showed that food insecurity and financial worries had a negative impact on cancer survivorship. In the new study, published in Cancer, the researchers identified cancer survivors using the 2013-2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the NHIS Mortality File through December 31, 2019. The researchers examined mortality using the data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Death Index (NDI) through December 31, 2019, which links to the National Health Interview Survey Data used in the study.

Individuals’ HRSNs were categorized into three groups: severe, moderate, and minor/none. HRSNs included food insecurity and nonmedical financial concerns, such as housing costs (rent, mortgage). Medical financial hardship included material, psychological, and behavioral domains and was divided into three groups: 2-3 domains, 1 domain, or 0 domains.
 

What Are the Potential Financial Implications of this Research?

The high costs of cancer care often cause medical financial hardships for cancer survivors, and expenses also may cause psychological distress and nonmedical financial hardship as survivors try to make ends meet while facing medical bills, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.

Policy makers are increasingly interested in adding HRSNs to insurance coverage; recent guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) allows individual states to apply to provide nutrition and housing supports through state Medicaid programs, according to authors of a 2023 article published in JAMA Health Forum.

The new study adds to the understanding of how HRSNs impact people with cancer by examining the association with mortality risk, Yelak Biru, MSc, president and chief executive officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, said in an interview.

“This is a key area of study for addressing the disparities in treatments and outcomes that result in inequities,” said Mr. Biru, a patient advocate and multiple myeloma survivor who was not involved in the study.
 

What Does the New Study Show?

The new study characterized HRSNs in 5,855 adult cancer survivors aged 18-64 years and 5,918 aged 65-79 years. In the 18- to 64-year-old group, 25.5% reported moderate levels of HRSNs, and 18.3% reported severe HRSNs. In patients aged 65-79 years, 15.6% and 6.6% reported moderate HRSNs and severe HRSNs, respectively.

Severe HRSN was significantly associated with higher mortality risk in an adjusted analysis in patients aged 18-64 years (hazard ratio 2.00, P < .001).

Among adults aged 65-79 years, severe HRSN was not associated with higher mortality risk; however, in this older age group, those with 2-3 domains of medical financial hardship had significantly increased mortality risk compared with adults aged 65-79 years with zero domains of medical financial hardship (HR 1.58, P = .007).

Although the findings that HRSNs were associated with increased mortality risk, especially in the younger group, were not surprising, they serve as a call to action to address how HRSNs are contributing to cancer mortality, Mr. Biru said in an interview. “HRSNs, like food or housing insecurity, can lead to patients being unable to undergo the best treatment approach for their cancer,” he said.
 

What Are the Limitations and Research Gaps?

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports to measure medical financial hardship, food insecurity, and nonmedical financial concerns in the NHIS, the researchers wrote in their discussion. More research with longer follow-up time beyond 1-5 years is needed, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.

Studies also are needed to illustrate how patient navigation can help prevent patients from falling through the cracks with regard to social needs and financial hardships, Mr. Biru told this news organization.

Other areas for research include how addressing social needs affects health outcomes and whether programs designed to address social needs are effective, he said.

“Finally, qualitative research is needed to capture the lived experiences of cancer survivors facing these challenges. This knowledge can inform the development of more patient-centered interventions and policies that effectively address the social determinants of health and improve overall outcomes for all cancer survivors,” Mr. Biru said.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinicians?

HRSNs and financial hardship are significantly associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, Dr. Zheng and colleagues concluded. Looking ahead, comprehensive assessment of HRSNs and financial hardship may help clinicians connect patients with relevant services to mitigate the social and financial impacts of cancer, they wrote.

“The takeaway message for oncologists in practice is that addressing [HRSNs] and financial hardship is crucial for providing comprehensive and equitable cancer care,” Mr. Biru said during his interview.

“The impact of social determinants of health on cancer outcomes cannot be ignored, and oncologists play a vital role in identifying and addressing these needs,” he said. Sensitive, discussion-based screenings are needed to identify core needs such as food and transportation, but clinicians also can consider broader social factors and work with a team to connect patients to appropriate resources, he added.

“By recognizing the importance of HRSN screening and taking proactive steps to address these needs, oncologists can contribute to improving health outcomes, reducing healthcare disparities, and providing more equitable cancer care for their patients,” he said.
 

What Other Guidance Is Available?

“High-quality cancer care requires treating the whole person; measuring and addressing anything in their life that could result in poorer health outcomes is a key component of comprehensive care,” Mr. Biru emphasized.

In September 2023, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) convened a working group cochaired by Mr. Biru that developed recommendations for how oncology practices should routinely measure HRSNs (NCCN.org/social-needs).

“The working group proposed that every cancer patient be assessed for food, transportation access, and financial and housing security at least once a year, and be reassessed at every care transition point as well,” Mr. Biru said. Such screenings should include follow-up to connect patients with services to address any HRSNs they are experiencing, he added.

Lead author Dr. Zheng is employed by the American Cancer Society, which as a nonprofit receives funds from the public through fundraising and contributions, as well as some support from corporations and industry to support its mission programs and services. Mr. Biru had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Health-related social needs and medical financial hardship are associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, based on data from more than 10,000 individuals.

Little is known about the specific association between health-related social needs (HRSNs) and mortality risk even though HRSNs, defined as challenges in affording food, housing, and other necessities of daily living, are potential challenges for cancer survivors, wrote Zhiyuan Zheng, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, and colleagues.

A 2020 study by Dr. Zheng and colleagues published in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) showed that food insecurity and financial worries had a negative impact on cancer survivorship. In the new study, published in Cancer, the researchers identified cancer survivors using the 2013-2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the NHIS Mortality File through December 31, 2019. The researchers examined mortality using the data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Death Index (NDI) through December 31, 2019, which links to the National Health Interview Survey Data used in the study.

Individuals’ HRSNs were categorized into three groups: severe, moderate, and minor/none. HRSNs included food insecurity and nonmedical financial concerns, such as housing costs (rent, mortgage). Medical financial hardship included material, psychological, and behavioral domains and was divided into three groups: 2-3 domains, 1 domain, or 0 domains.
 

What Are the Potential Financial Implications of this Research?

The high costs of cancer care often cause medical financial hardships for cancer survivors, and expenses also may cause psychological distress and nonmedical financial hardship as survivors try to make ends meet while facing medical bills, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.

Policy makers are increasingly interested in adding HRSNs to insurance coverage; recent guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) allows individual states to apply to provide nutrition and housing supports through state Medicaid programs, according to authors of a 2023 article published in JAMA Health Forum.

The new study adds to the understanding of how HRSNs impact people with cancer by examining the association with mortality risk, Yelak Biru, MSc, president and chief executive officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, said in an interview.

“This is a key area of study for addressing the disparities in treatments and outcomes that result in inequities,” said Mr. Biru, a patient advocate and multiple myeloma survivor who was not involved in the study.
 

What Does the New Study Show?

The new study characterized HRSNs in 5,855 adult cancer survivors aged 18-64 years and 5,918 aged 65-79 years. In the 18- to 64-year-old group, 25.5% reported moderate levels of HRSNs, and 18.3% reported severe HRSNs. In patients aged 65-79 years, 15.6% and 6.6% reported moderate HRSNs and severe HRSNs, respectively.

Severe HRSN was significantly associated with higher mortality risk in an adjusted analysis in patients aged 18-64 years (hazard ratio 2.00, P < .001).

Among adults aged 65-79 years, severe HRSN was not associated with higher mortality risk; however, in this older age group, those with 2-3 domains of medical financial hardship had significantly increased mortality risk compared with adults aged 65-79 years with zero domains of medical financial hardship (HR 1.58, P = .007).

Although the findings that HRSNs were associated with increased mortality risk, especially in the younger group, were not surprising, they serve as a call to action to address how HRSNs are contributing to cancer mortality, Mr. Biru said in an interview. “HRSNs, like food or housing insecurity, can lead to patients being unable to undergo the best treatment approach for their cancer,” he said.
 

What Are the Limitations and Research Gaps?

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports to measure medical financial hardship, food insecurity, and nonmedical financial concerns in the NHIS, the researchers wrote in their discussion. More research with longer follow-up time beyond 1-5 years is needed, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.

Studies also are needed to illustrate how patient navigation can help prevent patients from falling through the cracks with regard to social needs and financial hardships, Mr. Biru told this news organization.

Other areas for research include how addressing social needs affects health outcomes and whether programs designed to address social needs are effective, he said.

“Finally, qualitative research is needed to capture the lived experiences of cancer survivors facing these challenges. This knowledge can inform the development of more patient-centered interventions and policies that effectively address the social determinants of health and improve overall outcomes for all cancer survivors,” Mr. Biru said.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinicians?

HRSNs and financial hardship are significantly associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, Dr. Zheng and colleagues concluded. Looking ahead, comprehensive assessment of HRSNs and financial hardship may help clinicians connect patients with relevant services to mitigate the social and financial impacts of cancer, they wrote.

“The takeaway message for oncologists in practice is that addressing [HRSNs] and financial hardship is crucial for providing comprehensive and equitable cancer care,” Mr. Biru said during his interview.

“The impact of social determinants of health on cancer outcomes cannot be ignored, and oncologists play a vital role in identifying and addressing these needs,” he said. Sensitive, discussion-based screenings are needed to identify core needs such as food and transportation, but clinicians also can consider broader social factors and work with a team to connect patients to appropriate resources, he added.

“By recognizing the importance of HRSN screening and taking proactive steps to address these needs, oncologists can contribute to improving health outcomes, reducing healthcare disparities, and providing more equitable cancer care for their patients,” he said.
 

What Other Guidance Is Available?

“High-quality cancer care requires treating the whole person; measuring and addressing anything in their life that could result in poorer health outcomes is a key component of comprehensive care,” Mr. Biru emphasized.

In September 2023, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) convened a working group cochaired by Mr. Biru that developed recommendations for how oncology practices should routinely measure HRSNs (NCCN.org/social-needs).

“The working group proposed that every cancer patient be assessed for food, transportation access, and financial and housing security at least once a year, and be reassessed at every care transition point as well,” Mr. Biru said. Such screenings should include follow-up to connect patients with services to address any HRSNs they are experiencing, he added.

Lead author Dr. Zheng is employed by the American Cancer Society, which as a nonprofit receives funds from the public through fundraising and contributions, as well as some support from corporations and industry to support its mission programs and services. Mr. Biru had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Health-related social needs and medical financial hardship are associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, based on data from more than 10,000 individuals.

Little is known about the specific association between health-related social needs (HRSNs) and mortality risk even though HRSNs, defined as challenges in affording food, housing, and other necessities of daily living, are potential challenges for cancer survivors, wrote Zhiyuan Zheng, PhD, of the American Cancer Society, Atlanta, and colleagues.

A 2020 study by Dr. Zheng and colleagues published in the Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) showed that food insecurity and financial worries had a negative impact on cancer survivorship. In the new study, published in Cancer, the researchers identified cancer survivors using the 2013-2018 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS) and the NHIS Mortality File through December 31, 2019. The researchers examined mortality using the data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Death Index (NDI) through December 31, 2019, which links to the National Health Interview Survey Data used in the study.

Individuals’ HRSNs were categorized into three groups: severe, moderate, and minor/none. HRSNs included food insecurity and nonmedical financial concerns, such as housing costs (rent, mortgage). Medical financial hardship included material, psychological, and behavioral domains and was divided into three groups: 2-3 domains, 1 domain, or 0 domains.
 

What Are the Potential Financial Implications of this Research?

The high costs of cancer care often cause medical financial hardships for cancer survivors, and expenses also may cause psychological distress and nonmedical financial hardship as survivors try to make ends meet while facing medical bills, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.

Policy makers are increasingly interested in adding HRSNs to insurance coverage; recent guidance from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) allows individual states to apply to provide nutrition and housing supports through state Medicaid programs, according to authors of a 2023 article published in JAMA Health Forum.

The new study adds to the understanding of how HRSNs impact people with cancer by examining the association with mortality risk, Yelak Biru, MSc, president and chief executive officer of the International Myeloma Foundation, said in an interview.

“This is a key area of study for addressing the disparities in treatments and outcomes that result in inequities,” said Mr. Biru, a patient advocate and multiple myeloma survivor who was not involved in the study.
 

What Does the New Study Show?

The new study characterized HRSNs in 5,855 adult cancer survivors aged 18-64 years and 5,918 aged 65-79 years. In the 18- to 64-year-old group, 25.5% reported moderate levels of HRSNs, and 18.3% reported severe HRSNs. In patients aged 65-79 years, 15.6% and 6.6% reported moderate HRSNs and severe HRSNs, respectively.

Severe HRSN was significantly associated with higher mortality risk in an adjusted analysis in patients aged 18-64 years (hazard ratio 2.00, P < .001).

Among adults aged 65-79 years, severe HRSN was not associated with higher mortality risk; however, in this older age group, those with 2-3 domains of medical financial hardship had significantly increased mortality risk compared with adults aged 65-79 years with zero domains of medical financial hardship (HR 1.58, P = .007).

Although the findings that HRSNs were associated with increased mortality risk, especially in the younger group, were not surprising, they serve as a call to action to address how HRSNs are contributing to cancer mortality, Mr. Biru said in an interview. “HRSNs, like food or housing insecurity, can lead to patients being unable to undergo the best treatment approach for their cancer,” he said.
 

What Are the Limitations and Research Gaps?

The study findings were limited by several factors including the use of self-reports to measure medical financial hardship, food insecurity, and nonmedical financial concerns in the NHIS, the researchers wrote in their discussion. More research with longer follow-up time beyond 1-5 years is needed, wrote Dr. Zheng and colleagues.

Studies also are needed to illustrate how patient navigation can help prevent patients from falling through the cracks with regard to social needs and financial hardships, Mr. Biru told this news organization.

Other areas for research include how addressing social needs affects health outcomes and whether programs designed to address social needs are effective, he said.

“Finally, qualitative research is needed to capture the lived experiences of cancer survivors facing these challenges. This knowledge can inform the development of more patient-centered interventions and policies that effectively address the social determinants of health and improve overall outcomes for all cancer survivors,” Mr. Biru said.
 

What Is the Takeaway Message for Clinicians?

HRSNs and financial hardship are significantly associated with increased risk of mortality in adult cancer survivors, Dr. Zheng and colleagues concluded. Looking ahead, comprehensive assessment of HRSNs and financial hardship may help clinicians connect patients with relevant services to mitigate the social and financial impacts of cancer, they wrote.

“The takeaway message for oncologists in practice is that addressing [HRSNs] and financial hardship is crucial for providing comprehensive and equitable cancer care,” Mr. Biru said during his interview.

“The impact of social determinants of health on cancer outcomes cannot be ignored, and oncologists play a vital role in identifying and addressing these needs,” he said. Sensitive, discussion-based screenings are needed to identify core needs such as food and transportation, but clinicians also can consider broader social factors and work with a team to connect patients to appropriate resources, he added.

“By recognizing the importance of HRSN screening and taking proactive steps to address these needs, oncologists can contribute to improving health outcomes, reducing healthcare disparities, and providing more equitable cancer care for their patients,” he said.
 

What Other Guidance Is Available?

“High-quality cancer care requires treating the whole person; measuring and addressing anything in their life that could result in poorer health outcomes is a key component of comprehensive care,” Mr. Biru emphasized.

In September 2023, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) convened a working group cochaired by Mr. Biru that developed recommendations for how oncology practices should routinely measure HRSNs (NCCN.org/social-needs).

“The working group proposed that every cancer patient be assessed for food, transportation access, and financial and housing security at least once a year, and be reassessed at every care transition point as well,” Mr. Biru said. Such screenings should include follow-up to connect patients with services to address any HRSNs they are experiencing, he added.

Lead author Dr. Zheng is employed by the American Cancer Society, which as a nonprofit receives funds from the public through fundraising and contributions, as well as some support from corporations and industry to support its mission programs and services. Mr. Biru had no financial conflicts to disclose.

At least three clients of an unlicensed spa in New Mexico contracted HIV after receiving platelet-rich plasma (PRP) microneedling facials, according to an investigation by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The investigation, spanning 5 years with parts of it still ongoing, has resulted in the closure of the spa and is raising questions about public safety in cosmetic clinics.

Though transmission of HIV by unsterile injection practices is a known risk, this is the first time it has been linked to cosmetic injection services, said Anna Stadelman-Behar, PhD, MPH, of the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service.

Sometimes called a vampire facial, the PRP treatment involves taking a patient’s own blood and separating it in a centrifuge. The portion containing a high concentration of platelets is then reinjected with a syringe or microneedling device.

“The idea is that when you inject this concentrated amount of platelets, the growth factors that the platelets release help to stimulate the regenerative nature of that area,” said Anthony Rossi, MD, professor of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, and attending dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

The infections under investigation first came to light when a woman was diagnosed with HIV with no known risk factors for the disease other than exposure to microneedling facials at a cosmetic spa.

The New Mexico Department of Health and the CDC launched an investigation of the spa and discovered a litany of “gross violations of infection control practices,” said Dr. Stadelman-Behar.
 

Infection-Control Violations

At the spa in New Mexico, investigators found:

• On a kitchen counter, a centrifuge, a heating dry bath, and a rack of unlabeled tubes containing blood
• In a refrigerator, unlabeled tubes of blood and medical injectables including botox and lidocaine stored along with food
• Unwrapped syringes in drawers, on counters, and discarded in regular trash cans
• No autoclave for steam sterilization on the premises
• Only surface cleaning for procedure equipment with ammonium chloride disinfecting spray and benzalkonium chloride disinfecting wipes after each client visit
• Disposable electric desiccator tips cleaned only by alcohol immersion to be reused

The spa’s owner operated without appropriate licenses at multiple locations and did not have an appointment scheduling system that stored client contact information.

Investigators contacted as many people as they could find and launched a large-scale community outreach effort to find more. 

In total, four clients and one intimate partner of a client were diagnosed with HIV during the investigation, but one client and her partner were determined to likely have been infected before the spa visit.

It is not clear whether the infections were due to unlabeled contaminated blood products being given to the wrong client or contamination on shared needles. Investigators did not have the authority to collect specimens during their site visit that would have allowed them to study that.

“We can’t definitively say what the route of contamination was,” noted Dr. Stadelman-Behar.

Anne Chapas, MD, a board-certified dermatologist, and instructor at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, added that just because a procedure is cosmetic, that doesn’t mean it is not medical. “Personally, I feel it should only be done by medical practitioners who understand the risks.”
 

A Medical Procedure

PRP microneedling has been used extensively in orthopedic surgery to promote joint regeneration. For the past 10 years, it has also been used in dermatology to treat hair loss from alopecia, to augment wound healing, and cosmetically to reduce facial wrinkles.

It is generally done in a doctor’s office or medical spa, and the procedure takes about half an hour.

Dr. Stadelman-Behar said that this ongoing investigation highlights the importance of front-line healthcare workers using their clinical expertise to help identify potential new routes of transmission for infections. “It was provider-led intuition that sparked this investigation, so it’s important to let the department of health know if there is something amiss with any of the exposures that the patient might have had,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At least three clients of an unlicensed spa in New Mexico contracted HIV after receiving platelet-rich plasma (PRP) microneedling facials, according to an investigation by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The investigation, spanning 5 years with parts of it still ongoing, has resulted in the closure of the spa and is raising questions about public safety in cosmetic clinics.

Though transmission of HIV by unsterile injection practices is a known risk, this is the first time it has been linked to cosmetic injection services, said Anna Stadelman-Behar, PhD, MPH, of the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service.

Sometimes called a vampire facial, the PRP treatment involves taking a patient’s own blood and separating it in a centrifuge. The portion containing a high concentration of platelets is then reinjected with a syringe or microneedling device.

“The idea is that when you inject this concentrated amount of platelets, the growth factors that the platelets release help to stimulate the regenerative nature of that area,” said Anthony Rossi, MD, professor of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, and attending dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

The infections under investigation first came to light when a woman was diagnosed with HIV with no known risk factors for the disease other than exposure to microneedling facials at a cosmetic spa.

The New Mexico Department of Health and the CDC launched an investigation of the spa and discovered a litany of “gross violations of infection control practices,” said Dr. Stadelman-Behar.
 

Infection-Control Violations

At the spa in New Mexico, investigators found:

• On a kitchen counter, a centrifuge, a heating dry bath, and a rack of unlabeled tubes containing blood
• In a refrigerator, unlabeled tubes of blood and medical injectables including botox and lidocaine stored along with food
• Unwrapped syringes in drawers, on counters, and discarded in regular trash cans
• No autoclave for steam sterilization on the premises
• Only surface cleaning for procedure equipment with ammonium chloride disinfecting spray and benzalkonium chloride disinfecting wipes after each client visit
• Disposable electric desiccator tips cleaned only by alcohol immersion to be reused

The spa’s owner operated without appropriate licenses at multiple locations and did not have an appointment scheduling system that stored client contact information.

Investigators contacted as many people as they could find and launched a large-scale community outreach effort to find more. 

In total, four clients and one intimate partner of a client were diagnosed with HIV during the investigation, but one client and her partner were determined to likely have been infected before the spa visit.

It is not clear whether the infections were due to unlabeled contaminated blood products being given to the wrong client or contamination on shared needles. Investigators did not have the authority to collect specimens during their site visit that would have allowed them to study that.

“We can’t definitively say what the route of contamination was,” noted Dr. Stadelman-Behar.

Anne Chapas, MD, a board-certified dermatologist, and instructor at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, added that just because a procedure is cosmetic, that doesn’t mean it is not medical. “Personally, I feel it should only be done by medical practitioners who understand the risks.”
 

A Medical Procedure

PRP microneedling has been used extensively in orthopedic surgery to promote joint regeneration. For the past 10 years, it has also been used in dermatology to treat hair loss from alopecia, to augment wound healing, and cosmetically to reduce facial wrinkles.

It is generally done in a doctor’s office or medical spa, and the procedure takes about half an hour.

Dr. Stadelman-Behar said that this ongoing investigation highlights the importance of front-line healthcare workers using their clinical expertise to help identify potential new routes of transmission for infections. “It was provider-led intuition that sparked this investigation, so it’s important to let the department of health know if there is something amiss with any of the exposures that the patient might have had,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

At least three clients of an unlicensed spa in New Mexico contracted HIV after receiving platelet-rich plasma (PRP) microneedling facials, according to an investigation by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The investigation, spanning 5 years with parts of it still ongoing, has resulted in the closure of the spa and is raising questions about public safety in cosmetic clinics.

Though transmission of HIV by unsterile injection practices is a known risk, this is the first time it has been linked to cosmetic injection services, said Anna Stadelman-Behar, PhD, MPH, of the CDC’s Epidemic Intelligence Service.

Sometimes called a vampire facial, the PRP treatment involves taking a patient’s own blood and separating it in a centrifuge. The portion containing a high concentration of platelets is then reinjected with a syringe or microneedling device.

“The idea is that when you inject this concentrated amount of platelets, the growth factors that the platelets release help to stimulate the regenerative nature of that area,” said Anthony Rossi, MD, professor of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical College in New York, and attending dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center.

The infections under investigation first came to light when a woman was diagnosed with HIV with no known risk factors for the disease other than exposure to microneedling facials at a cosmetic spa.

The New Mexico Department of Health and the CDC launched an investigation of the spa and discovered a litany of “gross violations of infection control practices,” said Dr. Stadelman-Behar.
 

Infection-Control Violations

At the spa in New Mexico, investigators found:

• On a kitchen counter, a centrifuge, a heating dry bath, and a rack of unlabeled tubes containing blood
• In a refrigerator, unlabeled tubes of blood and medical injectables including botox and lidocaine stored along with food
• Unwrapped syringes in drawers, on counters, and discarded in regular trash cans
• No autoclave for steam sterilization on the premises
• Only surface cleaning for procedure equipment with ammonium chloride disinfecting spray and benzalkonium chloride disinfecting wipes after each client visit
• Disposable electric desiccator tips cleaned only by alcohol immersion to be reused

The spa’s owner operated without appropriate licenses at multiple locations and did not have an appointment scheduling system that stored client contact information.

Investigators contacted as many people as they could find and launched a large-scale community outreach effort to find more. 

In total, four clients and one intimate partner of a client were diagnosed with HIV during the investigation, but one client and her partner were determined to likely have been infected before the spa visit.

It is not clear whether the infections were due to unlabeled contaminated blood products being given to the wrong client or contamination on shared needles. Investigators did not have the authority to collect specimens during their site visit that would have allowed them to study that.

“We can’t definitively say what the route of contamination was,” noted Dr. Stadelman-Behar.

Anne Chapas, MD, a board-certified dermatologist, and instructor at Mount Sinai Hospital in New York, added that just because a procedure is cosmetic, that doesn’t mean it is not medical. “Personally, I feel it should only be done by medical practitioners who understand the risks.”
 

A Medical Procedure

PRP microneedling has been used extensively in orthopedic surgery to promote joint regeneration. For the past 10 years, it has also been used in dermatology to treat hair loss from alopecia, to augment wound healing, and cosmetically to reduce facial wrinkles.

It is generally done in a doctor’s office or medical spa, and the procedure takes about half an hour.

Dr. Stadelman-Behar said that this ongoing investigation highlights the importance of front-line healthcare workers using their clinical expertise to help identify potential new routes of transmission for infections. “It was provider-led intuition that sparked this investigation, so it’s important to let the department of health know if there is something amiss with any of the exposures that the patient might have had,” she said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What’s most important to patients with terminal cancer and their caregivers?

New research found that patients and caregivers both tend to prioritize symptom control over life extension but often preferring a balance. Patients and caregivers, however, are less aligned on decisions about cost containment, with patients more likely to prioritize cost containment.

“Our research has revealed that patients and caregivers generally share similar end-of-life goals,” with a “notable exception” when it comes to costs, first author Semra Ozdemir, PhD, with the Lien Centre for Palliative Care, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, told this news organization.

However, when patients and caregivers have a better understanding of the patient’s prognosis, both may be more inclined to avoid costly life-extending treatments and prioritize symptom management.

In other words, the survey suggests that “knowing the prognosis helps patients and their families set realistic expectations for care and adequately prepare for end-of-life decisions,” said Dr. Ozdemir.

This study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Patients with advanced cancer often face difficult decisions: Do they opt for treatments that may — or may not — extend life or do they focus more on symptom control?

Family caregivers, who also play an important role in this decision-making process, may have different care goals. Some research suggests that caregivers tend to prioritize treatments that could extend life, whereas patients prioritize symptom management, but it’s less clear how these priorities may change over time and how patients and caregivers may influence each other.

In the current study, the researchers examined goals of care among patients with stage IV solid tumors and caregivers during the last 2 years of life, focusing on life extension vs symptom management and cost containment, as well as how these goals changed over time.

The survey included 210 patient-caregiver pairs, recruited from outpatient clinics at two major cancer centers in Singapore. Patients had a mean age of 63 years, and about half were men. The caregivers had a mean age of 49 years, and almost two third (63%) were women.

Overall, 34% patients and 29% caregivers prioritized symptom management over life extension, whereas 24% patients and 19% caregivers prioritized life extension. Most patients and caregivers preferred balancing the two, with 34%-47% patients and 37%-69% caregivers supporting this approach.

When balancing cost and treatment decisions, however, patients were more likely to prioritize containing costs — 28% vs 17% for caregivers — over extending life — 26% of patients vs 35% of caregivers.

Cost containment tended to be more of a priority for older patients, those with a higher symptom burden, and those with less family caregiver support. For caregivers, cost containment was more of a priority for those who reported that caregiving had a big impact on their finances, those with worse self-esteem related to their caregiving abilities, as well as those caring for older patients.

To better align cost containment priorities between patients and caregivers, it’s essential for families to engage in open and thorough discussions about the allocation of resources, Dr. Ozdemir said.

Although “patients, families, and physicians often avoid discussions about prognosis,” such conversations are essential for setting realistic expectations for care and adequately preparing for end-of-life decisions, Dr. Ozdemir told this news organization.

“These conversations should aim to balance competing interests and create care plans that are mutually acceptable to both patients and caregivers,” she said, adding that “this approach will help in minimizing any potential conflicts and ensure that both parties feel respected and understood in their decision-making process.”

Managing Unrealistic Expectations

As patients approached the end of life, neither patients nor caregivers shifted their priorities from life extension to symptom management.

This finding raises concerns because it suggests that many patients hold unrealistic expectations regarding their care and “underscores the need for continuous dialogue and reassessment of care goals throughout the progression of illness,” Dr. Ozdemir said.

“This stability in preferences over time suggests that initial care decisions are deeply ingrained or that there may be a lack of ongoing communication about evolving care needs and possibilities as conditions change,” Ozdemir said.

Yet, it can be hard to define what unrealistic expectations mean, said Olivia Seecof, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“I think people are hopeful that a devastating diagnosis won’t lead to the end of their life and that there will be a treatment or something that will change [their prognosis], and they’ll get better,” said Dr. Seecof, palliative care expert with the Supportive Oncology Program at NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York City.

Giving patients and caregivers a realistic understanding of the prognosis is important, but “there’s more to it than just telling the patient their diagnosis,” she said.

“We have to plan for end of life, what it can look like,” said Dr. Seecof, adding that “often we don’t do a very good job of talking about that early on in an illness course.”

Overall, though, Dr. Seecof stressed that no two patients or situations are the same, and it’s important to understand what’s important in each scenario. End-of-life care requires “an individual approach because every patient is different, even if they have the same diagnosis as someone else,” she said.

This work was supported by funding from the Singapore Millennium Foundation and the Lien Centre for Palliative Care. Dr. Ozdemir and Dr. Seecof had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What’s most important to patients with terminal cancer and their caregivers?

New research found that patients and caregivers both tend to prioritize symptom control over life extension but often preferring a balance. Patients and caregivers, however, are less aligned on decisions about cost containment, with patients more likely to prioritize cost containment.

“Our research has revealed that patients and caregivers generally share similar end-of-life goals,” with a “notable exception” when it comes to costs, first author Semra Ozdemir, PhD, with the Lien Centre for Palliative Care, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, told this news organization.

However, when patients and caregivers have a better understanding of the patient’s prognosis, both may be more inclined to avoid costly life-extending treatments and prioritize symptom management.

In other words, the survey suggests that “knowing the prognosis helps patients and their families set realistic expectations for care and adequately prepare for end-of-life decisions,” said Dr. Ozdemir.

This study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Patients with advanced cancer often face difficult decisions: Do they opt for treatments that may — or may not — extend life or do they focus more on symptom control?

Family caregivers, who also play an important role in this decision-making process, may have different care goals. Some research suggests that caregivers tend to prioritize treatments that could extend life, whereas patients prioritize symptom management, but it’s less clear how these priorities may change over time and how patients and caregivers may influence each other.

In the current study, the researchers examined goals of care among patients with stage IV solid tumors and caregivers during the last 2 years of life, focusing on life extension vs symptom management and cost containment, as well as how these goals changed over time.

The survey included 210 patient-caregiver pairs, recruited from outpatient clinics at two major cancer centers in Singapore. Patients had a mean age of 63 years, and about half were men. The caregivers had a mean age of 49 years, and almost two third (63%) were women.

Overall, 34% patients and 29% caregivers prioritized symptom management over life extension, whereas 24% patients and 19% caregivers prioritized life extension. Most patients and caregivers preferred balancing the two, with 34%-47% patients and 37%-69% caregivers supporting this approach.

When balancing cost and treatment decisions, however, patients were more likely to prioritize containing costs — 28% vs 17% for caregivers — over extending life — 26% of patients vs 35% of caregivers.

Cost containment tended to be more of a priority for older patients, those with a higher symptom burden, and those with less family caregiver support. For caregivers, cost containment was more of a priority for those who reported that caregiving had a big impact on their finances, those with worse self-esteem related to their caregiving abilities, as well as those caring for older patients.

To better align cost containment priorities between patients and caregivers, it’s essential for families to engage in open and thorough discussions about the allocation of resources, Dr. Ozdemir said.

Although “patients, families, and physicians often avoid discussions about prognosis,” such conversations are essential for setting realistic expectations for care and adequately preparing for end-of-life decisions, Dr. Ozdemir told this news organization.

“These conversations should aim to balance competing interests and create care plans that are mutually acceptable to both patients and caregivers,” she said, adding that “this approach will help in minimizing any potential conflicts and ensure that both parties feel respected and understood in their decision-making process.”

Managing Unrealistic Expectations

As patients approached the end of life, neither patients nor caregivers shifted their priorities from life extension to symptom management.

This finding raises concerns because it suggests that many patients hold unrealistic expectations regarding their care and “underscores the need for continuous dialogue and reassessment of care goals throughout the progression of illness,” Dr. Ozdemir said.

“This stability in preferences over time suggests that initial care decisions are deeply ingrained or that there may be a lack of ongoing communication about evolving care needs and possibilities as conditions change,” Ozdemir said.

Yet, it can be hard to define what unrealistic expectations mean, said Olivia Seecof, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“I think people are hopeful that a devastating diagnosis won’t lead to the end of their life and that there will be a treatment or something that will change [their prognosis], and they’ll get better,” said Dr. Seecof, palliative care expert with the Supportive Oncology Program at NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York City.

Giving patients and caregivers a realistic understanding of the prognosis is important, but “there’s more to it than just telling the patient their diagnosis,” she said.

“We have to plan for end of life, what it can look like,” said Dr. Seecof, adding that “often we don’t do a very good job of talking about that early on in an illness course.”

Overall, though, Dr. Seecof stressed that no two patients or situations are the same, and it’s important to understand what’s important in each scenario. End-of-life care requires “an individual approach because every patient is different, even if they have the same diagnosis as someone else,” she said.

This work was supported by funding from the Singapore Millennium Foundation and the Lien Centre for Palliative Care. Dr. Ozdemir and Dr. Seecof had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

What’s most important to patients with terminal cancer and their caregivers?

New research found that patients and caregivers both tend to prioritize symptom control over life extension but often preferring a balance. Patients and caregivers, however, are less aligned on decisions about cost containment, with patients more likely to prioritize cost containment.

“Our research has revealed that patients and caregivers generally share similar end-of-life goals,” with a “notable exception” when it comes to costs, first author Semra Ozdemir, PhD, with the Lien Centre for Palliative Care, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, told this news organization.

However, when patients and caregivers have a better understanding of the patient’s prognosis, both may be more inclined to avoid costly life-extending treatments and prioritize symptom management.

In other words, the survey suggests that “knowing the prognosis helps patients and their families set realistic expectations for care and adequately prepare for end-of-life decisions,” said Dr. Ozdemir.

This study was published online in JAMA Network Open.

Patients with advanced cancer often face difficult decisions: Do they opt for treatments that may — or may not — extend life or do they focus more on symptom control?

Family caregivers, who also play an important role in this decision-making process, may have different care goals. Some research suggests that caregivers tend to prioritize treatments that could extend life, whereas patients prioritize symptom management, but it’s less clear how these priorities may change over time and how patients and caregivers may influence each other.

In the current study, the researchers examined goals of care among patients with stage IV solid tumors and caregivers during the last 2 years of life, focusing on life extension vs symptom management and cost containment, as well as how these goals changed over time.

The survey included 210 patient-caregiver pairs, recruited from outpatient clinics at two major cancer centers in Singapore. Patients had a mean age of 63 years, and about half were men. The caregivers had a mean age of 49 years, and almost two third (63%) were women.

Overall, 34% patients and 29% caregivers prioritized symptom management over life extension, whereas 24% patients and 19% caregivers prioritized life extension. Most patients and caregivers preferred balancing the two, with 34%-47% patients and 37%-69% caregivers supporting this approach.

When balancing cost and treatment decisions, however, patients were more likely to prioritize containing costs — 28% vs 17% for caregivers — over extending life — 26% of patients vs 35% of caregivers.

Cost containment tended to be more of a priority for older patients, those with a higher symptom burden, and those with less family caregiver support. For caregivers, cost containment was more of a priority for those who reported that caregiving had a big impact on their finances, those with worse self-esteem related to their caregiving abilities, as well as those caring for older patients.

To better align cost containment priorities between patients and caregivers, it’s essential for families to engage in open and thorough discussions about the allocation of resources, Dr. Ozdemir said.

Although “patients, families, and physicians often avoid discussions about prognosis,” such conversations are essential for setting realistic expectations for care and adequately preparing for end-of-life decisions, Dr. Ozdemir told this news organization.

“These conversations should aim to balance competing interests and create care plans that are mutually acceptable to both patients and caregivers,” she said, adding that “this approach will help in minimizing any potential conflicts and ensure that both parties feel respected and understood in their decision-making process.”

Managing Unrealistic Expectations

As patients approached the end of life, neither patients nor caregivers shifted their priorities from life extension to symptom management.

This finding raises concerns because it suggests that many patients hold unrealistic expectations regarding their care and “underscores the need for continuous dialogue and reassessment of care goals throughout the progression of illness,” Dr. Ozdemir said.

“This stability in preferences over time suggests that initial care decisions are deeply ingrained or that there may be a lack of ongoing communication about evolving care needs and possibilities as conditions change,” Ozdemir said.

Yet, it can be hard to define what unrealistic expectations mean, said Olivia Seecof, MD, who wasn’t involved in the study.

“I think people are hopeful that a devastating diagnosis won’t lead to the end of their life and that there will be a treatment or something that will change [their prognosis], and they’ll get better,” said Dr. Seecof, palliative care expert with the Supportive Oncology Program at NYU Langone Health’s Perlmutter Cancer Center in New York City.

Giving patients and caregivers a realistic understanding of the prognosis is important, but “there’s more to it than just telling the patient their diagnosis,” she said.

“We have to plan for end of life, what it can look like,” said Dr. Seecof, adding that “often we don’t do a very good job of talking about that early on in an illness course.”

Overall, though, Dr. Seecof stressed that no two patients or situations are the same, and it’s important to understand what’s important in each scenario. End-of-life care requires “an individual approach because every patient is different, even if they have the same diagnosis as someone else,” she said.

This work was supported by funding from the Singapore Millennium Foundation and the Lien Centre for Palliative Care. Dr. Ozdemir and Dr. Seecof had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is moving forward with plans to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), the US Department of Justice officials announced this week. 

First reported by the Associated Press and since confirmed by this news organization through a US Department of Justice spokesperson, the news made international headlines. Despite the media splash, the final rule is still months away.

How did we get here? What happens next? What impact might rescheduling have on clinicians, patients, researchers, and the medical cannabis industry? 

Why Reschedule? Why Now? 

The DEA’s decision is based on a 2023 determination from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that marijuana has a legitimate medical use and should be moved to Schedule III. 

DEA defines Schedule I drugs as those with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. That class includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Schedule III drugs have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence and have a currently accepted medical use. This class includes ketamine, acetaminophen with codeine, and buprenorphine. 

Even though the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana has long violated federal law, 38 states and Washington, DC, have legalized medical cannabis, and 24 states and DC have legalized its recreational use.

Congress has allowed states leeway for the distribution and use of medical marijuana, and current and previous presidential administrations have chosen not to aggressively pursue prosecution of state-allowed marijuana use, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports. 

Pressure to address the conflict between federal and state laws and an increasing interest in drug development of cannabis and cannabis-derived products probably contributed to the DEA’s decision, said Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor, and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University in Indianapolis, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

“The trend toward legalization is everywhere and even though nationally the feds in this instance are lagging the states, the pressure to legalize has been intense for 50 years and it’s not surprising that the DEA is finally following that lead,” Dr. Strakowski told this news organization. 

How Does Rescheduling Work? What’s the Timeline?

The DEA will submit a formal rule proposing that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The timing of the submission is unclear. 

Once the proposed rule is posted to the Federal Register, there will be a public comment period, which usually lasts 30-60 days.

“This will likely generate a lot of public comment,” Robert Mikos, JD, LaRoche Family Chair in Law at Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee, told this news organization. “Then the agency has to go back and wade through those comments and decide if they want to proceed with the rule as proposed or modify it.”

A final rule will probably be posted before the end of the current presidential term in January, Mr. Mikos said. While a lawsuit blocking its implementation is possible, there is a “low chance that a court would block this,” he added.

How Will Rescheduling Affect Medical Marijuana?

For medical marijuana, changing the drug to a Schedule III means that it can legally be prescribed but only in states that have legalized medical cannabis, Mr. Mikos said. 

“If you’re a patient in a state with a medical marijuana law and your physician gives you a prescription for medical marijuana and you possess it, you will no longer be guilty of a federal crime,” he said.

Rescheduling could also benefit patients who receive care through the Veterans Administration (VA), Mr. Mikos said. For several years, the VA has had a policy that blocked clinicians from prescribing medical marijuana because as a Schedule I drug, it was determined to have no accepted medical use. 

“It’s possible the VA may drop that policy once the drug gets rescheduled. If you’re in a medical marijuana state, if you’re a VA patient, and you don’t want to spend the extra money to go outside that system, this will have meaningful impact on their lives,” Mr. Mikos said.

But what about patients living in states that have not legalized medical cannabis? 

“You still wouldn’t be committing a federal crime, but you could be violating state law,” Mr. Mikos said. “That’s a much more salient consideration because if you look at who goes after individuals who possess small amounts of drugs, the state handles 99% of those cases.” 

The manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana would remain illegal under federal law.

What Does It Mean for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries?

Though rescheduling makes it legal for clinicians to prescribe medical marijuana and for patients to use it, the actual sale of the drug will remain illegal under federal law because rescheduling only changes prescribing under the CSA, Mr. Mikos said.

“If you’re a dispensary and you sell it, even if it’s to somebody who’s got a prescription, you’re still probably violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Rescheduling doesn’t change that,” he said. 

“Even assuming the DEA follows through with this and it doesn’t come undone at some future date, the industry is still going struggle to comply with the Controlled Substances Act post rescheduling because that statute is going to continue to impose a number of regulations on the industry,” Mr. Mikos added.

However, rescheduling would change the tax status of the estimated 12,000-15,000 state-licensed cannabis dispensaries in the United States, allowing access to certain tax deductions that are unavailable to sales involving Schedule I controlled substances, James Daily, JD, MS, with Center for Empirical Research in the Law at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, told this news organization.

“Many cannabis businesses do in fact pay federal taxes, but the inability to take any federal tax credits or deductions means that their effective tax rate is much higher than it would otherwise be,” Mr. Daily said. 

Although new federal tax deductions would likely available to cannabis businesses if marijuana were rescheduled to Schedule III, “their business would still be in violation of federal law,” he said. 

“This creates a further tension between state and federal law, which could be resolved by further legalization or it could be resolved by extending the prohibition on tax deductions to include cannabis and not just Schedule I and II drugs,” he added.

Will Rescheduling Make It Easier to Conduct Cannabis-Related Research? 

Research on medical cannabis has been stymied by FDA and DEA regulations regarding the study of Schedule I controlled substances. Although rescheduling could lift that barrier, other challenges would remain.

“Schedule III drugs can be more easily researched, but it’s unclear if, for example, a clinical trial could lawfully obtain the cannabis from a dispensary or if they would still have to go through the one legal federal supplier of cannabis,” Daily said. 

The FDA reports having received more than 800 investigational new drug applications for and pre-investigational new drug applications related to cannabis and cannabis-derived products since the 1970s, the agency reports. To date, the FDA has not approved any marketing drug applications for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. 

In January 2023, the agency published updated guidelines for researchers and sponsors interested in developing drugs containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. 

It’s unclear whether those guidelines would be updated if the rescheduling moves forward. 

Does Rescheduling Marijuana Pose Any Risk? 

In its report to the DEA that marijuana be rescheduled, the FDA was careful to note that the agency’s recommendation is “not meant to imply that safety and effectiveness have been established for marijuana that would support FDA approval of a marijuana drug product for a particular indication.”

That’s a notation that clinicians and patients should take to heart, Dr. Strakowski said. 

“It’s important to remind people that Schedule III drugs, by definition, have addiction and other side effect risks,” he said. “The celebrity marketing that sits behind a lot of this is incompletely informed. It’s portrayed as fun and harmless in almost every movie and conversation you see, and we know that’s not true.”

Previous studies have linked cannabis to increased risk for mania, anxiety disorders, and schizophrenia. 

“It is increasingly clear that marijuana use is linked to poor outcomes in people who struggle with mental illness,” Dr. Strakowski said. “We have no evidence that it can help you but there is evidence that it can harm you.”

Dr. Strakowski likens cannabis use to alcohol, which is a known depressant that is associated with worse outcomes in people with mental illness. 

“I think with cannabis, we don’t know enough about it yet, but we do know that it does have some anxiety risks,” he said. “The risks in people with mental illness are simply different than in people who don’t have mental illness.”

Dr. Strakowski, Mr. Mikos, and Mr. Daily report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is moving forward with plans to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), the US Department of Justice officials announced this week. 

First reported by the Associated Press and since confirmed by this news organization through a US Department of Justice spokesperson, the news made international headlines. Despite the media splash, the final rule is still months away.

How did we get here? What happens next? What impact might rescheduling have on clinicians, patients, researchers, and the medical cannabis industry? 

Why Reschedule? Why Now? 

The DEA’s decision is based on a 2023 determination from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that marijuana has a legitimate medical use and should be moved to Schedule III. 

DEA defines Schedule I drugs as those with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. That class includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Schedule III drugs have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence and have a currently accepted medical use. This class includes ketamine, acetaminophen with codeine, and buprenorphine. 

Even though the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana has long violated federal law, 38 states and Washington, DC, have legalized medical cannabis, and 24 states and DC have legalized its recreational use.

Congress has allowed states leeway for the distribution and use of medical marijuana, and current and previous presidential administrations have chosen not to aggressively pursue prosecution of state-allowed marijuana use, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports. 

Pressure to address the conflict between federal and state laws and an increasing interest in drug development of cannabis and cannabis-derived products probably contributed to the DEA’s decision, said Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor, and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University in Indianapolis, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

“The trend toward legalization is everywhere and even though nationally the feds in this instance are lagging the states, the pressure to legalize has been intense for 50 years and it’s not surprising that the DEA is finally following that lead,” Dr. Strakowski told this news organization. 

How Does Rescheduling Work? What’s the Timeline?

The DEA will submit a formal rule proposing that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The timing of the submission is unclear. 

Once the proposed rule is posted to the Federal Register, there will be a public comment period, which usually lasts 30-60 days.

“This will likely generate a lot of public comment,” Robert Mikos, JD, LaRoche Family Chair in Law at Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee, told this news organization. “Then the agency has to go back and wade through those comments and decide if they want to proceed with the rule as proposed or modify it.”

A final rule will probably be posted before the end of the current presidential term in January, Mr. Mikos said. While a lawsuit blocking its implementation is possible, there is a “low chance that a court would block this,” he added.

How Will Rescheduling Affect Medical Marijuana?

For medical marijuana, changing the drug to a Schedule III means that it can legally be prescribed but only in states that have legalized medical cannabis, Mr. Mikos said. 

“If you’re a patient in a state with a medical marijuana law and your physician gives you a prescription for medical marijuana and you possess it, you will no longer be guilty of a federal crime,” he said.

Rescheduling could also benefit patients who receive care through the Veterans Administration (VA), Mr. Mikos said. For several years, the VA has had a policy that blocked clinicians from prescribing medical marijuana because as a Schedule I drug, it was determined to have no accepted medical use. 

“It’s possible the VA may drop that policy once the drug gets rescheduled. If you’re in a medical marijuana state, if you’re a VA patient, and you don’t want to spend the extra money to go outside that system, this will have meaningful impact on their lives,” Mr. Mikos said.

But what about patients living in states that have not legalized medical cannabis? 

“You still wouldn’t be committing a federal crime, but you could be violating state law,” Mr. Mikos said. “That’s a much more salient consideration because if you look at who goes after individuals who possess small amounts of drugs, the state handles 99% of those cases.” 

The manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana would remain illegal under federal law.

What Does It Mean for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries?

Though rescheduling makes it legal for clinicians to prescribe medical marijuana and for patients to use it, the actual sale of the drug will remain illegal under federal law because rescheduling only changes prescribing under the CSA, Mr. Mikos said.

“If you’re a dispensary and you sell it, even if it’s to somebody who’s got a prescription, you’re still probably violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Rescheduling doesn’t change that,” he said. 

“Even assuming the DEA follows through with this and it doesn’t come undone at some future date, the industry is still going struggle to comply with the Controlled Substances Act post rescheduling because that statute is going to continue to impose a number of regulations on the industry,” Mr. Mikos added.

However, rescheduling would change the tax status of the estimated 12,000-15,000 state-licensed cannabis dispensaries in the United States, allowing access to certain tax deductions that are unavailable to sales involving Schedule I controlled substances, James Daily, JD, MS, with Center for Empirical Research in the Law at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, told this news organization.

“Many cannabis businesses do in fact pay federal taxes, but the inability to take any federal tax credits or deductions means that their effective tax rate is much higher than it would otherwise be,” Mr. Daily said. 

Although new federal tax deductions would likely available to cannabis businesses if marijuana were rescheduled to Schedule III, “their business would still be in violation of federal law,” he said. 

“This creates a further tension between state and federal law, which could be resolved by further legalization or it could be resolved by extending the prohibition on tax deductions to include cannabis and not just Schedule I and II drugs,” he added.

Will Rescheduling Make It Easier to Conduct Cannabis-Related Research? 

Research on medical cannabis has been stymied by FDA and DEA regulations regarding the study of Schedule I controlled substances. Although rescheduling could lift that barrier, other challenges would remain.

“Schedule III drugs can be more easily researched, but it’s unclear if, for example, a clinical trial could lawfully obtain the cannabis from a dispensary or if they would still have to go through the one legal federal supplier of cannabis,” Daily said. 

The FDA reports having received more than 800 investigational new drug applications for and pre-investigational new drug applications related to cannabis and cannabis-derived products since the 1970s, the agency reports. To date, the FDA has not approved any marketing drug applications for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. 

In January 2023, the agency published updated guidelines for researchers and sponsors interested in developing drugs containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. 

It’s unclear whether those guidelines would be updated if the rescheduling moves forward. 

Does Rescheduling Marijuana Pose Any Risk? 

In its report to the DEA that marijuana be rescheduled, the FDA was careful to note that the agency’s recommendation is “not meant to imply that safety and effectiveness have been established for marijuana that would support FDA approval of a marijuana drug product for a particular indication.”

That’s a notation that clinicians and patients should take to heart, Dr. Strakowski said. 

“It’s important to remind people that Schedule III drugs, by definition, have addiction and other side effect risks,” he said. “The celebrity marketing that sits behind a lot of this is incompletely informed. It’s portrayed as fun and harmless in almost every movie and conversation you see, and we know that’s not true.”

Previous studies have linked cannabis to increased risk for mania, anxiety disorders, and schizophrenia. 

“It is increasingly clear that marijuana use is linked to poor outcomes in people who struggle with mental illness,” Dr. Strakowski said. “We have no evidence that it can help you but there is evidence that it can harm you.”

Dr. Strakowski likens cannabis use to alcohol, which is a known depressant that is associated with worse outcomes in people with mental illness. 

“I think with cannabis, we don’t know enough about it yet, but we do know that it does have some anxiety risks,” he said. “The risks in people with mental illness are simply different than in people who don’t have mental illness.”

Dr. Strakowski, Mr. Mikos, and Mr. Daily report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) is moving forward with plans to move marijuana from a Schedule I to a Schedule III controlled substance under the Controlled Substance Act (CSA), the US Department of Justice officials announced this week. 

First reported by the Associated Press and since confirmed by this news organization through a US Department of Justice spokesperson, the news made international headlines. Despite the media splash, the final rule is still months away.

How did we get here? What happens next? What impact might rescheduling have on clinicians, patients, researchers, and the medical cannabis industry? 

Why Reschedule? Why Now? 

The DEA’s decision is based on a 2023 determination from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that marijuana has a legitimate medical use and should be moved to Schedule III. 

DEA defines Schedule I drugs as those with no currently accepted medical use and a high potential for abuse. That class includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy. Schedule III drugs have a moderate to low potential for physical and psychological dependence and have a currently accepted medical use. This class includes ketamine, acetaminophen with codeine, and buprenorphine. 

Even though the manufacturing, distribution, sale, and use of marijuana has long violated federal law, 38 states and Washington, DC, have legalized medical cannabis, and 24 states and DC have legalized its recreational use.

Congress has allowed states leeway for the distribution and use of medical marijuana, and current and previous presidential administrations have chosen not to aggressively pursue prosecution of state-allowed marijuana use, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports. 

Pressure to address the conflict between federal and state laws and an increasing interest in drug development of cannabis and cannabis-derived products probably contributed to the DEA’s decision, said Stephen Strakowski, MD, professor, and vice chair of psychiatry at Indiana University in Indianapolis, and professor and associate vice president at University of Texas in Austin.

“The trend toward legalization is everywhere and even though nationally the feds in this instance are lagging the states, the pressure to legalize has been intense for 50 years and it’s not surprising that the DEA is finally following that lead,” Dr. Strakowski told this news organization. 

How Does Rescheduling Work? What’s the Timeline?

The DEA will submit a formal rule proposing that marijuana be moved from Schedule I to Schedule III to the White House Office of Management and Budget. The timing of the submission is unclear. 

Once the proposed rule is posted to the Federal Register, there will be a public comment period, which usually lasts 30-60 days.

“This will likely generate a lot of public comment,” Robert Mikos, JD, LaRoche Family Chair in Law at Vanderbilt University Law School in Nashville, Tennessee, told this news organization. “Then the agency has to go back and wade through those comments and decide if they want to proceed with the rule as proposed or modify it.”

A final rule will probably be posted before the end of the current presidential term in January, Mr. Mikos said. While a lawsuit blocking its implementation is possible, there is a “low chance that a court would block this,” he added.

How Will Rescheduling Affect Medical Marijuana?

For medical marijuana, changing the drug to a Schedule III means that it can legally be prescribed but only in states that have legalized medical cannabis, Mr. Mikos said. 

“If you’re a patient in a state with a medical marijuana law and your physician gives you a prescription for medical marijuana and you possess it, you will no longer be guilty of a federal crime,” he said.

Rescheduling could also benefit patients who receive care through the Veterans Administration (VA), Mr. Mikos said. For several years, the VA has had a policy that blocked clinicians from prescribing medical marijuana because as a Schedule I drug, it was determined to have no accepted medical use. 

“It’s possible the VA may drop that policy once the drug gets rescheduled. If you’re in a medical marijuana state, if you’re a VA patient, and you don’t want to spend the extra money to go outside that system, this will have meaningful impact on their lives,” Mr. Mikos said.

But what about patients living in states that have not legalized medical cannabis? 

“You still wouldn’t be committing a federal crime, but you could be violating state law,” Mr. Mikos said. “That’s a much more salient consideration because if you look at who goes after individuals who possess small amounts of drugs, the state handles 99% of those cases.” 

The manufacture, distribution, and possession of recreational marijuana would remain illegal under federal law.

What Does It Mean for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries?

Though rescheduling makes it legal for clinicians to prescribe medical marijuana and for patients to use it, the actual sale of the drug will remain illegal under federal law because rescheduling only changes prescribing under the CSA, Mr. Mikos said.

“If you’re a dispensary and you sell it, even if it’s to somebody who’s got a prescription, you’re still probably violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act. Rescheduling doesn’t change that,” he said. 

“Even assuming the DEA follows through with this and it doesn’t come undone at some future date, the industry is still going struggle to comply with the Controlled Substances Act post rescheduling because that statute is going to continue to impose a number of regulations on the industry,” Mr. Mikos added.

However, rescheduling would change the tax status of the estimated 12,000-15,000 state-licensed cannabis dispensaries in the United States, allowing access to certain tax deductions that are unavailable to sales involving Schedule I controlled substances, James Daily, JD, MS, with Center for Empirical Research in the Law at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, told this news organization.

“Many cannabis businesses do in fact pay federal taxes, but the inability to take any federal tax credits or deductions means that their effective tax rate is much higher than it would otherwise be,” Mr. Daily said. 

Although new federal tax deductions would likely available to cannabis businesses if marijuana were rescheduled to Schedule III, “their business would still be in violation of federal law,” he said. 

“This creates a further tension between state and federal law, which could be resolved by further legalization or it could be resolved by extending the prohibition on tax deductions to include cannabis and not just Schedule I and II drugs,” he added.

Will Rescheduling Make It Easier to Conduct Cannabis-Related Research? 

Research on medical cannabis has been stymied by FDA and DEA regulations regarding the study of Schedule I controlled substances. Although rescheduling could lift that barrier, other challenges would remain.

“Schedule III drugs can be more easily researched, but it’s unclear if, for example, a clinical trial could lawfully obtain the cannabis from a dispensary or if they would still have to go through the one legal federal supplier of cannabis,” Daily said. 

The FDA reports having received more than 800 investigational new drug applications for and pre-investigational new drug applications related to cannabis and cannabis-derived products since the 1970s, the agency reports. To date, the FDA has not approved any marketing drug applications for cannabis for the treatment of any disease or condition. 

In January 2023, the agency published updated guidelines for researchers and sponsors interested in developing drugs containing cannabis or cannabis-derived compounds. 

It’s unclear whether those guidelines would be updated if the rescheduling moves forward. 

Does Rescheduling Marijuana Pose Any Risk? 

In its report to the DEA that marijuana be rescheduled, the FDA was careful to note that the agency’s recommendation is “not meant to imply that safety and effectiveness have been established for marijuana that would support FDA approval of a marijuana drug product for a particular indication.”

That’s a notation that clinicians and patients should take to heart, Dr. Strakowski said. 

“It’s important to remind people that Schedule III drugs, by definition, have addiction and other side effect risks,” he said. “The celebrity marketing that sits behind a lot of this is incompletely informed. It’s portrayed as fun and harmless in almost every movie and conversation you see, and we know that’s not true.”

Previous studies have linked cannabis to increased risk for mania, anxiety disorders, and schizophrenia. 

“It is increasingly clear that marijuana use is linked to poor outcomes in people who struggle with mental illness,” Dr. Strakowski said. “We have no evidence that it can help you but there is evidence that it can harm you.”

Dr. Strakowski likens cannabis use to alcohol, which is a known depressant that is associated with worse outcomes in people with mental illness. 

“I think with cannabis, we don’t know enough about it yet, but we do know that it does have some anxiety risks,” he said. “The risks in people with mental illness are simply different than in people who don’t have mental illness.”

Dr. Strakowski, Mr. Mikos, and Mr. Daily report no relevant disclosures. 
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Differences in prodromal or early symptoms of mpox between White non-Hispanic patients and patients of color suggest healthcare disparities in vulnerable populations.

METHODOLOGY:

• There is limited information on the populations disproportionately affected by the recent global mpox outbreak, particularly in individuals with HIV and racial and ethnic minorities.
• To investigate morphologic and clinical presentations of mpox in diverse populations, researchers conducted a review of the records of 54 individuals (mean age, 42.4 years) diagnosed with mpox at a San Francisco clinic for patients with HIV or at high risk for HIV, between June and October 2022.
• All patients were assigned male at birth, and three identified themselves as transgender women.
• Morphologic descriptions were documented through either photographic evidence or physical examination notes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Pustules or pseudopustules were the most common morphologic finding in 57.1% of the White non-Hispanic patients and 62.5% of the patients of color (P = .72).
• White non-Hispanic patients were more likely to have no prodromal symptoms (50.0% vs 17.5%; P = .02) and were more likely to have genital lesions (78.6% vs 40.0%; P = .01) than patients of color. These differences were significant or nearly significant when White non-Hispanic patients were compared with Hispanic patients but not in other ethnic or racial groups.
• There were no differences in HIV viral loads or CD4 counts between racial and ethnic groups, and no variations in clinical presentations were observed based on CD4 counts.
• Patients with higher HIV viral loads were more likely to have concurrent sexually transmitted infections (57.1% vs 25%; P = .03).
• Symptoms resolved in all patients, regardless of medical intervention, within weeks of initial presentation, and there were no hospitalizations or deaths.

IN PRACTICE:

Considering that HIV viral burden was not significantly different between White non-Hispanic patients and patients of color, the difference in presentation of the prodrome “may indicate disparities in vulnerable populations,” the authors wrote, noting that more research in large groups is needed to confirm their results.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Richard W. Kim, BS, from the University of California San Francisco, was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Inclusion of “other” racial category in the records highlighted potential inaccuracies in data representation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no external funding. The authors did not declare any competing interests.

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

TOPLINE:

Differences in prodromal or early symptoms of mpox between White non-Hispanic patients and patients of color suggest healthcare disparities in vulnerable populations.

METHODOLOGY:

• There is limited information on the populations disproportionately affected by the recent global mpox outbreak, particularly in individuals with HIV and racial and ethnic minorities.
• To investigate morphologic and clinical presentations of mpox in diverse populations, researchers conducted a review of the records of 54 individuals (mean age, 42.4 years) diagnosed with mpox at a San Francisco clinic for patients with HIV or at high risk for HIV, between June and October 2022.
• All patients were assigned male at birth, and three identified themselves as transgender women.
• Morphologic descriptions were documented through either photographic evidence or physical examination notes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Pustules or pseudopustules were the most common morphologic finding in 57.1% of the White non-Hispanic patients and 62.5% of the patients of color (P = .72).
• White non-Hispanic patients were more likely to have no prodromal symptoms (50.0% vs 17.5%; P = .02) and were more likely to have genital lesions (78.6% vs 40.0%; P = .01) than patients of color. These differences were significant or nearly significant when White non-Hispanic patients were compared with Hispanic patients but not in other ethnic or racial groups.
• There were no differences in HIV viral loads or CD4 counts between racial and ethnic groups, and no variations in clinical presentations were observed based on CD4 counts.
• Patients with higher HIV viral loads were more likely to have concurrent sexually transmitted infections (57.1% vs 25%; P = .03).
• Symptoms resolved in all patients, regardless of medical intervention, within weeks of initial presentation, and there were no hospitalizations or deaths.

IN PRACTICE:

Considering that HIV viral burden was not significantly different between White non-Hispanic patients and patients of color, the difference in presentation of the prodrome “may indicate disparities in vulnerable populations,” the authors wrote, noting that more research in large groups is needed to confirm their results.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Richard W. Kim, BS, from the University of California San Francisco, was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Inclusion of “other” racial category in the records highlighted potential inaccuracies in data representation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no external funding. The authors did not declare any competing interests.

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

TOPLINE:

Differences in prodromal or early symptoms of mpox between White non-Hispanic patients and patients of color suggest healthcare disparities in vulnerable populations.

METHODOLOGY:

• There is limited information on the populations disproportionately affected by the recent global mpox outbreak, particularly in individuals with HIV and racial and ethnic minorities.
• To investigate morphologic and clinical presentations of mpox in diverse populations, researchers conducted a review of the records of 54 individuals (mean age, 42.4 years) diagnosed with mpox at a San Francisco clinic for patients with HIV or at high risk for HIV, between June and October 2022.
• All patients were assigned male at birth, and three identified themselves as transgender women.
• Morphologic descriptions were documented through either photographic evidence or physical examination notes.

TAKEAWAY:

• Pustules or pseudopustules were the most common morphologic finding in 57.1% of the White non-Hispanic patients and 62.5% of the patients of color (P = .72).
• White non-Hispanic patients were more likely to have no prodromal symptoms (50.0% vs 17.5%; P = .02) and were more likely to have genital lesions (78.6% vs 40.0%; P = .01) than patients of color. These differences were significant or nearly significant when White non-Hispanic patients were compared with Hispanic patients but not in other ethnic or racial groups.
• There were no differences in HIV viral loads or CD4 counts between racial and ethnic groups, and no variations in clinical presentations were observed based on CD4 counts.
• Patients with higher HIV viral loads were more likely to have concurrent sexually transmitted infections (57.1% vs 25%; P = .03).
• Symptoms resolved in all patients, regardless of medical intervention, within weeks of initial presentation, and there were no hospitalizations or deaths.

IN PRACTICE:

Considering that HIV viral burden was not significantly different between White non-Hispanic patients and patients of color, the difference in presentation of the prodrome “may indicate disparities in vulnerable populations,” the authors wrote, noting that more research in large groups is needed to confirm their results.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Richard W. Kim, BS, from the University of California San Francisco, was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Inclusion of “other” racial category in the records highlighted potential inaccuracies in data representation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study received no external funding. The authors did not declare any competing interests.

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