With the introduction of the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved medication for alopecia areata (AA)—the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, baricitinib—there is an important focus on this disease in the literature and for practicing dermatologists. Known by all as an autoimmune genetic disease that causes relapsing and remitting nonscarring hair loss, AA is a condition where the psychological burden has been less widely recognized. Patients with AA have reported lower health-related quality of life scores compared to patients with other skin conditions, including psoriasis or atopic dermatitis. In addition, a lesser amount of scalp coverage is negatively correlated to health-related quality of life scores.¹ Patients with AA also have a 39% lifetime prevalence of major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder.² The treatment of AA has been a hodgepodge of topical, intralesional, and systemic agents, all with indirect immunosuppressive or anagen prolongation effects. Now that there is an approved therapy for AA with more treatments likely to be approved in the near future, there must be a focus on real-world outcomes. With the dawn of a new era in the treatment of AA as well as new information showcasing an altered prevalence of AA in skin of color, highlighting disparities among this population may help ease challenges dermatologic providers will face.

Efficacy of Baricitinib in Different Races and Ethnicities

How will patients of different races and ethnicities respond to this new treatment, and how will their emotional health be affected? The 2 phase 3 pivotal trials showing efficacy of baricitinib in AA included Black and Latino patients but not in a way that is representative of the US population.³ Until recently, the most commonly used prevalence of AA in the United States was from the NHANES I study completed between 1971 and 1974, which was between 0.1% and 0.2%⁴ with minimal focus on race and ethnicity. Recent studies suggest that there may be increased prevalence of this condition in Black patients in the United States. These new findings raise concern around access to care and treatment and the need to tailor psychosocial interventions for populations that may not currently have these supports.

A large cross-sectional study published in 2020 demonstrated that these data remained similar, with a lifetime prevalence of 0.21%.⁵ Of the 45,016 participants—representative of the US population based on the 2015 US Census—the average age of AA patients was 41.2 years, with 61.3% being White and not of Hispanic origin.⁵ In recent years, other studies have challenged the narrative that AA predominantly affects White patients.^6-8 A different cross-sectional study utilizing National Alopecia Areata Registry data from 2002 to 2016 suggested that Black patients have greater odds of developing AA.⁶ In this study of 2645 cases of AA, the odds ratios of developing the condition were 1.36 for Blacks, 0.53 for Asians, and 0.83 for Hispanics compared with the referent White population. These results were consistent through the varying subtypes of AA.⁶ In a reply to these findings, Gonzalez and Fleischer⁷ analyzed data from the 2007 to 2016 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey database with a focus on racial and ethnic prevalence of AA. This study concluded that Latino and non-White individuals had an increased likelihood of clinician visits for AA compared with White individuals.⁷

More evidence of the Black predominance of AA was demonstrated in a study published in 2018. In this large-scale study, 63,960 women from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and 88,368 women from the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHSII) were included to examine prevalence of disease among these US women.⁸ Analysis showed increased odds of AA based on self-reported race in Black and Hispanic women. Lifetime incidence of AA was greater in Black women, with 2.63 and 5.23 in NHS and NHSII, respectively. It was hypothesized that hairstyling practices in Black and Hispanic women may cause AA to be more noticeable,⁸ which may drive patients to seek medical evaluation.

Feaster and McMichael⁹ published information on the epidemiology of AA in a busy hair loss clinic. This retrospective single-institution study of 265 pediatric and adult Black patients with AA seen over a 5-year period showed that patients aged 18 to 34 years were most likely to present for care, which accounted for 35.8% of the study population, followed by patients aged 10 to 17 years, which accounted for 15.1%. This study also found that females were the larger segment of AA patients, with an increased distribution of disease in young patients. Most of these patients (68.2%) had patchy hair loss, and the ophiasis pattern was seen in 15.1%.⁹ Although the pathogenesis of AA is linked to autoimmunity,¹⁰ the leading cause for these epidemiologic findings of increased prevalence in Black patients is still uncertain.

Baricitinib for AA

In June 2022, the FDA announced the first biologic drug approved for the treatment of AA—baricitinib. Baricitinib is an oral, selective, reversible inhibitor of JAK1 and JAK2.³ The phase 3 trials for baricitinib—BRAVE-AA1 (N=654) and BRAVE-AA2 (N=546)—were conducted between March 2019 and May 2020. In these double-blind, parallel-group, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, 33% of the patient population receiving baricitinib accomplished 80% or more scalp coverage at 36 weeks. The Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score also decreased to 20 or less in 36 weeks. The BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials consisted of a total of 1200 patients, with only 98 identifying as Black. Of these 98 patients, 33 were randomly selected to receive placebo.³ With studies now suggesting that Black individuals have greater odds of AA compared with White individuals⁶ and Black patients being more likely to seek medical care for AA,⁷ the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 study population did not allow for significant comparative data for Black patients. These studies did not document Latino patient involvement.³ Future studies in AA must recruit a diversified group of study participants to better reflect the patients with an increased likelihood of presenting with AA.

Other Treatments on the Horizon

Baricitinib likely will remain alone in its class for only a short time. Phase 3 trials have been completed for ritlecitinib, brepocitinib, and deuruxolitinib for AA. Ritlecitinib, an irreversible inhibitor of JAK3 and the tyrosine kinase expressed in hepatocellular carcinoma (TEC) kinase family, has met all end points in a phase 2b/3 study.¹¹ Brepocitinib is an oral tyrosine kinase 2/JAK1 inhibitor,¹² and deuruxolitinib is an investigational JAK1/2 inhibitor for AA.¹³

Prior authorizations have been the initial step for many drugs in varying fields of medical practice. A study completed in 2016 suggested that insurance coverage for biologics used in the treatment of psoriasis was becoming increasingly difficult.¹⁴ Prior authorization requirement rates increased from 16% of patients in 2009 to 75% in 2014. The decision time also increased from 3.7 days in 2009 to 6.7 days in 2014. The most common reason for delay in decisions and denials was due to step therapy.¹⁴ Insurance companies wanted many patients to try less expensive treatment options prior to “stepping up” to more expensive treatments. Although this may be the case in the treatment of psoriasis, the role of step therapy is unclear for patients with AA because there is only 1 FDA-approved medication. This sets out an ambiguous future for our patients with AA and approval for baricitinib.

The time required for the correspondence between insurance companies, clinic staff, and patients for drug approval may delay treatments, and not all providers have enough staff to coordinate and perform this work. For Black patients, who may present more frequently and with more severe disease,⁷ this could lead to a health care disparity due to the likelihood of the increased need for biologic treatment. Because Black patients have an increased likelihood of being uninsured or underinsured,¹⁵ this further decreases the chances of the most severe AA patients receiving the most helpful medication for their condition.

Many pharmaceutical companies have drug cost assistance programs that aim to provide support covering expensive medications for patients unable to afford them. Although this is a good first step, treatment with any JAK inhibitor potentially can be lifelong. Regarding the social determinants of health, it is known that access to medications does not solely depend on cost. Transportation and access to qualified health professionals are among the issues that create barriers to health care. Instilling long-term practices to ensure equal access to JAK inhibitors and treatment of AA may be the cornerstone to treating AA with equity. Whether we require pharmaceutical companies to make sure all patients have equal access to medications or provide community resources to hairstylists and federally qualified health centers, raising awareness and advocating for and creating attainable access to treatment modalities is imperative to providing well-rounded care to a diverse population.

With the introduction of the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved medication for alopecia areata (AA)—the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, baricitinib—there is an important focus on this disease in the literature and for practicing dermatologists. Known by all as an autoimmune genetic disease that causes relapsing and remitting nonscarring hair loss, AA is a condition where the psychological burden has been less widely recognized. Patients with AA have reported lower health-related quality of life scores compared to patients with other skin conditions, including psoriasis or atopic dermatitis. In addition, a lesser amount of scalp coverage is negatively correlated to health-related quality of life scores.¹ Patients with AA also have a 39% lifetime prevalence of major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder.² The treatment of AA has been a hodgepodge of topical, intralesional, and systemic agents, all with indirect immunosuppressive or anagen prolongation effects. Now that there is an approved therapy for AA with more treatments likely to be approved in the near future, there must be a focus on real-world outcomes. With the dawn of a new era in the treatment of AA as well as new information showcasing an altered prevalence of AA in skin of color, highlighting disparities among this population may help ease challenges dermatologic providers will face.

Efficacy of Baricitinib in Different Races and Ethnicities

How will patients of different races and ethnicities respond to this new treatment, and how will their emotional health be affected? The 2 phase 3 pivotal trials showing efficacy of baricitinib in AA included Black and Latino patients but not in a way that is representative of the US population.³ Until recently, the most commonly used prevalence of AA in the United States was from the NHANES I study completed between 1971 and 1974, which was between 0.1% and 0.2%⁴ with minimal focus on race and ethnicity. Recent studies suggest that there may be increased prevalence of this condition in Black patients in the United States. These new findings raise concern around access to care and treatment and the need to tailor psychosocial interventions for populations that may not currently have these supports.

A large cross-sectional study published in 2020 demonstrated that these data remained similar, with a lifetime prevalence of 0.21%.⁵ Of the 45,016 participants—representative of the US population based on the 2015 US Census—the average age of AA patients was 41.2 years, with 61.3% being White and not of Hispanic origin.⁵ In recent years, other studies have challenged the narrative that AA predominantly affects White patients.^6-8 A different cross-sectional study utilizing National Alopecia Areata Registry data from 2002 to 2016 suggested that Black patients have greater odds of developing AA.⁶ In this study of 2645 cases of AA, the odds ratios of developing the condition were 1.36 for Blacks, 0.53 for Asians, and 0.83 for Hispanics compared with the referent White population. These results were consistent through the varying subtypes of AA.⁶ In a reply to these findings, Gonzalez and Fleischer⁷ analyzed data from the 2007 to 2016 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey database with a focus on racial and ethnic prevalence of AA. This study concluded that Latino and non-White individuals had an increased likelihood of clinician visits for AA compared with White individuals.⁷

More evidence of the Black predominance of AA was demonstrated in a study published in 2018. In this large-scale study, 63,960 women from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and 88,368 women from the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHSII) were included to examine prevalence of disease among these US women.⁸ Analysis showed increased odds of AA based on self-reported race in Black and Hispanic women. Lifetime incidence of AA was greater in Black women, with 2.63 and 5.23 in NHS and NHSII, respectively. It was hypothesized that hairstyling practices in Black and Hispanic women may cause AA to be more noticeable,⁸ which may drive patients to seek medical evaluation.

Feaster and McMichael⁹ published information on the epidemiology of AA in a busy hair loss clinic. This retrospective single-institution study of 265 pediatric and adult Black patients with AA seen over a 5-year period showed that patients aged 18 to 34 years were most likely to present for care, which accounted for 35.8% of the study population, followed by patients aged 10 to 17 years, which accounted for 15.1%. This study also found that females were the larger segment of AA patients, with an increased distribution of disease in young patients. Most of these patients (68.2%) had patchy hair loss, and the ophiasis pattern was seen in 15.1%.⁹ Although the pathogenesis of AA is linked to autoimmunity,¹⁰ the leading cause for these epidemiologic findings of increased prevalence in Black patients is still uncertain.

Baricitinib for AA

In June 2022, the FDA announced the first biologic drug approved for the treatment of AA—baricitinib. Baricitinib is an oral, selective, reversible inhibitor of JAK1 and JAK2.³ The phase 3 trials for baricitinib—BRAVE-AA1 (N=654) and BRAVE-AA2 (N=546)—were conducted between March 2019 and May 2020. In these double-blind, parallel-group, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, 33% of the patient population receiving baricitinib accomplished 80% or more scalp coverage at 36 weeks. The Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score also decreased to 20 or less in 36 weeks. The BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials consisted of a total of 1200 patients, with only 98 identifying as Black. Of these 98 patients, 33 were randomly selected to receive placebo.³ With studies now suggesting that Black individuals have greater odds of AA compared with White individuals⁶ and Black patients being more likely to seek medical care for AA,⁷ the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 study population did not allow for significant comparative data for Black patients. These studies did not document Latino patient involvement.³ Future studies in AA must recruit a diversified group of study participants to better reflect the patients with an increased likelihood of presenting with AA.

Other Treatments on the Horizon

Baricitinib likely will remain alone in its class for only a short time. Phase 3 trials have been completed for ritlecitinib, brepocitinib, and deuruxolitinib for AA. Ritlecitinib, an irreversible inhibitor of JAK3 and the tyrosine kinase expressed in hepatocellular carcinoma (TEC) kinase family, has met all end points in a phase 2b/3 study.¹¹ Brepocitinib is an oral tyrosine kinase 2/JAK1 inhibitor,¹² and deuruxolitinib is an investigational JAK1/2 inhibitor for AA.¹³

Prior authorizations have been the initial step for many drugs in varying fields of medical practice. A study completed in 2016 suggested that insurance coverage for biologics used in the treatment of psoriasis was becoming increasingly difficult.¹⁴ Prior authorization requirement rates increased from 16% of patients in 2009 to 75% in 2014. The decision time also increased from 3.7 days in 2009 to 6.7 days in 2014. The most common reason for delay in decisions and denials was due to step therapy.¹⁴ Insurance companies wanted many patients to try less expensive treatment options prior to “stepping up” to more expensive treatments. Although this may be the case in the treatment of psoriasis, the role of step therapy is unclear for patients with AA because there is only 1 FDA-approved medication. This sets out an ambiguous future for our patients with AA and approval for baricitinib.

The time required for the correspondence between insurance companies, clinic staff, and patients for drug approval may delay treatments, and not all providers have enough staff to coordinate and perform this work. For Black patients, who may present more frequently and with more severe disease,⁷ this could lead to a health care disparity due to the likelihood of the increased need for biologic treatment. Because Black patients have an increased likelihood of being uninsured or underinsured,¹⁵ this further decreases the chances of the most severe AA patients receiving the most helpful medication for their condition.

Many pharmaceutical companies have drug cost assistance programs that aim to provide support covering expensive medications for patients unable to afford them. Although this is a good first step, treatment with any JAK inhibitor potentially can be lifelong. Regarding the social determinants of health, it is known that access to medications does not solely depend on cost. Transportation and access to qualified health professionals are among the issues that create barriers to health care. Instilling long-term practices to ensure equal access to JAK inhibitors and treatment of AA may be the cornerstone to treating AA with equity. Whether we require pharmaceutical companies to make sure all patients have equal access to medications or provide community resources to hairstylists and federally qualified health centers, raising awareness and advocating for and creating attainable access to treatment modalities is imperative to providing well-rounded care to a diverse population.

With the introduction of the first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)–approved medication for alopecia areata (AA)—the Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor, baricitinib—there is an important focus on this disease in the literature and for practicing dermatologists. Known by all as an autoimmune genetic disease that causes relapsing and remitting nonscarring hair loss, AA is a condition where the psychological burden has been less widely recognized. Patients with AA have reported lower health-related quality of life scores compared to patients with other skin conditions, including psoriasis or atopic dermatitis. In addition, a lesser amount of scalp coverage is negatively correlated to health-related quality of life scores.¹ Patients with AA also have a 39% lifetime prevalence of major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder.² The treatment of AA has been a hodgepodge of topical, intralesional, and systemic agents, all with indirect immunosuppressive or anagen prolongation effects. Now that there is an approved therapy for AA with more treatments likely to be approved in the near future, there must be a focus on real-world outcomes. With the dawn of a new era in the treatment of AA as well as new information showcasing an altered prevalence of AA in skin of color, highlighting disparities among this population may help ease challenges dermatologic providers will face.

Efficacy of Baricitinib in Different Races and Ethnicities

How will patients of different races and ethnicities respond to this new treatment, and how will their emotional health be affected? The 2 phase 3 pivotal trials showing efficacy of baricitinib in AA included Black and Latino patients but not in a way that is representative of the US population.³ Until recently, the most commonly used prevalence of AA in the United States was from the NHANES I study completed between 1971 and 1974, which was between 0.1% and 0.2%⁴ with minimal focus on race and ethnicity. Recent studies suggest that there may be increased prevalence of this condition in Black patients in the United States. These new findings raise concern around access to care and treatment and the need to tailor psychosocial interventions for populations that may not currently have these supports.

A large cross-sectional study published in 2020 demonstrated that these data remained similar, with a lifetime prevalence of 0.21%.⁵ Of the 45,016 participants—representative of the US population based on the 2015 US Census—the average age of AA patients was 41.2 years, with 61.3% being White and not of Hispanic origin.⁵ In recent years, other studies have challenged the narrative that AA predominantly affects White patients.^6-8 A different cross-sectional study utilizing National Alopecia Areata Registry data from 2002 to 2016 suggested that Black patients have greater odds of developing AA.⁶ In this study of 2645 cases of AA, the odds ratios of developing the condition were 1.36 for Blacks, 0.53 for Asians, and 0.83 for Hispanics compared with the referent White population. These results were consistent through the varying subtypes of AA.⁶ In a reply to these findings, Gonzalez and Fleischer⁷ analyzed data from the 2007 to 2016 National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey database with a focus on racial and ethnic prevalence of AA. This study concluded that Latino and non-White individuals had an increased likelihood of clinician visits for AA compared with White individuals.⁷

More evidence of the Black predominance of AA was demonstrated in a study published in 2018. In this large-scale study, 63,960 women from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and 88,368 women from the Nurses’ Health Study II (NHSII) were included to examine prevalence of disease among these US women.⁸ Analysis showed increased odds of AA based on self-reported race in Black and Hispanic women. Lifetime incidence of AA was greater in Black women, with 2.63 and 5.23 in NHS and NHSII, respectively. It was hypothesized that hairstyling practices in Black and Hispanic women may cause AA to be more noticeable,⁸ which may drive patients to seek medical evaluation.

Feaster and McMichael⁹ published information on the epidemiology of AA in a busy hair loss clinic. This retrospective single-institution study of 265 pediatric and adult Black patients with AA seen over a 5-year period showed that patients aged 18 to 34 years were most likely to present for care, which accounted for 35.8% of the study population, followed by patients aged 10 to 17 years, which accounted for 15.1%. This study also found that females were the larger segment of AA patients, with an increased distribution of disease in young patients. Most of these patients (68.2%) had patchy hair loss, and the ophiasis pattern was seen in 15.1%.⁹ Although the pathogenesis of AA is linked to autoimmunity,¹⁰ the leading cause for these epidemiologic findings of increased prevalence in Black patients is still uncertain.

Baricitinib for AA

In June 2022, the FDA announced the first biologic drug approved for the treatment of AA—baricitinib. Baricitinib is an oral, selective, reversible inhibitor of JAK1 and JAK2.³ The phase 3 trials for baricitinib—BRAVE-AA1 (N=654) and BRAVE-AA2 (N=546)—were conducted between March 2019 and May 2020. In these double-blind, parallel-group, randomized, placebo-controlled trials, 33% of the patient population receiving baricitinib accomplished 80% or more scalp coverage at 36 weeks. The Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) score also decreased to 20 or less in 36 weeks. The BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 trials consisted of a total of 1200 patients, with only 98 identifying as Black. Of these 98 patients, 33 were randomly selected to receive placebo.³ With studies now suggesting that Black individuals have greater odds of AA compared with White individuals⁶ and Black patients being more likely to seek medical care for AA,⁷ the BRAVE-AA1 and BRAVE-AA2 study population did not allow for significant comparative data for Black patients. These studies did not document Latino patient involvement.³ Future studies in AA must recruit a diversified group of study participants to better reflect the patients with an increased likelihood of presenting with AA.

Other Treatments on the Horizon

Baricitinib likely will remain alone in its class for only a short time. Phase 3 trials have been completed for ritlecitinib, brepocitinib, and deuruxolitinib for AA. Ritlecitinib, an irreversible inhibitor of JAK3 and the tyrosine kinase expressed in hepatocellular carcinoma (TEC) kinase family, has met all end points in a phase 2b/3 study.¹¹ Brepocitinib is an oral tyrosine kinase 2/JAK1 inhibitor,¹² and deuruxolitinib is an investigational JAK1/2 inhibitor for AA.¹³

Prior authorizations have been the initial step for many drugs in varying fields of medical practice. A study completed in 2016 suggested that insurance coverage for biologics used in the treatment of psoriasis was becoming increasingly difficult.¹⁴ Prior authorization requirement rates increased from 16% of patients in 2009 to 75% in 2014. The decision time also increased from 3.7 days in 2009 to 6.7 days in 2014. The most common reason for delay in decisions and denials was due to step therapy.¹⁴ Insurance companies wanted many patients to try less expensive treatment options prior to “stepping up” to more expensive treatments. Although this may be the case in the treatment of psoriasis, the role of step therapy is unclear for patients with AA because there is only 1 FDA-approved medication. This sets out an ambiguous future for our patients with AA and approval for baricitinib.

The time required for the correspondence between insurance companies, clinic staff, and patients for drug approval may delay treatments, and not all providers have enough staff to coordinate and perform this work. For Black patients, who may present more frequently and with more severe disease,⁷ this could lead to a health care disparity due to the likelihood of the increased need for biologic treatment. Because Black patients have an increased likelihood of being uninsured or underinsured,¹⁵ this further decreases the chances of the most severe AA patients receiving the most helpful medication for their condition.

Many pharmaceutical companies have drug cost assistance programs that aim to provide support covering expensive medications for patients unable to afford them. Although this is a good first step, treatment with any JAK inhibitor potentially can be lifelong. Regarding the social determinants of health, it is known that access to medications does not solely depend on cost. Transportation and access to qualified health professionals are among the issues that create barriers to health care. Instilling long-term practices to ensure equal access to JAK inhibitors and treatment of AA may be the cornerstone to treating AA with equity. Whether we require pharmaceutical companies to make sure all patients have equal access to medications or provide community resources to hairstylists and federally qualified health centers, raising awareness and advocating for and creating attainable access to treatment modalities is imperative to providing well-rounded care to a diverse population.

Key clinical point: Anti-protein arginine deiminase 3/4 (anti-PAD3/4) antibodies could help identify patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) having higher radiographic injury and bone erosion.

Major finding: Anti-PAD4 antibody levels were significantly associated with radiographic injury (P = .027). Patients with anti-PAD3/4 double positivity vs double negativity had a significantly higher radiographic injury (mean Simple Erosion Narrowing Score 48.7 vs 19.4; P = .04) and joint erosion (mean Joint Erosion Score 25.7 vs 9.3; P = .037).

Study details: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study including 71 patients with RA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. M Mahler and L Martinez-Prat declared being employees of Werfen, a company selling autoimmune diagnostic tests.

Source: Palterer B et al. Anti-protein arginine deiminase antibodies are distinctly associated with joint and lung involvement in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Nov 28). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac667

Key clinical point: Anti-protein arginine deiminase 3/4 (anti-PAD3/4) antibodies could help identify patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) having higher radiographic injury and bone erosion.

Major finding: Anti-PAD4 antibody levels were significantly associated with radiographic injury (P = .027). Patients with anti-PAD3/4 double positivity vs double negativity had a significantly higher radiographic injury (mean Simple Erosion Narrowing Score 48.7 vs 19.4; P = .04) and joint erosion (mean Joint Erosion Score 25.7 vs 9.3; P = .037).

Study details: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study including 71 patients with RA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. M Mahler and L Martinez-Prat declared being employees of Werfen, a company selling autoimmune diagnostic tests.

Source: Palterer B et al. Anti-protein arginine deiminase antibodies are distinctly associated with joint and lung involvement in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Nov 28). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac667

Key clinical point: Anti-protein arginine deiminase 3/4 (anti-PAD3/4) antibodies could help identify patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) having higher radiographic injury and bone erosion.

Major finding: Anti-PAD4 antibody levels were significantly associated with radiographic injury (P = .027). Patients with anti-PAD3/4 double positivity vs double negativity had a significantly higher radiographic injury (mean Simple Erosion Narrowing Score 48.7 vs 19.4; P = .04) and joint erosion (mean Joint Erosion Score 25.7 vs 9.3; P = .037).

Study details: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study including 71 patients with RA.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any specific funding. M Mahler and L Martinez-Prat declared being employees of Werfen, a company selling autoimmune diagnostic tests.

Source: Palterer B et al. Anti-protein arginine deiminase antibodies are distinctly associated with joint and lung involvement in rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Nov 28). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac667

Key clinical point: The use of methotrexate was protective against lung function decline and mortality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD).

Major finding: Use of methotrexate was protective against decline in lung function (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.269; P = .014) and mortality (aOR 0.284; P = .029). However, a high erythrocyte sedimentation rate at baseline was a risk factor for decline in lung function (aOR 3.056; P = .021). Age ≥65 years (aOR 2.723; P = .024) and radiologic pattern of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) or probable UIP (aOR 3.948; P = .005) were risk factors for mortality.

Study details: The findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 170 patients with RA-ILD who underwent at least one spirometry test and chest computed tomography scan and were treated with methotrexate or oral glucocorticoids.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kim K et al. Protective effect of methotrexate on lung function and mortality in rheumatoid arthritis–related interstitial lung disease: A retrospective cohort study. Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2022;16:17534666221135314 (Nov 8). Doi: 10.1177/17534666221135314

Key clinical point: The use of methotrexate was protective against lung function decline and mortality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD).

Major finding: Use of methotrexate was protective against decline in lung function (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.269; P = .014) and mortality (aOR 0.284; P = .029). However, a high erythrocyte sedimentation rate at baseline was a risk factor for decline in lung function (aOR 3.056; P = .021). Age ≥65 years (aOR 2.723; P = .024) and radiologic pattern of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) or probable UIP (aOR 3.948; P = .005) were risk factors for mortality.

Study details: The findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 170 patients with RA-ILD who underwent at least one spirometry test and chest computed tomography scan and were treated with methotrexate or oral glucocorticoids.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kim K et al. Protective effect of methotrexate on lung function and mortality in rheumatoid arthritis–related interstitial lung disease: A retrospective cohort study. Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2022;16:17534666221135314 (Nov 8). Doi: 10.1177/17534666221135314

Key clinical point: The use of methotrexate was protective against lung function decline and mortality in patients with rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD).

Major finding: Use of methotrexate was protective against decline in lung function (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.269; P = .014) and mortality (aOR 0.284; P = .029). However, a high erythrocyte sedimentation rate at baseline was a risk factor for decline in lung function (aOR 3.056; P = .021). Age ≥65 years (aOR 2.723; P = .024) and radiologic pattern of usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP) or probable UIP (aOR 3.948; P = .005) were risk factors for mortality.

Study details: The findings are from a retrospective cohort study including 170 patients with RA-ILD who underwent at least one spirometry test and chest computed tomography scan and were treated with methotrexate or oral glucocorticoids.

Disclosures: This study did not receive any funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kim K et al. Protective effect of methotrexate on lung function and mortality in rheumatoid arthritis–related interstitial lung disease: A retrospective cohort study. Ther Adv Respir Dis. 2022;16:17534666221135314 (Nov 8). Doi: 10.1177/17534666221135314

Key clinical point: In patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), disproportionate articular pain (DP) was prevalent and sarilumab fared better than adalimumab or placebo in reducing DP and achieving clinical outcomes.

Major finding: At baseline, 23% of patients had DP. At week 24, a numerically lower proportion of patients experienced DP (15% vs 27%) and a higher proportion of patients achieved a Clinical Disease Activity Index of ≤10 (40% vs 17%) and American College of Rheumatology 50 response (42% vs 28%) with sarilumab vs adalimumab, with results being similar for sarilumab vs placebo.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of three phase 3 trials and their open label extension studies included 1531 patients with RA and intolerance or inadequate response to methotrexate/tumor necrosis factor inhibitors who received sarilumab, adalimumab, or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Three authors declared being employees of or holding stock or stock options in Sanofi. Several authors reported ties with Sanofi, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and other sources.

Source: Choy E et al. Disproportionate articular pain is a frequent phenomenon in rheumatoid arthritis and responds to treatment with sarilumab. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Nov 22). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac659

Key clinical point: In patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), disproportionate articular pain (DP) was prevalent and sarilumab fared better than adalimumab or placebo in reducing DP and achieving clinical outcomes.

Major finding: At baseline, 23% of patients had DP. At week 24, a numerically lower proportion of patients experienced DP (15% vs 27%) and a higher proportion of patients achieved a Clinical Disease Activity Index of ≤10 (40% vs 17%) and American College of Rheumatology 50 response (42% vs 28%) with sarilumab vs adalimumab, with results being similar for sarilumab vs placebo.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of three phase 3 trials and their open label extension studies included 1531 patients with RA and intolerance or inadequate response to methotrexate/tumor necrosis factor inhibitors who received sarilumab, adalimumab, or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Three authors declared being employees of or holding stock or stock options in Sanofi. Several authors reported ties with Sanofi, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and other sources.

Source: Choy E et al. Disproportionate articular pain is a frequent phenomenon in rheumatoid arthritis and responds to treatment with sarilumab. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Nov 22). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac659

Key clinical point: In patients with active rheumatoid arthritis (RA), disproportionate articular pain (DP) was prevalent and sarilumab fared better than adalimumab or placebo in reducing DP and achieving clinical outcomes.

Major finding: At baseline, 23% of patients had DP. At week 24, a numerically lower proportion of patients experienced DP (15% vs 27%) and a higher proportion of patients achieved a Clinical Disease Activity Index of ≤10 (40% vs 17%) and American College of Rheumatology 50 response (42% vs 28%) with sarilumab vs adalimumab, with results being similar for sarilumab vs placebo.

Study details: This post hoc analysis of three phase 3 trials and their open label extension studies included 1531 patients with RA and intolerance or inadequate response to methotrexate/tumor necrosis factor inhibitors who received sarilumab, adalimumab, or placebo.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Three authors declared being employees of or holding stock or stock options in Sanofi. Several authors reported ties with Sanofi, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and other sources.

Source: Choy E et al. Disproportionate articular pain is a frequent phenomenon in rheumatoid arthritis and responds to treatment with sarilumab. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Nov 22). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac659

Key clinical point: Patients with late-onset rheumatoid arthritis (LORA) and younger-onset rheumatoid arthritis (YORA) had similar prognosis, but patients with LORA who reached remission were more likely to be on a less intensive treatment regimen.

Major finding: Time to remission was similar among patients with LORA and YORA (P = .36). Patients with LORA vs YORA were less likely to be on biologics or Janus kinase inhibitors (16% vs 27%; P = .0039) and more likely to be on a single conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (34% vs 27%; P = .0039) and oral glucocorticoids (27% vs 13%; P < .0001) at the time of remission.

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 872 patients diagnosed with RA at an age of ≥60 years (LORA; n = 354) or <60 years (YORA; n = 518).

Disclosures: This study was funded by peer-reviewed grants from the Canadian Arthritis Network and others and unrestricted grants from AbbVie, Novartis, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Li X et al. Late‑onset rheumatoid arthritis has a similar time to remission as younger‑onset rheumatoid arthritis: Results from the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24:255 (Nov 19). Doi: 10.1186/s13075-022-02952-1

Key clinical point: Patients with late-onset rheumatoid arthritis (LORA) and younger-onset rheumatoid arthritis (YORA) had similar prognosis, but patients with LORA who reached remission were more likely to be on a less intensive treatment regimen.

Major finding: Time to remission was similar among patients with LORA and YORA (P = .36). Patients with LORA vs YORA were less likely to be on biologics or Janus kinase inhibitors (16% vs 27%; P = .0039) and more likely to be on a single conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (34% vs 27%; P = .0039) and oral glucocorticoids (27% vs 13%; P < .0001) at the time of remission.

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 872 patients diagnosed with RA at an age of ≥60 years (LORA; n = 354) or <60 years (YORA; n = 518).

Disclosures: This study was funded by peer-reviewed grants from the Canadian Arthritis Network and others and unrestricted grants from AbbVie, Novartis, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Li X et al. Late‑onset rheumatoid arthritis has a similar time to remission as younger‑onset rheumatoid arthritis: Results from the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24:255 (Nov 19). Doi: 10.1186/s13075-022-02952-1

Key clinical point: Patients with late-onset rheumatoid arthritis (LORA) and younger-onset rheumatoid arthritis (YORA) had similar prognosis, but patients with LORA who reached remission were more likely to be on a less intensive treatment regimen.

Major finding: Time to remission was similar among patients with LORA and YORA (P = .36). Patients with LORA vs YORA were less likely to be on biologics or Janus kinase inhibitors (16% vs 27%; P = .0039) and more likely to be on a single conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (34% vs 27%; P = .0039) and oral glucocorticoids (27% vs 13%; P < .0001) at the time of remission.

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 872 patients diagnosed with RA at an age of ≥60 years (LORA; n = 354) or <60 years (YORA; n = 518).

Disclosures: This study was funded by peer-reviewed grants from the Canadian Arthritis Network and others and unrestricted grants from AbbVie, Novartis, and other sources. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Li X et al. Late‑onset rheumatoid arthritis has a similar time to remission as younger‑onset rheumatoid arthritis: Results from the Ontario Best Practices Research Initiative. Arthritis Res Ther. 2022;24:255 (Nov 19). Doi: 10.1186/s13075-022-02952-1

Key clinical point: The addition of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or hydroxychloroquine+sulfasalazine (triple therapy) to weekly methotrexate significantly reduced atherosclerotic vascular inflammation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however, TNFi was not associated with greater improvements than triple therapy.

Major finding: Over 24 weeks, the arterial target-to-background ratio (TBR) in carotid arteries or aorta reduced significantly with TNFi (Δ −0.24; P = .001) and triple therapy (Δ −0.19; P = .001), with no significant difference in TBR improvement between the two treatment groups (P = .79).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 4 TARGET trial including 115 patients with active RA despite being on weekly methotrexate who were randomly assigned to add TNFi (adalimumab or etanercept) or hydroxychloroquine+sulfasalazine.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIH-NIAMS). The study drug was supplied by AbbVie and Amgen. Four authors declared receiving research support, unrestricted grants, or royalties, being co-inventors on patents, or consulting for various sources unrelated to current study.

Source: Solomon DH et al for the TARGET Trial Consortium. Reducing cardiovascular risk with immunomodulators: A randomised active comparator trial among patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Nov 30). Doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223302

Key clinical point: The addition of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or hydroxychloroquine+sulfasalazine (triple therapy) to weekly methotrexate significantly reduced atherosclerotic vascular inflammation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however, TNFi was not associated with greater improvements than triple therapy.

Major finding: Over 24 weeks, the arterial target-to-background ratio (TBR) in carotid arteries or aorta reduced significantly with TNFi (Δ −0.24; P = .001) and triple therapy (Δ −0.19; P = .001), with no significant difference in TBR improvement between the two treatment groups (P = .79).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 4 TARGET trial including 115 patients with active RA despite being on weekly methotrexate who were randomly assigned to add TNFi (adalimumab or etanercept) or hydroxychloroquine+sulfasalazine.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIH-NIAMS). The study drug was supplied by AbbVie and Amgen. Four authors declared receiving research support, unrestricted grants, or royalties, being co-inventors on patents, or consulting for various sources unrelated to current study.

Source: Solomon DH et al for the TARGET Trial Consortium. Reducing cardiovascular risk with immunomodulators: A randomised active comparator trial among patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Nov 30). Doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223302

Key clinical point: The addition of a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) or hydroxychloroquine+sulfasalazine (triple therapy) to weekly methotrexate significantly reduced atherosclerotic vascular inflammation in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA); however, TNFi was not associated with greater improvements than triple therapy.

Major finding: Over 24 weeks, the arterial target-to-background ratio (TBR) in carotid arteries or aorta reduced significantly with TNFi (Δ −0.24; P = .001) and triple therapy (Δ −0.19; P = .001), with no significant difference in TBR improvement between the two treatment groups (P = .79).

Study details: Findings are from the phase 4 TARGET trial including 115 patients with active RA despite being on weekly methotrexate who were randomly assigned to add TNFi (adalimumab or etanercept) or hydroxychloroquine+sulfasalazine.

Disclosures: This study was funded by the US National Institutes of Health National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIH-NIAMS). The study drug was supplied by AbbVie and Amgen. Four authors declared receiving research support, unrestricted grants, or royalties, being co-inventors on patents, or consulting for various sources unrelated to current study.

Source: Solomon DH et al for the TARGET Trial Consortium. Reducing cardiovascular risk with immunomodulators: A randomised active comparator trial among patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Ann Rheum Dis. 2022 (Nov 30). Doi: 10.1136/ard-2022-223302

Key clinical point: Baricitinib monotherapy was as effective as baricitinib plus methotrexate therapy with high drug retention rates in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), suggesting baricitinib monotherapy as a viable option in the case of methotrexate intolerance.

Major finding: The 28-joint Disease Activity Scores based on Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate were not significantly different at all time points over 96 weeks (log-rank P = .44) and drug survival rates at 1 year (69% vs 67%) and 2 years (62% vs 56%) were comparable in the baricitinib alone vs baricitinib+methotrexate arm. No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: This prospective observational study included 139 patients with RA who switched to baricitinib monotherapy or baricitinib plus methotrexate therapy because of high disease activity or intolerance to previous conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and other sources. Several authors reported receiving speaker honoraria or travel support or serving as consultants for various sources.

Source: Bayat S et al. Efficacy and drug persistence of baricitinib monotherapy is similar to combination therapy in patients with active RA: A prospective observational study. RMD Open. 2022;8:e002674 (Nov 21). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002674

Key clinical point: Baricitinib monotherapy was as effective as baricitinib plus methotrexate therapy with high drug retention rates in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), suggesting baricitinib monotherapy as a viable option in the case of methotrexate intolerance.

Major finding: The 28-joint Disease Activity Scores based on Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate were not significantly different at all time points over 96 weeks (log-rank P = .44) and drug survival rates at 1 year (69% vs 67%) and 2 years (62% vs 56%) were comparable in the baricitinib alone vs baricitinib+methotrexate arm. No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: This prospective observational study included 139 patients with RA who switched to baricitinib monotherapy or baricitinib plus methotrexate therapy because of high disease activity or intolerance to previous conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and other sources. Several authors reported receiving speaker honoraria or travel support or serving as consultants for various sources.

Source: Bayat S et al. Efficacy and drug persistence of baricitinib monotherapy is similar to combination therapy in patients with active RA: A prospective observational study. RMD Open. 2022;8:e002674 (Nov 21). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002674

Key clinical point: Baricitinib monotherapy was as effective as baricitinib plus methotrexate therapy with high drug retention rates in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), suggesting baricitinib monotherapy as a viable option in the case of methotrexate intolerance.

Major finding: The 28-joint Disease Activity Scores based on Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate were not significantly different at all time points over 96 weeks (log-rank P = .44) and drug survival rates at 1 year (69% vs 67%) and 2 years (62% vs 56%) were comparable in the baricitinib alone vs baricitinib+methotrexate arm. No new safety signals were identified.

Study details: This prospective observational study included 139 patients with RA who switched to baricitinib monotherapy or baricitinib plus methotrexate therapy because of high disease activity or intolerance to previous conventional synthetic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and other sources. Several authors reported receiving speaker honoraria or travel support or serving as consultants for various sources.

Source: Bayat S et al. Efficacy and drug persistence of baricitinib monotherapy is similar to combination therapy in patients with active RA: A prospective observational study. RMD Open. 2022;8:e002674 (Nov 21). Doi: 10.1136/rmdopen-2022-002674

Practice Gap

Cutaneous surgery involves many areas where skin is quite thin and fragile, which often is encountered in elderly patients; the forearms and lower legs are the most frequent locations for thin skin.¹ Dermatologic surgeons frequently encounter these situations, making this a highly practical arena for technical improvements.

For many of these patients, there is little meaningful dermis for placement of subcutaneous sutures. Therefore, a common approach following surgery, particularly following Mohs micrographic surgery in which tumors and defects typically are larger, is healing by secondary intention.² Although healing by secondary intention often is a reasonable option, we have found that maximizing the use of epidermal skin for primary closure can be an effective means of closing many such defects. Antimicrobial reinforced skin closure strips have been incorporated in wound closure for thin skin. However, earlier efforts involving reinforcement perpendicular to the wound lacked critical details or used a different technique.³

The Technique

We developed a novel effective closure technique that minimizes these problems. Our technique has been used on the wounds of hundreds of patients with satisfying results. Early on, we used multiple variations to optimize outcomes, including different sizes of sutures and reinforced skin closure strips, application of medical liquid adhesive, liquid adhesive, and varying postoperative dressings. For 3 years, we tracked outcomes in-house and gradually narrowed down our successes into a single, user-friendly paradigm.

Supplies—To perform this technique, required supplies include:

• 2-0 Polypropylene suture with a PS-2 needle, or the equivalent. Polyglactin or silk suture can be utilized if a less-rigid suture is desired; however, we primarily have used polypropylene for repairs with good results. Each repair requires at least 2 sutures.

• Reinforced skin closure strips (1×5 inches). This width affords increased strength.

• Conforming stretch bandage and elastic self-adherent wrap.

• Polysporin (bacitracin zinc, polymyxin B sulfate, and petrolatum)(Johnson & Johnson).

• All usual surgical instruments and supplies, including paper tape and nonadherent gauze (surgeon dependent).

Step-by-step Technique—Close the wound using the following steps:

1. Once the defect is finalized following Mohs micrographic surgery or excision, excise the ellipse to be utilized for the closure and perform complete hemostasis.

2. Place 2 layers of reinforced skin closure strips—one on top of the other—along each side of the defect, leaving approximately 1 cm of uncovered skin between the wound edges and the reinforced skin closure strips (Figure, A).

3. Take a big-bite pulley suture about one-third of the way from one end of the ellipse, with both punctures passing through the reinforced skin closure strips. Leave that in place or have the assistant hold it and wait. Place a second suture immediately adjacent to the pulley suture. Once that suture is placed but still untied, have the assistant carefully pull the pulley suture outward away from the wound edge while you carefully bring the suture together and tie it off gently (Figure, B). Doing this utilizes the pulley ability of the suture to protect the skin from tearing and releases sufficient pressure on the single suture so that it can be easily tightened without risk to the fragile skin.

4. Repeat step 3, this time placing a pulley suture near the midline of the ellipse and the subsequent single suture adjacent to it.

5. Take pulley sutures repeatedly as in steps 3 and 4 until multiple sutures are secured in place. Replace the pulley sutures with single sutures because the double-pulley sutures in areas of lower vascularity tend to have, in our experience, a slightly increased incidence of focal necrosis in comparison to single sutures.

6. Make a concerted attempt to keep as much blood as possible off the reinforced skin closure strips throughout the procedure; the less dried blood on the reinforced skin closure strips, the cleaner and better the final closure (Figure, C).

7. Most of these cases involve the forearms and the legs below the knees. Because any increase in pressure or swelling on the wound can result in skin breakdown, postoperative dressing is critical. We use a layered approach; the following sequence can be modified to the preference of the surgeon: Polysporin (bacitracin zinc, polymyxin B sulfate, and petrolatum), nonadherent gauze, paper tape, conforming stretch bandage, and elastic self-adherent wrap. Minimizing swelling and infection are the primary goals. The wrap is left on for 1 week and should be kept dry.

8. Have the patient return to the office in 1 week. Unwrap the entire wound; trim back the reinforced skin closure strips; and have the patient utilize typical wound care at home thereafter consisting of cleaning and application of Polysporin or plain petrolatum, nonadherent gauze, and a paper-tape bandage. Because liquid adhesive is not utilized in this technique, the reinforced skin closure strips can be carefully removed without tearing skin. Leave sutures in for 3 weeks for arm procedures and 4 weeks for leg procedures, unless irritation develops or rapid suture overgrowth occurs in either location.

Complications

Most outcomes after using this technique are typical of optimized linear surgeries, with reduced scarring and complete wound healing (Figure, D). We seldom see complications but the following are possible:

• Bleeding occurs but rarely; the weeklong wrap likely provides great benefit.

• Infection is rare but does occur occasionally, as in any surgical procedure.

• Breakdown of the entire wound is rare; however, we occasionally see focal necrosis near 1 stitch—or rarely 2 stitches—that does not require intervention, apart from longer use of topical Polysporin or petrolatum alone to maximize healing by secondary intention in those small areas.• Despite simple suture placement far from the edge of the wound, wound inversion is seldom a problem because these taut closures have a tendency to expand slightly due to postoperative swelling.

Practice Implications

Any experienced dermatologic surgeon can perfect this technique for closing a wound in thin skin. Because wound closure in areas of fragile skin frequently is encountered in cutaneous surgery, we hope that utilizing this technique results in an optimal outcome for many patients.

Practice Gap

Cutaneous surgery involves many areas where skin is quite thin and fragile, which often is encountered in elderly patients; the forearms and lower legs are the most frequent locations for thin skin.¹ Dermatologic surgeons frequently encounter these situations, making this a highly practical arena for technical improvements.

For many of these patients, there is little meaningful dermis for placement of subcutaneous sutures. Therefore, a common approach following surgery, particularly following Mohs micrographic surgery in which tumors and defects typically are larger, is healing by secondary intention.² Although healing by secondary intention often is a reasonable option, we have found that maximizing the use of epidermal skin for primary closure can be an effective means of closing many such defects. Antimicrobial reinforced skin closure strips have been incorporated in wound closure for thin skin. However, earlier efforts involving reinforcement perpendicular to the wound lacked critical details or used a different technique.³

The Technique

We developed a novel effective closure technique that minimizes these problems. Our technique has been used on the wounds of hundreds of patients with satisfying results. Early on, we used multiple variations to optimize outcomes, including different sizes of sutures and reinforced skin closure strips, application of medical liquid adhesive, liquid adhesive, and varying postoperative dressings. For 3 years, we tracked outcomes in-house and gradually narrowed down our successes into a single, user-friendly paradigm.

Supplies—To perform this technique, required supplies include:

• 2-0 Polypropylene suture with a PS-2 needle, or the equivalent. Polyglactin or silk suture can be utilized if a less-rigid suture is desired; however, we primarily have used polypropylene for repairs with good results. Each repair requires at least 2 sutures.

• Reinforced skin closure strips (1×5 inches). This width affords increased strength.

• Conforming stretch bandage and elastic self-adherent wrap.

• Polysporin (bacitracin zinc, polymyxin B sulfate, and petrolatum)(Johnson & Johnson).

• All usual surgical instruments and supplies, including paper tape and nonadherent gauze (surgeon dependent).

Step-by-step Technique—Close the wound using the following steps:

1. Once the defect is finalized following Mohs micrographic surgery or excision, excise the ellipse to be utilized for the closure and perform complete hemostasis.

2. Place 2 layers of reinforced skin closure strips—one on top of the other—along each side of the defect, leaving approximately 1 cm of uncovered skin between the wound edges and the reinforced skin closure strips (Figure, A).

3. Take a big-bite pulley suture about one-third of the way from one end of the ellipse, with both punctures passing through the reinforced skin closure strips. Leave that in place or have the assistant hold it and wait. Place a second suture immediately adjacent to the pulley suture. Once that suture is placed but still untied, have the assistant carefully pull the pulley suture outward away from the wound edge while you carefully bring the suture together and tie it off gently (Figure, B). Doing this utilizes the pulley ability of the suture to protect the skin from tearing and releases sufficient pressure on the single suture so that it can be easily tightened without risk to the fragile skin.

4. Repeat step 3, this time placing a pulley suture near the midline of the ellipse and the subsequent single suture adjacent to it.

5. Take pulley sutures repeatedly as in steps 3 and 4 until multiple sutures are secured in place. Replace the pulley sutures with single sutures because the double-pulley sutures in areas of lower vascularity tend to have, in our experience, a slightly increased incidence of focal necrosis in comparison to single sutures.

6. Make a concerted attempt to keep as much blood as possible off the reinforced skin closure strips throughout the procedure; the less dried blood on the reinforced skin closure strips, the cleaner and better the final closure (Figure, C).

7. Most of these cases involve the forearms and the legs below the knees. Because any increase in pressure or swelling on the wound can result in skin breakdown, postoperative dressing is critical. We use a layered approach; the following sequence can be modified to the preference of the surgeon: Polysporin (bacitracin zinc, polymyxin B sulfate, and petrolatum), nonadherent gauze, paper tape, conforming stretch bandage, and elastic self-adherent wrap. Minimizing swelling and infection are the primary goals. The wrap is left on for 1 week and should be kept dry.

8. Have the patient return to the office in 1 week. Unwrap the entire wound; trim back the reinforced skin closure strips; and have the patient utilize typical wound care at home thereafter consisting of cleaning and application of Polysporin or plain petrolatum, nonadherent gauze, and a paper-tape bandage. Because liquid adhesive is not utilized in this technique, the reinforced skin closure strips can be carefully removed without tearing skin. Leave sutures in for 3 weeks for arm procedures and 4 weeks for leg procedures, unless irritation develops or rapid suture overgrowth occurs in either location.

Complications

Most outcomes after using this technique are typical of optimized linear surgeries, with reduced scarring and complete wound healing (Figure, D). We seldom see complications but the following are possible:

• Bleeding occurs but rarely; the weeklong wrap likely provides great benefit.

• Infection is rare but does occur occasionally, as in any surgical procedure.

• Breakdown of the entire wound is rare; however, we occasionally see focal necrosis near 1 stitch—or rarely 2 stitches—that does not require intervention, apart from longer use of topical Polysporin or petrolatum alone to maximize healing by secondary intention in those small areas.• Despite simple suture placement far from the edge of the wound, wound inversion is seldom a problem because these taut closures have a tendency to expand slightly due to postoperative swelling.

Practice Implications

Any experienced dermatologic surgeon can perfect this technique for closing a wound in thin skin. Because wound closure in areas of fragile skin frequently is encountered in cutaneous surgery, we hope that utilizing this technique results in an optimal outcome for many patients.

Practice Gap

Cutaneous surgery involves many areas where skin is quite thin and fragile, which often is encountered in elderly patients; the forearms and lower legs are the most frequent locations for thin skin.¹ Dermatologic surgeons frequently encounter these situations, making this a highly practical arena for technical improvements.

For many of these patients, there is little meaningful dermis for placement of subcutaneous sutures. Therefore, a common approach following surgery, particularly following Mohs micrographic surgery in which tumors and defects typically are larger, is healing by secondary intention.² Although healing by secondary intention often is a reasonable option, we have found that maximizing the use of epidermal skin for primary closure can be an effective means of closing many such defects. Antimicrobial reinforced skin closure strips have been incorporated in wound closure for thin skin. However, earlier efforts involving reinforcement perpendicular to the wound lacked critical details or used a different technique.³

The Technique

We developed a novel effective closure technique that minimizes these problems. Our technique has been used on the wounds of hundreds of patients with satisfying results. Early on, we used multiple variations to optimize outcomes, including different sizes of sutures and reinforced skin closure strips, application of medical liquid adhesive, liquid adhesive, and varying postoperative dressings. For 3 years, we tracked outcomes in-house and gradually narrowed down our successes into a single, user-friendly paradigm.

Supplies—To perform this technique, required supplies include:

• 2-0 Polypropylene suture with a PS-2 needle, or the equivalent. Polyglactin or silk suture can be utilized if a less-rigid suture is desired; however, we primarily have used polypropylene for repairs with good results. Each repair requires at least 2 sutures.

• Reinforced skin closure strips (1×5 inches). This width affords increased strength.

• Conforming stretch bandage and elastic self-adherent wrap.

• Polysporin (bacitracin zinc, polymyxin B sulfate, and petrolatum)(Johnson & Johnson).

• All usual surgical instruments and supplies, including paper tape and nonadherent gauze (surgeon dependent).

Step-by-step Technique—Close the wound using the following steps:

1. Once the defect is finalized following Mohs micrographic surgery or excision, excise the ellipse to be utilized for the closure and perform complete hemostasis.

2. Place 2 layers of reinforced skin closure strips—one on top of the other—along each side of the defect, leaving approximately 1 cm of uncovered skin between the wound edges and the reinforced skin closure strips (Figure, A).

3. Take a big-bite pulley suture about one-third of the way from one end of the ellipse, with both punctures passing through the reinforced skin closure strips. Leave that in place or have the assistant hold it and wait. Place a second suture immediately adjacent to the pulley suture. Once that suture is placed but still untied, have the assistant carefully pull the pulley suture outward away from the wound edge while you carefully bring the suture together and tie it off gently (Figure, B). Doing this utilizes the pulley ability of the suture to protect the skin from tearing and releases sufficient pressure on the single suture so that it can be easily tightened without risk to the fragile skin.

4. Repeat step 3, this time placing a pulley suture near the midline of the ellipse and the subsequent single suture adjacent to it.

5. Take pulley sutures repeatedly as in steps 3 and 4 until multiple sutures are secured in place. Replace the pulley sutures with single sutures because the double-pulley sutures in areas of lower vascularity tend to have, in our experience, a slightly increased incidence of focal necrosis in comparison to single sutures.

6. Make a concerted attempt to keep as much blood as possible off the reinforced skin closure strips throughout the procedure; the less dried blood on the reinforced skin closure strips, the cleaner and better the final closure (Figure, C).

7. Most of these cases involve the forearms and the legs below the knees. Because any increase in pressure or swelling on the wound can result in skin breakdown, postoperative dressing is critical. We use a layered approach; the following sequence can be modified to the preference of the surgeon: Polysporin (bacitracin zinc, polymyxin B sulfate, and petrolatum), nonadherent gauze, paper tape, conforming stretch bandage, and elastic self-adherent wrap. Minimizing swelling and infection are the primary goals. The wrap is left on for 1 week and should be kept dry.

8. Have the patient return to the office in 1 week. Unwrap the entire wound; trim back the reinforced skin closure strips; and have the patient utilize typical wound care at home thereafter consisting of cleaning and application of Polysporin or plain petrolatum, nonadherent gauze, and a paper-tape bandage. Because liquid adhesive is not utilized in this technique, the reinforced skin closure strips can be carefully removed without tearing skin. Leave sutures in for 3 weeks for arm procedures and 4 weeks for leg procedures, unless irritation develops or rapid suture overgrowth occurs in either location.

Complications

Most outcomes after using this technique are typical of optimized linear surgeries, with reduced scarring and complete wound healing (Figure, D). We seldom see complications but the following are possible:

• Bleeding occurs but rarely; the weeklong wrap likely provides great benefit.

• Infection is rare but does occur occasionally, as in any surgical procedure.

• Breakdown of the entire wound is rare; however, we occasionally see focal necrosis near 1 stitch—or rarely 2 stitches—that does not require intervention, apart from longer use of topical Polysporin or petrolatum alone to maximize healing by secondary intention in those small areas.• Despite simple suture placement far from the edge of the wound, wound inversion is seldom a problem because these taut closures have a tendency to expand slightly due to postoperative swelling.

Practice Implications

Any experienced dermatologic surgeon can perfect this technique for closing a wound in thin skin. Because wound closure in areas of fragile skin frequently is encountered in cutaneous surgery, we hope that utilizing this technique results in an optimal outcome for many patients.

Key clinical point: The use of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs did not increase the risk for rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) progression, except leflunomide, which increased the risk for ILD-progression in patients with severe ILD.

Major finding: Overall, the use vs no use of methotrexate, tacrolimus, or leflunomide was not associated with an increased risk for ILD progression; however, leflunomide significantly increased the risk for ILD progression in patients with reduced lung function (adjusted hazard ratio 8.42; 95% CI 2.61-27.15).

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 143 patients with RA-ILD who received methotrexate, leflunomide, or tacrolimus.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Seoul National University Hospital and Korea Health Technology R&D Project funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kim J-W et al. Methotrexate, leflunomide, and tacrolimus use and the progression of rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Nov 17). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac651

Key clinical point: The use of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs did not increase the risk for rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) progression, except leflunomide, which increased the risk for ILD-progression in patients with severe ILD.

Major finding: Overall, the use vs no use of methotrexate, tacrolimus, or leflunomide was not associated with an increased risk for ILD progression; however, leflunomide significantly increased the risk for ILD progression in patients with reduced lung function (adjusted hazard ratio 8.42; 95% CI 2.61-27.15).

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 143 patients with RA-ILD who received methotrexate, leflunomide, or tacrolimus.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Seoul National University Hospital and Korea Health Technology R&D Project funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kim J-W et al. Methotrexate, leflunomide, and tacrolimus use and the progression of rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Nov 17). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac651

Key clinical point: The use of conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs did not increase the risk for rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease (RA-ILD) progression, except leflunomide, which increased the risk for ILD-progression in patients with severe ILD.

Major finding: Overall, the use vs no use of methotrexate, tacrolimus, or leflunomide was not associated with an increased risk for ILD progression; however, leflunomide significantly increased the risk for ILD progression in patients with reduced lung function (adjusted hazard ratio 8.42; 95% CI 2.61-27.15).

Study details: This prospective cohort study included 143 patients with RA-ILD who received methotrexate, leflunomide, or tacrolimus.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Seoul National University Hospital and Korea Health Technology R&D Project funded by the Ministry of Health and Welfare, Republic of Korea. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Kim J-W et al. Methotrexate, leflunomide, and tacrolimus use and the progression of rheumatoid arthritis-associated interstitial lung disease. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2022 (Nov 17). Doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/keac651

A new hereditary test can determine whether a cancer-disposing gene was inherited from a patient’s father or mother without the need for parental DNA, potentially improving disease screening and management.

“The presence of parental imprints in regions of the genome has been known for a long time,” study author Peter Lansdorp, MD, PhD, of the BC Cancer Research Centre in Vancouver, said in an interview. In addition, the ability of a specific sequencing technology (Strand-seq) to generate a set of DNA variants that tend to be inherited together from a single parent has been documented in several studies.

“That these two pieces can be put together to assign alleles in a patient to one of the parents without studying the DNA of the parents is a major advance,” said Dr. Lansdorp.

Principal author Steven J.M. Jones, PhD, associate director of bioinformatics at BC Cancer Research Centre, explained, “for directing cascade genetic testing, the test could be used almost immediately, even as a research test. It just guides which side of the family to focus familial genetic testing efforts on and is internally validated by the patient’s variant and later confirmed by clinical testing in the family.”

Directing cascade genetic testing to one side of the family over the other could speed time to diagnosis of more carriers and allow for more efficient use of genetic counseling resources, Dr. Jones added, especially when parents are deceased or unavailable.

The study was published online in Cell Genomics.
 

Low error rate

Determining a parent of origin for hereditary variants “is essential to evaluate disease risk when a pathogenic variant has PofO effects, that is, when a patient’s risk of disease depends on from which parent it is inherited,” the authors wrote. An example is hereditary paraganglioma-pheochromocytoma syndrome as a result of pathogenic variants in SDHD or SDHAF2 genes. Individuals with the variants are at high risk of developing certain cancers, but only if a defective gene is inherited from their father. If inherited from their mother, there is no increased risk.

The new method relies on a technique called “phased DNA methylation” at maternally and paternally imprinted gene loci, as well as chromosome length phasing of DNA sequences.

The team used five human genome “trios” – two parents and the proband (the first person in a family to receive genetic testing or counseling for a suspected hereditary risk) – to pilot the approach. They showed that the method can correctly identify the PofO with an average mismatch error rate of 0.31% for single nucleotide variants and 1.89% for insertions or deletions (indels).

“We will need to validate this technology for different genes in real-world samples from individuals of diverse backgrounds,” said Dr. Jones. The first step is to validate the technology in scenarios with immediate clinical utility, like with SDHD, where lifelong medical management is affected by knowledge of whether the variant was inherited from the mother or father.

“We would also like to quickly validate this for common hereditary cancer genes, like BRCA1, BRCA2, and Lynch syndrome–associated genes, where prediction of PofO may improve low rates of genetic testing in family members by providing more accurate estimates of their risk to carry the familial variant.”

Challenges to moving the test to the clinic, Dr. Jones said, include scaling up the technology, demonstrating clinical and economic utility, compared with existing testing approaches, “and familiarizing clinicians with a new type of test that will routinely give this added dimension of information.”
 

‘Tremendously promising technology’

Pathologist Stephen Yip, MD, PhD, of the Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, who was not involved in the study but disclosed that he collaborates with the authors on other grant-funded projects, said in a comment that “this is a tremendously promising technology that has immediate practical implications in the investigation of PofO of a pathogenic locus, particularly when genetic material is available only from the proband.”

However, “rigorous validation against the current gold standard of short-reading, next-generation sequencing of trios is needed prior to clinical deployment,” he said. “This will take time and effort. However, the promise of this technology is worth the effort.

“Also, there is the possibility of uncovering novel genetics during testing, which could present an ethical dilemma,” he noted. “A robust consenting and ethical framework and early involvement of an ethicist would be helpful.”

Research in Dr. Lansdorp’s laboratory is funded by the Terry Fox Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, and the government of British Columbia. Dr. Lansdorp, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Yip reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new hereditary test can determine whether a cancer-disposing gene was inherited from a patient’s father or mother without the need for parental DNA, potentially improving disease screening and management.

“The presence of parental imprints in regions of the genome has been known for a long time,” study author Peter Lansdorp, MD, PhD, of the BC Cancer Research Centre in Vancouver, said in an interview. In addition, the ability of a specific sequencing technology (Strand-seq) to generate a set of DNA variants that tend to be inherited together from a single parent has been documented in several studies.

“That these two pieces can be put together to assign alleles in a patient to one of the parents without studying the DNA of the parents is a major advance,” said Dr. Lansdorp.

Principal author Steven J.M. Jones, PhD, associate director of bioinformatics at BC Cancer Research Centre, explained, “for directing cascade genetic testing, the test could be used almost immediately, even as a research test. It just guides which side of the family to focus familial genetic testing efforts on and is internally validated by the patient’s variant and later confirmed by clinical testing in the family.”

Directing cascade genetic testing to one side of the family over the other could speed time to diagnosis of more carriers and allow for more efficient use of genetic counseling resources, Dr. Jones added, especially when parents are deceased or unavailable.

The study was published online in Cell Genomics.
 

Low error rate

Determining a parent of origin for hereditary variants “is essential to evaluate disease risk when a pathogenic variant has PofO effects, that is, when a patient’s risk of disease depends on from which parent it is inherited,” the authors wrote. An example is hereditary paraganglioma-pheochromocytoma syndrome as a result of pathogenic variants in SDHD or SDHAF2 genes. Individuals with the variants are at high risk of developing certain cancers, but only if a defective gene is inherited from their father. If inherited from their mother, there is no increased risk.

The new method relies on a technique called “phased DNA methylation” at maternally and paternally imprinted gene loci, as well as chromosome length phasing of DNA sequences.

The team used five human genome “trios” – two parents and the proband (the first person in a family to receive genetic testing or counseling for a suspected hereditary risk) – to pilot the approach. They showed that the method can correctly identify the PofO with an average mismatch error rate of 0.31% for single nucleotide variants and 1.89% for insertions or deletions (indels).

“We will need to validate this technology for different genes in real-world samples from individuals of diverse backgrounds,” said Dr. Jones. The first step is to validate the technology in scenarios with immediate clinical utility, like with SDHD, where lifelong medical management is affected by knowledge of whether the variant was inherited from the mother or father.

“We would also like to quickly validate this for common hereditary cancer genes, like BRCA1, BRCA2, and Lynch syndrome–associated genes, where prediction of PofO may improve low rates of genetic testing in family members by providing more accurate estimates of their risk to carry the familial variant.”

Challenges to moving the test to the clinic, Dr. Jones said, include scaling up the technology, demonstrating clinical and economic utility, compared with existing testing approaches, “and familiarizing clinicians with a new type of test that will routinely give this added dimension of information.”
 

‘Tremendously promising technology’

Pathologist Stephen Yip, MD, PhD, of the Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, who was not involved in the study but disclosed that he collaborates with the authors on other grant-funded projects, said in a comment that “this is a tremendously promising technology that has immediate practical implications in the investigation of PofO of a pathogenic locus, particularly when genetic material is available only from the proband.”

However, “rigorous validation against the current gold standard of short-reading, next-generation sequencing of trios is needed prior to clinical deployment,” he said. “This will take time and effort. However, the promise of this technology is worth the effort.

“Also, there is the possibility of uncovering novel genetics during testing, which could present an ethical dilemma,” he noted. “A robust consenting and ethical framework and early involvement of an ethicist would be helpful.”

Research in Dr. Lansdorp’s laboratory is funded by the Terry Fox Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, and the government of British Columbia. Dr. Lansdorp, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Yip reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

A new hereditary test can determine whether a cancer-disposing gene was inherited from a patient’s father or mother without the need for parental DNA, potentially improving disease screening and management.

“The presence of parental imprints in regions of the genome has been known for a long time,” study author Peter Lansdorp, MD, PhD, of the BC Cancer Research Centre in Vancouver, said in an interview. In addition, the ability of a specific sequencing technology (Strand-seq) to generate a set of DNA variants that tend to be inherited together from a single parent has been documented in several studies.

“That these two pieces can be put together to assign alleles in a patient to one of the parents without studying the DNA of the parents is a major advance,” said Dr. Lansdorp.

Principal author Steven J.M. Jones, PhD, associate director of bioinformatics at BC Cancer Research Centre, explained, “for directing cascade genetic testing, the test could be used almost immediately, even as a research test. It just guides which side of the family to focus familial genetic testing efforts on and is internally validated by the patient’s variant and later confirmed by clinical testing in the family.”

Directing cascade genetic testing to one side of the family over the other could speed time to diagnosis of more carriers and allow for more efficient use of genetic counseling resources, Dr. Jones added, especially when parents are deceased or unavailable.

The study was published online in Cell Genomics.
 

Low error rate

Determining a parent of origin for hereditary variants “is essential to evaluate disease risk when a pathogenic variant has PofO effects, that is, when a patient’s risk of disease depends on from which parent it is inherited,” the authors wrote. An example is hereditary paraganglioma-pheochromocytoma syndrome as a result of pathogenic variants in SDHD or SDHAF2 genes. Individuals with the variants are at high risk of developing certain cancers, but only if a defective gene is inherited from their father. If inherited from their mother, there is no increased risk.

The new method relies on a technique called “phased DNA methylation” at maternally and paternally imprinted gene loci, as well as chromosome length phasing of DNA sequences.

The team used five human genome “trios” – two parents and the proband (the first person in a family to receive genetic testing or counseling for a suspected hereditary risk) – to pilot the approach. They showed that the method can correctly identify the PofO with an average mismatch error rate of 0.31% for single nucleotide variants and 1.89% for insertions or deletions (indels).

“We will need to validate this technology for different genes in real-world samples from individuals of diverse backgrounds,” said Dr. Jones. The first step is to validate the technology in scenarios with immediate clinical utility, like with SDHD, where lifelong medical management is affected by knowledge of whether the variant was inherited from the mother or father.

“We would also like to quickly validate this for common hereditary cancer genes, like BRCA1, BRCA2, and Lynch syndrome–associated genes, where prediction of PofO may improve low rates of genetic testing in family members by providing more accurate estimates of their risk to carry the familial variant.”

Challenges to moving the test to the clinic, Dr. Jones said, include scaling up the technology, demonstrating clinical and economic utility, compared with existing testing approaches, “and familiarizing clinicians with a new type of test that will routinely give this added dimension of information.”
 

‘Tremendously promising technology’

Pathologist Stephen Yip, MD, PhD, of the Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute, who was not involved in the study but disclosed that he collaborates with the authors on other grant-funded projects, said in a comment that “this is a tremendously promising technology that has immediate practical implications in the investigation of PofO of a pathogenic locus, particularly when genetic material is available only from the proband.”

However, “rigorous validation against the current gold standard of short-reading, next-generation sequencing of trios is needed prior to clinical deployment,” he said. “This will take time and effort. However, the promise of this technology is worth the effort.

“Also, there is the possibility of uncovering novel genetics during testing, which could present an ethical dilemma,” he noted. “A robust consenting and ethical framework and early involvement of an ethicist would be helpful.”

Research in Dr. Lansdorp’s laboratory is funded by the Terry Fox Research Institute, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, and the government of British Columbia. Dr. Lansdorp, Dr. Jones, and Dr. Yip reported no relevant financial relationships.

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