Nutritional dermatoses are classically associated with dietary nutrient deficiencies; however, cutaneous disease as a consequence of nutrient excess often is overlooked. Chronic hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia resulting from excess carbohydrate intake may be implicated in a number of cutaneous pathologies, of which every dermatologist should be aware.^1-3

Although diabetic patients exhibit many cutaneous manifestations of excess carbohydrate consumption, the absence of a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) does not necessarily preclude them.^4-6 Emerging evidence now highlights the development of insulin resistance well before a patient ever meets the diagnostic criteria for T2DM.^7,8 Cutaneous disease can provide early insight into a patient’s glucose tolerance and may be the first sign of metabolic derangement. Prompt recognition of these cutaneous alterations and management of the patient’s underlying systemic disease can improve their quality of life and help prevent severe systemic complications associated with insulin resistance and impaired glucose tolerance.

The aim of this review is to highlight both common and rare cutaneous manifestations associated with the persistent consumption of high glycemic load diets, resultant hyperglycemic and hyperinsulinemic states, and the pathophysiologic mechanisms that underlie them.

Acanthosis Nigricans

Acanthosis nigricans (AN) is a highly prevalent cutaneous finding in individuals with insulin resistance that clinically presents as thickened, hyperpigmented, velvety plaques on the intertriginous and flexural surfaces. The most frequently involved sites include the neck, axillae (Figure), and inframammary and inguinal folds. Black and Hispanic patients most commonly are affected. Although classically associated with T2DM, AN also can be observed in normoglycemic individuals.^7-9 One recent study reported the rate of AN to be 36% in a cohort of middle-aged patients (N=320) with normal fasting blood glucose levels, while the rate of AN in matched patients with hyperglycemia (prediabetes and T2DM) was approximately 50%.⁷ Quantification of insulin resistance was performed using the homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance index. Interestingly, the specificity for insulin resistance in normoglycemic and hyperglycemic subjects with AN was 85% and 90%, respectively.⁷ These findings suggest that AN may serve as a convenient surrogate marker for subclinical insulin resistance, a conclusion that has been reported in a series of previous studies.^8-10

Although the pathogenesis of AN has not been fully elucidated, it is known that persistently elevated blood glucose triggers continual secretion of insulin and insulinlike growth factor 1 (IGF-1), which results in the overstimulation of insulin and IGF-1 receptors on keratinocytes and dermal fibroblasts through direct and indirect pathways.^11,12 The resultant cellular proliferation can be observed histologically in the forms of orthokeratotic hyperkeratosis and papillomatosis, as occurs in AN.^11,13 Further supporting the association between elevated insulin and AN are reports of AN developing at sites of repeated insulin injection as well as genetic mutations in the insulin receptor resulting in severe AN in children.^14-16

The treatment of AN ultimately focuses on improving glycemic control and reducing insulin resistance through lifestyle modification and pharmacotherapy with agents such as metformin.^11,13 Dermatologic treatment with oral and topical keratolytic agents such as isotretinoin and other retinoids, salicylic acid, urea, or ammonium lactate may be used, but their efficacy generally has been limited.^11,13,17,18

Diabetic Dermopathy

Diabetic dermopathy (DD), commonly known as shin spots, refers to the red-brown, atrophic, circinate macules and patches that often appear on the lower extremities in patients with T2DM. Although the pretibial area is the most frequently involved site, other areas of bony prominence such as the forearms can be affected. The prevalence of DD in the diabetic population can be exceedingly high, with some studies reporting incidence rates greater than 50%, particularly in those with poorly controlled T2DM.^19-21 Interestingly, DD also has been documented in patients without T2DM and has been postulated to be an early sign of insulin resistance.^20,22

The pathogenesis of DD remains uncertain, but one proposed mechanism is through microvascular damage caused by hyperglycemia-induced, nonenzymatic glycation, possibly in conjunction with mild trauma, that leads to the deposition of hemosiderin and melanin in the skin.^20,23 A recent study identified increased vascularization of dermopathy lesions when compared with surrounding tissue.²⁴ Subcutaneous nerve ischemia and degeneration secondary to diabetic neuropathy also have been postulated as causative.^20,23 Given the lack of effective therapies and the asymptomatic nature of DD, treatment typically is not pursued. However, DD is associated with other diabetic microvascular complications, including diabetic nephropathy, retinopathy, and neuropathy. For this reason, identification of DD warrants further characterization and management of a patient’s underlying diabetes.^19,20

Scleredema Diabeticorum

Scleredema diabeticorum (SD) refers to the slowly progressive, painless thickening and woody induration of the neck, shoulders, and upper back in individuals with long-standing, poorly controlled diabetes. The condition is almost exclusively seen in the diabetic population, with prevalence rates reported to be as high as 14%.^25-27 Although SD generally is asymptomatic, some individuals may experience restricted mobility and decreased sensation in affected areas.^25,27,28 The diagnosis of SD frequently is missed or ignored clinically. Biopsy can provide diagnostic confirmation of this entity, as histopathology reveals a thickened reticular dermis with an accumulation of collagen and adjacent mucinous infiltrate with no edema or sclerosis.^28,29

Although the pathogenesis of SD is not well established, it is theorized that the binding of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) to collagen fibers impairs proper cross-linking and degradation by collagenase.^29-31 It is well known that hyperglycemic conditions can promote endogenous formation of AGEs, which occur when reducing sugar molecules become glycated through a nonenzymatic reaction.^30-32 The Western diet also is high in preformed AGEs, which are created primarily through certain high-heat cooking methods such as frying and grilling.^31,32 Hyperglycemia-induced stimulation of fibroblasts also has been proposed as a driver of increased collagen deposition observed histologically in SD.^28,29,33 Treatment of SD can be difficult, as there are no consistently reported therapies, and even improvement in glycemic control does not appear to reverse this condition.²⁹ Case reports have demonstrated some efficacy with various phototherapeutic modalities, including psoralen plus UVA and narrowband UVB phototherapy.^34-36

Ichthyosiform Skin Changes

Ichthyosiform skin changes refer to areas of xerosis and scaling that classically present on the anterior distal lower extremities. Although ichthyosiform alterations have been associated with numerous systemic diseases, they often represent an early finding in diabetic patients.^27,37 The development of ichthyosiform skin changes has been linked to the formation and accumulation of AGEs, which can cause defective cell adhesion in the stratum corneum.^37,38 Treatment with topical emollients and keratolytics may prove beneficial for the skin but do not improve the underlying systemic condition.³⁹

Acrochordons

Acrochordons (skin tags) are common benign fibroepithelial polyps that classically present on the face, neck, and trunk. The underlying mechanism responsible for the development of acrochordons is uncertain, but the association with insulin resistance and impaired carbohydrate metabolism is well validated.^40-46 Several large cross-sectional and case-control studies have reported rates of T2DM ranging from 23% to 72% in patients with acrochordons.^41,42,47 The pathophysiology may involve an increase in tissue and epidermal growth factors driven by elevated serum insulin levels, stimulation of IGF-1 receptors, and a localized proliferation of cutaneous tissue in elastin-poor areas.^45,48,49 Interestingly, the quantity of acrochordons has been positively correlated with fasting blood glucose levels. Additionally, the presence of 30 or more acrochordons was found to increase the risk of developing T2DM.⁴¹ Therefore, the presence and number of acrochordons may serve as a convenient indicator of systemic glycemic control and insulin resistance. Screening for T2DM is warranted in individuals without a prior diagnosis who present with multiple acrochordons.

Keratosis Pilaris

Keratosis pilaris (KP) is a benign skin condition characterized by pink-red, erythematous, monomorphic, follicular papules often seen on the extensor arms, thighs, buttocks, and cheeks. Keratosis pilaris is exceedingly common in the general population but occurs more frequently and with more extensive involvement in those with atopic dermatitis and T2DM.^27,50,51 The mechanism underlying the hyperkeratosis and inflammatory change observed in KP is not well understood and is likely multifactorial.^52,53 Hyperandrogenism, as a consequence of hyperinsulinemia, may play an important role in KP, as elevated circulating androgens are known drivers of keratinocyte proliferation of the pilosebaceous unit of hair follicles.^52,54 Support for this theory includes the clinical exaggeration of KP frequently encountered around puberty when androgen levels peak.^55,56 Moreover, one study found a higher incidence of KP among adolescent patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus than among healthy age-matched controls.²⁷ The most effective treatment of KP appears to be laser therapy, particularly the Q-switched Nd:YAG laser. Numerous topical modalities have been employed to treat KP but exhibit limited efficacy, including mineral oil, tacrolimus, azelaic acid, and salicylic acid, among others.⁵⁷

Necrobiosis Lipoidica

Necrobiosis lipoidica (NL) is a chronic granulomatous skin condition of unknown origin that presents with well-demarcated, yellow-brown, atrophic patches and plaques often found exclusively on the shins. There is a strong association with type 1 diabetes mellitus, with reported rates ranging from 11% to 65% in patients with NL.^58-60 In a recent retrospective study of 236 patients with NL, 58.5% of patients had diabetes.⁶¹ Nevertheless, NL is a rare entity that affects less than 1% of the diabetic population.⁶⁰ Given its correlation with diabetes, it has been postulated that the pathogenesis of NL is due to microvascular ischemic changes resulting from prolonged hyperglycemia.⁶⁰ However, studies revealing an increase in blood flow to NL lesions suggest that the condition may instead be attributed to an inflammatory process.⁶² Despite the disfiguring appearance, the lesions of NL often are asymptomatic. Pain or pruritus may develop secondary to ulceration, which occurs in approximately one-third of patients. Although many treatment options have been attempted—including topical and intralesional corticosteroids, immunomodulators, platelet inhibitors, and phototherapy—efficacy is limited.⁶⁰

Bullosis Diabeticorum

Bullosis diabeticorum (BD) is the abrupt onset of noninflammatory vesicles and bullae developing in the setting of diabetes. The prevalence of BD in the diabetic population ranges from 0.16% to 0.5%.^63-66 Bullosis diabeticorum occasionally has been reported to occur prior to the onset of diabetes, warranting screening hemoglobin A_1c in patients without an established diagnosis of diabetes.⁶⁷ Bullae most commonly present over the acral surfaces, but the lower extremities also are routinely affected. Bullae typically are large and painless, contain clear fluid, and may progress from tense to flaccid over the course of several days. Although histologic analysis reveals nonspecific findings, biopsy may be useful in excluding other bullous disorders. Because BD is a benign condition that spontaneously resolves over several weeks, treatment rarely is pursued.^63,64

Generalized Granuloma Annulare

Generalized granuloma annulare (GA) is an idiopathic inflammatory cutaneous disorder characterized by pink-red, arciform and annular, nonscaly, beaded papules and plaques. Granuloma annulare can be localized or generalized with perforating, patch, and palmoplantar variants. Although the pathogenesis is poorly understood, some studies have demonstrated a correlation between GA and type 1 diabetes mellitus.^68-71 Generalized GA appears to be most strongly associated with diabetes, and approximately 10% to 15% of cases occur in this population.^70,72 Because GA has been reported to precede the diagnosis of diabetes, patients with generalized or recurrent localized GA should be screened for persistent hyperglycemia with a hemoglobin A_1c test.^71,73 Although some GA is self-resolving, treatment options for persevering GA include topical and intralesional steroids, isotretinoin, dapsone, tacrolimus, antimalarials, biologic medications, and psoralen plus UVA therapy.⁷⁴

Final Thoughts

Mechanistic links between common cutaneous conditions and persistent hyperglycemic and hyperinsulinemic states are slowly emerging. Hyperglycemia promotes nonenzymatic glycation of the vascular endothelium as well as formation of AGEs that impair cross-linking of collagen in the skin. The consequent microangiopathic damage may lead to cutaneous conditions such as DD, NL, and BD. In addition to microvascular compromise, impaired collagen cross-linking may result in ichthyosiform skin changes and SD. Hyperinsulinemia causes increased circulating levels of IGF-1, which leads to the overactivation of IGF-1 receptors present on fibroblasts and keratinocytes. This aberrant IGF-1 signaling drives cellular hyperproliferation and differentiation, which may be responsible for cutaneous findings such as AN, KP, and/or acrochordons. An insulin-dependent increase in IGF-1 and androgenic signaling may have implications for hormonally driven inflammatory skin disorders such as acne vulgaris and hidradenitis suppurativa, warranting further investigation.

Physicians should be aware of these dermatologic manifestations and their proposed underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms related to impaired glucose tolerance and insulin resistance. A diagnosis of T2DM is not a prerequisite for metabolic disturbance, and the skin may serve as the first clue to underlying systemic disease. Early identification of these cutaneous conditions may lead to timely patient counseling, lifestyle modification, and/or medical management, preventing the long-term sequelae associated with metabolic disorders.

Nutritional dermatoses are classically associated with dietary nutrient deficiencies; however, cutaneous disease as a consequence of nutrient excess often is overlooked. Chronic hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia resulting from excess carbohydrate intake may be implicated in a number of cutaneous pathologies, of which every dermatologist should be aware.^1-3

Although diabetic patients exhibit many cutaneous manifestations of excess carbohydrate consumption, the absence of a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) does not necessarily preclude them.^4-6 Emerging evidence now highlights the development of insulin resistance well before a patient ever meets the diagnostic criteria for T2DM.^7,8 Cutaneous disease can provide early insight into a patient’s glucose tolerance and may be the first sign of metabolic derangement. Prompt recognition of these cutaneous alterations and management of the patient’s underlying systemic disease can improve their quality of life and help prevent severe systemic complications associated with insulin resistance and impaired glucose tolerance.

The aim of this review is to highlight both common and rare cutaneous manifestations associated with the persistent consumption of high glycemic load diets, resultant hyperglycemic and hyperinsulinemic states, and the pathophysiologic mechanisms that underlie them.

Acanthosis Nigricans

Acanthosis nigricans (AN) is a highly prevalent cutaneous finding in individuals with insulin resistance that clinically presents as thickened, hyperpigmented, velvety plaques on the intertriginous and flexural surfaces. The most frequently involved sites include the neck, axillae (Figure), and inframammary and inguinal folds. Black and Hispanic patients most commonly are affected. Although classically associated with T2DM, AN also can be observed in normoglycemic individuals.^7-9 One recent study reported the rate of AN to be 36% in a cohort of middle-aged patients (N=320) with normal fasting blood glucose levels, while the rate of AN in matched patients with hyperglycemia (prediabetes and T2DM) was approximately 50%.⁷ Quantification of insulin resistance was performed using the homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance index. Interestingly, the specificity for insulin resistance in normoglycemic and hyperglycemic subjects with AN was 85% and 90%, respectively.⁷ These findings suggest that AN may serve as a convenient surrogate marker for subclinical insulin resistance, a conclusion that has been reported in a series of previous studies.^8-10

Although the pathogenesis of AN has not been fully elucidated, it is known that persistently elevated blood glucose triggers continual secretion of insulin and insulinlike growth factor 1 (IGF-1), which results in the overstimulation of insulin and IGF-1 receptors on keratinocytes and dermal fibroblasts through direct and indirect pathways.^11,12 The resultant cellular proliferation can be observed histologically in the forms of orthokeratotic hyperkeratosis and papillomatosis, as occurs in AN.^11,13 Further supporting the association between elevated insulin and AN are reports of AN developing at sites of repeated insulin injection as well as genetic mutations in the insulin receptor resulting in severe AN in children.^14-16

The treatment of AN ultimately focuses on improving glycemic control and reducing insulin resistance through lifestyle modification and pharmacotherapy with agents such as metformin.^11,13 Dermatologic treatment with oral and topical keratolytic agents such as isotretinoin and other retinoids, salicylic acid, urea, or ammonium lactate may be used, but their efficacy generally has been limited.^11,13,17,18

Diabetic Dermopathy

Diabetic dermopathy (DD), commonly known as shin spots, refers to the red-brown, atrophic, circinate macules and patches that often appear on the lower extremities in patients with T2DM. Although the pretibial area is the most frequently involved site, other areas of bony prominence such as the forearms can be affected. The prevalence of DD in the diabetic population can be exceedingly high, with some studies reporting incidence rates greater than 50%, particularly in those with poorly controlled T2DM.^19-21 Interestingly, DD also has been documented in patients without T2DM and has been postulated to be an early sign of insulin resistance.^20,22

The pathogenesis of DD remains uncertain, but one proposed mechanism is through microvascular damage caused by hyperglycemia-induced, nonenzymatic glycation, possibly in conjunction with mild trauma, that leads to the deposition of hemosiderin and melanin in the skin.^20,23 A recent study identified increased vascularization of dermopathy lesions when compared with surrounding tissue.²⁴ Subcutaneous nerve ischemia and degeneration secondary to diabetic neuropathy also have been postulated as causative.^20,23 Given the lack of effective therapies and the asymptomatic nature of DD, treatment typically is not pursued. However, DD is associated with other diabetic microvascular complications, including diabetic nephropathy, retinopathy, and neuropathy. For this reason, identification of DD warrants further characterization and management of a patient’s underlying diabetes.^19,20

Scleredema Diabeticorum

Scleredema diabeticorum (SD) refers to the slowly progressive, painless thickening and woody induration of the neck, shoulders, and upper back in individuals with long-standing, poorly controlled diabetes. The condition is almost exclusively seen in the diabetic population, with prevalence rates reported to be as high as 14%.^25-27 Although SD generally is asymptomatic, some individuals may experience restricted mobility and decreased sensation in affected areas.^25,27,28 The diagnosis of SD frequently is missed or ignored clinically. Biopsy can provide diagnostic confirmation of this entity, as histopathology reveals a thickened reticular dermis with an accumulation of collagen and adjacent mucinous infiltrate with no edema or sclerosis.^28,29

Although the pathogenesis of SD is not well established, it is theorized that the binding of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) to collagen fibers impairs proper cross-linking and degradation by collagenase.^29-31 It is well known that hyperglycemic conditions can promote endogenous formation of AGEs, which occur when reducing sugar molecules become glycated through a nonenzymatic reaction.^30-32 The Western diet also is high in preformed AGEs, which are created primarily through certain high-heat cooking methods such as frying and grilling.^31,32 Hyperglycemia-induced stimulation of fibroblasts also has been proposed as a driver of increased collagen deposition observed histologically in SD.^28,29,33 Treatment of SD can be difficult, as there are no consistently reported therapies, and even improvement in glycemic control does not appear to reverse this condition.²⁹ Case reports have demonstrated some efficacy with various phototherapeutic modalities, including psoralen plus UVA and narrowband UVB phototherapy.^34-36

Ichthyosiform Skin Changes

Ichthyosiform skin changes refer to areas of xerosis and scaling that classically present on the anterior distal lower extremities. Although ichthyosiform alterations have been associated with numerous systemic diseases, they often represent an early finding in diabetic patients.^27,37 The development of ichthyosiform skin changes has been linked to the formation and accumulation of AGEs, which can cause defective cell adhesion in the stratum corneum.^37,38 Treatment with topical emollients and keratolytics may prove beneficial for the skin but do not improve the underlying systemic condition.³⁹

Acrochordons

Acrochordons (skin tags) are common benign fibroepithelial polyps that classically present on the face, neck, and trunk. The underlying mechanism responsible for the development of acrochordons is uncertain, but the association with insulin resistance and impaired carbohydrate metabolism is well validated.^40-46 Several large cross-sectional and case-control studies have reported rates of T2DM ranging from 23% to 72% in patients with acrochordons.^41,42,47 The pathophysiology may involve an increase in tissue and epidermal growth factors driven by elevated serum insulin levels, stimulation of IGF-1 receptors, and a localized proliferation of cutaneous tissue in elastin-poor areas.^45,48,49 Interestingly, the quantity of acrochordons has been positively correlated with fasting blood glucose levels. Additionally, the presence of 30 or more acrochordons was found to increase the risk of developing T2DM.⁴¹ Therefore, the presence and number of acrochordons may serve as a convenient indicator of systemic glycemic control and insulin resistance. Screening for T2DM is warranted in individuals without a prior diagnosis who present with multiple acrochordons.

Keratosis Pilaris

Keratosis pilaris (KP) is a benign skin condition characterized by pink-red, erythematous, monomorphic, follicular papules often seen on the extensor arms, thighs, buttocks, and cheeks. Keratosis pilaris is exceedingly common in the general population but occurs more frequently and with more extensive involvement in those with atopic dermatitis and T2DM.^27,50,51 The mechanism underlying the hyperkeratosis and inflammatory change observed in KP is not well understood and is likely multifactorial.^52,53 Hyperandrogenism, as a consequence of hyperinsulinemia, may play an important role in KP, as elevated circulating androgens are known drivers of keratinocyte proliferation of the pilosebaceous unit of hair follicles.^52,54 Support for this theory includes the clinical exaggeration of KP frequently encountered around puberty when androgen levels peak.^55,56 Moreover, one study found a higher incidence of KP among adolescent patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus than among healthy age-matched controls.²⁷ The most effective treatment of KP appears to be laser therapy, particularly the Q-switched Nd:YAG laser. Numerous topical modalities have been employed to treat KP but exhibit limited efficacy, including mineral oil, tacrolimus, azelaic acid, and salicylic acid, among others.⁵⁷

Necrobiosis Lipoidica

Necrobiosis lipoidica (NL) is a chronic granulomatous skin condition of unknown origin that presents with well-demarcated, yellow-brown, atrophic patches and plaques often found exclusively on the shins. There is a strong association with type 1 diabetes mellitus, with reported rates ranging from 11% to 65% in patients with NL.^58-60 In a recent retrospective study of 236 patients with NL, 58.5% of patients had diabetes.⁶¹ Nevertheless, NL is a rare entity that affects less than 1% of the diabetic population.⁶⁰ Given its correlation with diabetes, it has been postulated that the pathogenesis of NL is due to microvascular ischemic changes resulting from prolonged hyperglycemia.⁶⁰ However, studies revealing an increase in blood flow to NL lesions suggest that the condition may instead be attributed to an inflammatory process.⁶² Despite the disfiguring appearance, the lesions of NL often are asymptomatic. Pain or pruritus may develop secondary to ulceration, which occurs in approximately one-third of patients. Although many treatment options have been attempted—including topical and intralesional corticosteroids, immunomodulators, platelet inhibitors, and phototherapy—efficacy is limited.⁶⁰

Bullosis Diabeticorum

Bullosis diabeticorum (BD) is the abrupt onset of noninflammatory vesicles and bullae developing in the setting of diabetes. The prevalence of BD in the diabetic population ranges from 0.16% to 0.5%.^63-66 Bullosis diabeticorum occasionally has been reported to occur prior to the onset of diabetes, warranting screening hemoglobin A_1c in patients without an established diagnosis of diabetes.⁶⁷ Bullae most commonly present over the acral surfaces, but the lower extremities also are routinely affected. Bullae typically are large and painless, contain clear fluid, and may progress from tense to flaccid over the course of several days. Although histologic analysis reveals nonspecific findings, biopsy may be useful in excluding other bullous disorders. Because BD is a benign condition that spontaneously resolves over several weeks, treatment rarely is pursued.^63,64

Generalized Granuloma Annulare

Generalized granuloma annulare (GA) is an idiopathic inflammatory cutaneous disorder characterized by pink-red, arciform and annular, nonscaly, beaded papules and plaques. Granuloma annulare can be localized or generalized with perforating, patch, and palmoplantar variants. Although the pathogenesis is poorly understood, some studies have demonstrated a correlation between GA and type 1 diabetes mellitus.^68-71 Generalized GA appears to be most strongly associated with diabetes, and approximately 10% to 15% of cases occur in this population.^70,72 Because GA has been reported to precede the diagnosis of diabetes, patients with generalized or recurrent localized GA should be screened for persistent hyperglycemia with a hemoglobin A_1c test.^71,73 Although some GA is self-resolving, treatment options for persevering GA include topical and intralesional steroids, isotretinoin, dapsone, tacrolimus, antimalarials, biologic medications, and psoralen plus UVA therapy.⁷⁴

Final Thoughts

Mechanistic links between common cutaneous conditions and persistent hyperglycemic and hyperinsulinemic states are slowly emerging. Hyperglycemia promotes nonenzymatic glycation of the vascular endothelium as well as formation of AGEs that impair cross-linking of collagen in the skin. The consequent microangiopathic damage may lead to cutaneous conditions such as DD, NL, and BD. In addition to microvascular compromise, impaired collagen cross-linking may result in ichthyosiform skin changes and SD. Hyperinsulinemia causes increased circulating levels of IGF-1, which leads to the overactivation of IGF-1 receptors present on fibroblasts and keratinocytes. This aberrant IGF-1 signaling drives cellular hyperproliferation and differentiation, which may be responsible for cutaneous findings such as AN, KP, and/or acrochordons. An insulin-dependent increase in IGF-1 and androgenic signaling may have implications for hormonally driven inflammatory skin disorders such as acne vulgaris and hidradenitis suppurativa, warranting further investigation.

Physicians should be aware of these dermatologic manifestations and their proposed underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms related to impaired glucose tolerance and insulin resistance. A diagnosis of T2DM is not a prerequisite for metabolic disturbance, and the skin may serve as the first clue to underlying systemic disease. Early identification of these cutaneous conditions may lead to timely patient counseling, lifestyle modification, and/or medical management, preventing the long-term sequelae associated with metabolic disorders.

Nutritional dermatoses are classically associated with dietary nutrient deficiencies; however, cutaneous disease as a consequence of nutrient excess often is overlooked. Chronic hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia resulting from excess carbohydrate intake may be implicated in a number of cutaneous pathologies, of which every dermatologist should be aware.^1-3

Although diabetic patients exhibit many cutaneous manifestations of excess carbohydrate consumption, the absence of a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) does not necessarily preclude them.^4-6 Emerging evidence now highlights the development of insulin resistance well before a patient ever meets the diagnostic criteria for T2DM.^7,8 Cutaneous disease can provide early insight into a patient’s glucose tolerance and may be the first sign of metabolic derangement. Prompt recognition of these cutaneous alterations and management of the patient’s underlying systemic disease can improve their quality of life and help prevent severe systemic complications associated with insulin resistance and impaired glucose tolerance.

The aim of this review is to highlight both common and rare cutaneous manifestations associated with the persistent consumption of high glycemic load diets, resultant hyperglycemic and hyperinsulinemic states, and the pathophysiologic mechanisms that underlie them.

Acanthosis Nigricans

Acanthosis nigricans (AN) is a highly prevalent cutaneous finding in individuals with insulin resistance that clinically presents as thickened, hyperpigmented, velvety plaques on the intertriginous and flexural surfaces. The most frequently involved sites include the neck, axillae (Figure), and inframammary and inguinal folds. Black and Hispanic patients most commonly are affected. Although classically associated with T2DM, AN also can be observed in normoglycemic individuals.^7-9 One recent study reported the rate of AN to be 36% in a cohort of middle-aged patients (N=320) with normal fasting blood glucose levels, while the rate of AN in matched patients with hyperglycemia (prediabetes and T2DM) was approximately 50%.⁷ Quantification of insulin resistance was performed using the homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance index. Interestingly, the specificity for insulin resistance in normoglycemic and hyperglycemic subjects with AN was 85% and 90%, respectively.⁷ These findings suggest that AN may serve as a convenient surrogate marker for subclinical insulin resistance, a conclusion that has been reported in a series of previous studies.^8-10

Although the pathogenesis of AN has not been fully elucidated, it is known that persistently elevated blood glucose triggers continual secretion of insulin and insulinlike growth factor 1 (IGF-1), which results in the overstimulation of insulin and IGF-1 receptors on keratinocytes and dermal fibroblasts through direct and indirect pathways.^11,12 The resultant cellular proliferation can be observed histologically in the forms of orthokeratotic hyperkeratosis and papillomatosis, as occurs in AN.^11,13 Further supporting the association between elevated insulin and AN are reports of AN developing at sites of repeated insulin injection as well as genetic mutations in the insulin receptor resulting in severe AN in children.^14-16

The treatment of AN ultimately focuses on improving glycemic control and reducing insulin resistance through lifestyle modification and pharmacotherapy with agents such as metformin.^11,13 Dermatologic treatment with oral and topical keratolytic agents such as isotretinoin and other retinoids, salicylic acid, urea, or ammonium lactate may be used, but their efficacy generally has been limited.^11,13,17,18

Diabetic Dermopathy

Diabetic dermopathy (DD), commonly known as shin spots, refers to the red-brown, atrophic, circinate macules and patches that often appear on the lower extremities in patients with T2DM. Although the pretibial area is the most frequently involved site, other areas of bony prominence such as the forearms can be affected. The prevalence of DD in the diabetic population can be exceedingly high, with some studies reporting incidence rates greater than 50%, particularly in those with poorly controlled T2DM.^19-21 Interestingly, DD also has been documented in patients without T2DM and has been postulated to be an early sign of insulin resistance.^20,22

The pathogenesis of DD remains uncertain, but one proposed mechanism is through microvascular damage caused by hyperglycemia-induced, nonenzymatic glycation, possibly in conjunction with mild trauma, that leads to the deposition of hemosiderin and melanin in the skin.^20,23 A recent study identified increased vascularization of dermopathy lesions when compared with surrounding tissue.²⁴ Subcutaneous nerve ischemia and degeneration secondary to diabetic neuropathy also have been postulated as causative.^20,23 Given the lack of effective therapies and the asymptomatic nature of DD, treatment typically is not pursued. However, DD is associated with other diabetic microvascular complications, including diabetic nephropathy, retinopathy, and neuropathy. For this reason, identification of DD warrants further characterization and management of a patient’s underlying diabetes.^19,20

Scleredema Diabeticorum

Scleredema diabeticorum (SD) refers to the slowly progressive, painless thickening and woody induration of the neck, shoulders, and upper back in individuals with long-standing, poorly controlled diabetes. The condition is almost exclusively seen in the diabetic population, with prevalence rates reported to be as high as 14%.^25-27 Although SD generally is asymptomatic, some individuals may experience restricted mobility and decreased sensation in affected areas.^25,27,28 The diagnosis of SD frequently is missed or ignored clinically. Biopsy can provide diagnostic confirmation of this entity, as histopathology reveals a thickened reticular dermis with an accumulation of collagen and adjacent mucinous infiltrate with no edema or sclerosis.^28,29

Although the pathogenesis of SD is not well established, it is theorized that the binding of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) to collagen fibers impairs proper cross-linking and degradation by collagenase.^29-31 It is well known that hyperglycemic conditions can promote endogenous formation of AGEs, which occur when reducing sugar molecules become glycated through a nonenzymatic reaction.^30-32 The Western diet also is high in preformed AGEs, which are created primarily through certain high-heat cooking methods such as frying and grilling.^31,32 Hyperglycemia-induced stimulation of fibroblasts also has been proposed as a driver of increased collagen deposition observed histologically in SD.^28,29,33 Treatment of SD can be difficult, as there are no consistently reported therapies, and even improvement in glycemic control does not appear to reverse this condition.²⁹ Case reports have demonstrated some efficacy with various phototherapeutic modalities, including psoralen plus UVA and narrowband UVB phototherapy.^34-36

Ichthyosiform Skin Changes

Ichthyosiform skin changes refer to areas of xerosis and scaling that classically present on the anterior distal lower extremities. Although ichthyosiform alterations have been associated with numerous systemic diseases, they often represent an early finding in diabetic patients.^27,37 The development of ichthyosiform skin changes has been linked to the formation and accumulation of AGEs, which can cause defective cell adhesion in the stratum corneum.^37,38 Treatment with topical emollients and keratolytics may prove beneficial for the skin but do not improve the underlying systemic condition.³⁹

Acrochordons

Acrochordons (skin tags) are common benign fibroepithelial polyps that classically present on the face, neck, and trunk. The underlying mechanism responsible for the development of acrochordons is uncertain, but the association with insulin resistance and impaired carbohydrate metabolism is well validated.^40-46 Several large cross-sectional and case-control studies have reported rates of T2DM ranging from 23% to 72% in patients with acrochordons.^41,42,47 The pathophysiology may involve an increase in tissue and epidermal growth factors driven by elevated serum insulin levels, stimulation of IGF-1 receptors, and a localized proliferation of cutaneous tissue in elastin-poor areas.^45,48,49 Interestingly, the quantity of acrochordons has been positively correlated with fasting blood glucose levels. Additionally, the presence of 30 or more acrochordons was found to increase the risk of developing T2DM.⁴¹ Therefore, the presence and number of acrochordons may serve as a convenient indicator of systemic glycemic control and insulin resistance. Screening for T2DM is warranted in individuals without a prior diagnosis who present with multiple acrochordons.

Keratosis Pilaris

Keratosis pilaris (KP) is a benign skin condition characterized by pink-red, erythematous, monomorphic, follicular papules often seen on the extensor arms, thighs, buttocks, and cheeks. Keratosis pilaris is exceedingly common in the general population but occurs more frequently and with more extensive involvement in those with atopic dermatitis and T2DM.^27,50,51 The mechanism underlying the hyperkeratosis and inflammatory change observed in KP is not well understood and is likely multifactorial.^52,53 Hyperandrogenism, as a consequence of hyperinsulinemia, may play an important role in KP, as elevated circulating androgens are known drivers of keratinocyte proliferation of the pilosebaceous unit of hair follicles.^52,54 Support for this theory includes the clinical exaggeration of KP frequently encountered around puberty when androgen levels peak.^55,56 Moreover, one study found a higher incidence of KP among adolescent patients with type 1 diabetes mellitus than among healthy age-matched controls.²⁷ The most effective treatment of KP appears to be laser therapy, particularly the Q-switched Nd:YAG laser. Numerous topical modalities have been employed to treat KP but exhibit limited efficacy, including mineral oil, tacrolimus, azelaic acid, and salicylic acid, among others.⁵⁷

Necrobiosis Lipoidica

Necrobiosis lipoidica (NL) is a chronic granulomatous skin condition of unknown origin that presents with well-demarcated, yellow-brown, atrophic patches and plaques often found exclusively on the shins. There is a strong association with type 1 diabetes mellitus, with reported rates ranging from 11% to 65% in patients with NL.^58-60 In a recent retrospective study of 236 patients with NL, 58.5% of patients had diabetes.⁶¹ Nevertheless, NL is a rare entity that affects less than 1% of the diabetic population.⁶⁰ Given its correlation with diabetes, it has been postulated that the pathogenesis of NL is due to microvascular ischemic changes resulting from prolonged hyperglycemia.⁶⁰ However, studies revealing an increase in blood flow to NL lesions suggest that the condition may instead be attributed to an inflammatory process.⁶² Despite the disfiguring appearance, the lesions of NL often are asymptomatic. Pain or pruritus may develop secondary to ulceration, which occurs in approximately one-third of patients. Although many treatment options have been attempted—including topical and intralesional corticosteroids, immunomodulators, platelet inhibitors, and phototherapy—efficacy is limited.⁶⁰

Bullosis Diabeticorum

Bullosis diabeticorum (BD) is the abrupt onset of noninflammatory vesicles and bullae developing in the setting of diabetes. The prevalence of BD in the diabetic population ranges from 0.16% to 0.5%.^63-66 Bullosis diabeticorum occasionally has been reported to occur prior to the onset of diabetes, warranting screening hemoglobin A_1c in patients without an established diagnosis of diabetes.⁶⁷ Bullae most commonly present over the acral surfaces, but the lower extremities also are routinely affected. Bullae typically are large and painless, contain clear fluid, and may progress from tense to flaccid over the course of several days. Although histologic analysis reveals nonspecific findings, biopsy may be useful in excluding other bullous disorders. Because BD is a benign condition that spontaneously resolves over several weeks, treatment rarely is pursued.^63,64

Generalized Granuloma Annulare

Generalized granuloma annulare (GA) is an idiopathic inflammatory cutaneous disorder characterized by pink-red, arciform and annular, nonscaly, beaded papules and plaques. Granuloma annulare can be localized or generalized with perforating, patch, and palmoplantar variants. Although the pathogenesis is poorly understood, some studies have demonstrated a correlation between GA and type 1 diabetes mellitus.^68-71 Generalized GA appears to be most strongly associated with diabetes, and approximately 10% to 15% of cases occur in this population.^70,72 Because GA has been reported to precede the diagnosis of diabetes, patients with generalized or recurrent localized GA should be screened for persistent hyperglycemia with a hemoglobin A_1c test.^71,73 Although some GA is self-resolving, treatment options for persevering GA include topical and intralesional steroids, isotretinoin, dapsone, tacrolimus, antimalarials, biologic medications, and psoralen plus UVA therapy.⁷⁴

Final Thoughts

Mechanistic links between common cutaneous conditions and persistent hyperglycemic and hyperinsulinemic states are slowly emerging. Hyperglycemia promotes nonenzymatic glycation of the vascular endothelium as well as formation of AGEs that impair cross-linking of collagen in the skin. The consequent microangiopathic damage may lead to cutaneous conditions such as DD, NL, and BD. In addition to microvascular compromise, impaired collagen cross-linking may result in ichthyosiform skin changes and SD. Hyperinsulinemia causes increased circulating levels of IGF-1, which leads to the overactivation of IGF-1 receptors present on fibroblasts and keratinocytes. This aberrant IGF-1 signaling drives cellular hyperproliferation and differentiation, which may be responsible for cutaneous findings such as AN, KP, and/or acrochordons. An insulin-dependent increase in IGF-1 and androgenic signaling may have implications for hormonally driven inflammatory skin disorders such as acne vulgaris and hidradenitis suppurativa, warranting further investigation.

Physicians should be aware of these dermatologic manifestations and their proposed underlying pathophysiologic mechanisms related to impaired glucose tolerance and insulin resistance. A diagnosis of T2DM is not a prerequisite for metabolic disturbance, and the skin may serve as the first clue to underlying systemic disease. Early identification of these cutaneous conditions may lead to timely patient counseling, lifestyle modification, and/or medical management, preventing the long-term sequelae associated with metabolic disorders.

The world of telemedicine—especially teledermatology—had been a sleepy underutilized afterthought for most physicians until we were faced with a global pandemic the likes of which none of us had seen in our lifetimes. And just like that, teledermatology went from an afterthought to part of the “new normal.” Although those of us already practicing telemedicine knew of potential pitfalls and concerns, this great social experiment of throwing everyone into unexplored territory led to a great deal of frustration with technology and workflows that were not optimized for dermatology visits. The process is still changing, and the technical aspects of conducting teledermatology visits will no doubt improve, but what about the bigger question of reimbursement? Without adequate payments and financial models, the long-term future of telemedicine is uncertain, so an understanding of the current and likely future landscape of telemedicine reimbursement is critical.

Waivers During the Public Health Emergency

The declaration of a public health emergency (PHE)allowed for significant flexibility by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Importantly, the CMS was permitted to act quickly to allow telehealth to flourish during the worst of the pandemic and throughout the declared PHE, which has been extended several times already. Currently, the PHE is set to expire on April 20, 2021, but may be extended again if the pandemic is ongoing. The most important of these waivers was probably the removal of both the originating site and geographic requirements for telehealth services.¹ Prior to the COVID-19 PHE, a patient would have to travel to a doctor’s office, hospital, or skilled nursing facility to receive telehealth care (originating site requirement), and even then this was only allowed in defined rural areas of the country (geographic requirement). Both of these requirements were waived, allowing for any patient to receive telehealth services within their own homes. Concurrently, the requirement that patients must have an established relationship with the provider (ie, telehealth could not be used to provide care to new patients) also was waived.¹

In the spirit of expanding access to care and providing reasonable reimbursement for medical services, other changes were made for which the CMS should be commended. In acknowledging that many Medicare/Medicaid beneficiaries may not have access to devices that permit real-time, 2-way audio/video communication, which previously were necessary to qualify for a telehealth encounter, the CMS decided to cover telephone visits and provide reimbursement at the level of an established visit.¹ They also changed the billing structure to remove the place of service (POS) designation for telehealth (POS 02) and replace it with the normal physician’s office POS designation (usually POS 11), bringing back a telehealth modifier (modifier -95) in the process. The benefit of this change is solely to increase reimbursement for these services, as telehealth POS services generally are covered at lower facility rates, whereas POS 11 codes are reimbursed at the full level of a nonfacility physician’s office rate.

Finally, other waivers such as the Office of Civil Rights’ decision to waive HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) violations for telehealth platforms during the PHE allowed offices to take on telemedicine quickly without having to implement a new infrastructure.² Numerous codes were added to the list of covered services for telehealth, but these generally are not relevant for dermatologists. The CMS also allowed physicians’ offices to waive the patient responsibility/co-pay during the COVID-19 PHE, which previously was not allowed due to concerns about the anti-kickback statute.¹ These co-pay waivers were intended to remove another barrier to care for patients who were hesitant to participate in virtual visits. For the most part, the waiver of state licensing requirements is a bit less useful. As part of the CMS waiver, providers technically are allowed to see out-of-state Medicare/Medicaid beneficiaries, but state licensing laws are still in effect; thus, in the absence of a blanket state-level waiver (which some states enacted, modeled after the Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioner Act of 2006³), providers still cannot see most out-of-state patients from a legal and malpractice coverage standpoint.

An important flexibility during the COVID-19 PHE is one that often is underrecognized. The CMS has been clear about the ability to provide direct supervision for advanced practice providers (APPs) and residents via telehealth during the PHE, which allows for incident-to billing for APPs at remote sites given that the supervising physician is immediately available via an interactive, 2-way, live audio/video telecommunications method. It also allows for direct supervision of APPs and residents using such technology. For dermatology, which does not have a primary care waiver, an attending must still directly supervise each patient and see the patient via a live audio/video modality but does not have to be on-site to do so. This is a very interesting concept that, if extended, could truly impact practice management for the long-term.

Response From Commercial Insurance Carriers

Tracking along with the CMS waivers and flexibilities during the PHE, most commercial carriers quickly adopted similar policies to cover telehealth services. It should be noted that for most commercial insurance carriers, the coverage was already broader than Medicare/Medicaid coverage for telehealth prior to the PHE, so in many ways it is an extension of that concept and acceptance of telemedicine as a whole. What is sometimes confusing, though, is that various policies and requirements around billing exist; for example, while most carriers emulated the POS requirements that the CMS adopted, some carriers still stuck with the telemedicine POS but paid full in-office visit rates for those codes. Some carriers adopted higher reimbursement rates for telephone visits, similar to the CMS, while others instructed providers to just bill for the established office visit codes and allowed for telephone-only visits to qualify for these billing codes. Some carriers also waived co-pays for telehealth visits for their members (whether related to COVID-19 or not). It is beyond the scope of this article to delve into the specifics, which may vary not only by carrier but by region and plan. However, it is important to stay on top of one’s insurance carriers to find out what their latest directives are for billing for telehealth.

Postpandemic Teledermatology

What about the future of teledermatology? Although many dermatologists have adopted telehealth services out of necessity during the COVID-19 PHE, the jury is still out on the long-term forecast for telemedicine in dermatology. Concerns about liability/malpractice and technology issues abound, and for many, the headaches of teledermatology—such as trying to focus on a blurry photograph of a nevus that the patient is concerned about—make it unappealing. Some of these issues will be addressed by better technology, but the reimbursement structure must continue for teledermatology to remain in widespread use.

Currently, the biggest question facing telehealth is whether the waivers for originating site and geographic requirements will be able to continue. The CMS itself does not have the statutory authority to make these changes permanent and was only allowed to act due to a waiver under section 1135 of the Social Security Act during a PHE. It would take an act of Congress to change the law to allow for this specific expansion of telehealth services. A number of federal bills, including S 2741 (Creating Opportunities Now for Necessary and Effective Care Technologies [CONNECT] for Health Act of 2019) and S 4796 (Fair Care Act of 2020) from the Senate, contain such provisions, but none have been passed at the time of writing. There does seem to be broad support of the concept of expanding telemedicine access, such as noted by New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo in his 2021 State of the State address,⁴ but it remains to be seen when action will come.

Some regulations, such as the HIPAA waiver and the ability to waive co-pays, are not slated to continue after the pandemic. The ability to supervise residents via telehealth (real-time audio/video) has been made permanent, but only in rural areas. Direct supervision of APPs via telehealth will continue through the end of the calendar year of the PHE or the end of 2021, whichever comes later, but it remains to be seen whether remote supervision will continue. The CMS has stated in its comments that it is looking at this issue closely and may establish certain guardrails to ensure quality of care is maintained.¹ Telephone/audio-only visits also may come under further scrutiny, but research has supported the concept that patients who are more likely to gain access through audio-only modalities are older, Medicare/Medicaid (vs commercial), and Black (vs White) patients,⁵ so it would indeed introduce an unfair barrier to access if such coverage was rolled back.

Final Thoughts

Overall, we have made much progress in teledermatology. Once utilized by a small fraction of dermatologists, the vast majority of us turned to teledermatology to sustain our practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moving forward, there are 2 critical factors to consider: continued technological innovation and permanent coverage for telehealth reimbursement at in-office visit levels. With these challenges resolved, we can move forward and consider novel models that may be able to deliver dermatologic care to a broader patient population, thereby solving the critical issue of access to care for so many patients in need in our country.

The world of telemedicine—especially teledermatology—had been a sleepy underutilized afterthought for most physicians until we were faced with a global pandemic the likes of which none of us had seen in our lifetimes. And just like that, teledermatology went from an afterthought to part of the “new normal.” Although those of us already practicing telemedicine knew of potential pitfalls and concerns, this great social experiment of throwing everyone into unexplored territory led to a great deal of frustration with technology and workflows that were not optimized for dermatology visits. The process is still changing, and the technical aspects of conducting teledermatology visits will no doubt improve, but what about the bigger question of reimbursement? Without adequate payments and financial models, the long-term future of telemedicine is uncertain, so an understanding of the current and likely future landscape of telemedicine reimbursement is critical.

Waivers During the Public Health Emergency

The declaration of a public health emergency (PHE)allowed for significant flexibility by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Importantly, the CMS was permitted to act quickly to allow telehealth to flourish during the worst of the pandemic and throughout the declared PHE, which has been extended several times already. Currently, the PHE is set to expire on April 20, 2021, but may be extended again if the pandemic is ongoing. The most important of these waivers was probably the removal of both the originating site and geographic requirements for telehealth services.¹ Prior to the COVID-19 PHE, a patient would have to travel to a doctor’s office, hospital, or skilled nursing facility to receive telehealth care (originating site requirement), and even then this was only allowed in defined rural areas of the country (geographic requirement). Both of these requirements were waived, allowing for any patient to receive telehealth services within their own homes. Concurrently, the requirement that patients must have an established relationship with the provider (ie, telehealth could not be used to provide care to new patients) also was waived.¹

In the spirit of expanding access to care and providing reasonable reimbursement for medical services, other changes were made for which the CMS should be commended. In acknowledging that many Medicare/Medicaid beneficiaries may not have access to devices that permit real-time, 2-way audio/video communication, which previously were necessary to qualify for a telehealth encounter, the CMS decided to cover telephone visits and provide reimbursement at the level of an established visit.¹ They also changed the billing structure to remove the place of service (POS) designation for telehealth (POS 02) and replace it with the normal physician’s office POS designation (usually POS 11), bringing back a telehealth modifier (modifier -95) in the process. The benefit of this change is solely to increase reimbursement for these services, as telehealth POS services generally are covered at lower facility rates, whereas POS 11 codes are reimbursed at the full level of a nonfacility physician’s office rate.

Finally, other waivers such as the Office of Civil Rights’ decision to waive HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) violations for telehealth platforms during the PHE allowed offices to take on telemedicine quickly without having to implement a new infrastructure.² Numerous codes were added to the list of covered services for telehealth, but these generally are not relevant for dermatologists. The CMS also allowed physicians’ offices to waive the patient responsibility/co-pay during the COVID-19 PHE, which previously was not allowed due to concerns about the anti-kickback statute.¹ These co-pay waivers were intended to remove another barrier to care for patients who were hesitant to participate in virtual visits. For the most part, the waiver of state licensing requirements is a bit less useful. As part of the CMS waiver, providers technically are allowed to see out-of-state Medicare/Medicaid beneficiaries, but state licensing laws are still in effect; thus, in the absence of a blanket state-level waiver (which some states enacted, modeled after the Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioner Act of 2006³), providers still cannot see most out-of-state patients from a legal and malpractice coverage standpoint.

An important flexibility during the COVID-19 PHE is one that often is underrecognized. The CMS has been clear about the ability to provide direct supervision for advanced practice providers (APPs) and residents via telehealth during the PHE, which allows for incident-to billing for APPs at remote sites given that the supervising physician is immediately available via an interactive, 2-way, live audio/video telecommunications method. It also allows for direct supervision of APPs and residents using such technology. For dermatology, which does not have a primary care waiver, an attending must still directly supervise each patient and see the patient via a live audio/video modality but does not have to be on-site to do so. This is a very interesting concept that, if extended, could truly impact practice management for the long-term.

Response From Commercial Insurance Carriers

Tracking along with the CMS waivers and flexibilities during the PHE, most commercial carriers quickly adopted similar policies to cover telehealth services. It should be noted that for most commercial insurance carriers, the coverage was already broader than Medicare/Medicaid coverage for telehealth prior to the PHE, so in many ways it is an extension of that concept and acceptance of telemedicine as a whole. What is sometimes confusing, though, is that various policies and requirements around billing exist; for example, while most carriers emulated the POS requirements that the CMS adopted, some carriers still stuck with the telemedicine POS but paid full in-office visit rates for those codes. Some carriers adopted higher reimbursement rates for telephone visits, similar to the CMS, while others instructed providers to just bill for the established office visit codes and allowed for telephone-only visits to qualify for these billing codes. Some carriers also waived co-pays for telehealth visits for their members (whether related to COVID-19 or not). It is beyond the scope of this article to delve into the specifics, which may vary not only by carrier but by region and plan. However, it is important to stay on top of one’s insurance carriers to find out what their latest directives are for billing for telehealth.

Postpandemic Teledermatology

What about the future of teledermatology? Although many dermatologists have adopted telehealth services out of necessity during the COVID-19 PHE, the jury is still out on the long-term forecast for telemedicine in dermatology. Concerns about liability/malpractice and technology issues abound, and for many, the headaches of teledermatology—such as trying to focus on a blurry photograph of a nevus that the patient is concerned about—make it unappealing. Some of these issues will be addressed by better technology, but the reimbursement structure must continue for teledermatology to remain in widespread use.

Currently, the biggest question facing telehealth is whether the waivers for originating site and geographic requirements will be able to continue. The CMS itself does not have the statutory authority to make these changes permanent and was only allowed to act due to a waiver under section 1135 of the Social Security Act during a PHE. It would take an act of Congress to change the law to allow for this specific expansion of telehealth services. A number of federal bills, including S 2741 (Creating Opportunities Now for Necessary and Effective Care Technologies [CONNECT] for Health Act of 2019) and S 4796 (Fair Care Act of 2020) from the Senate, contain such provisions, but none have been passed at the time of writing. There does seem to be broad support of the concept of expanding telemedicine access, such as noted by New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo in his 2021 State of the State address,⁴ but it remains to be seen when action will come.

Some regulations, such as the HIPAA waiver and the ability to waive co-pays, are not slated to continue after the pandemic. The ability to supervise residents via telehealth (real-time audio/video) has been made permanent, but only in rural areas. Direct supervision of APPs via telehealth will continue through the end of the calendar year of the PHE or the end of 2021, whichever comes later, but it remains to be seen whether remote supervision will continue. The CMS has stated in its comments that it is looking at this issue closely and may establish certain guardrails to ensure quality of care is maintained.¹ Telephone/audio-only visits also may come under further scrutiny, but research has supported the concept that patients who are more likely to gain access through audio-only modalities are older, Medicare/Medicaid (vs commercial), and Black (vs White) patients,⁵ so it would indeed introduce an unfair barrier to access if such coverage was rolled back.

Final Thoughts

Overall, we have made much progress in teledermatology. Once utilized by a small fraction of dermatologists, the vast majority of us turned to teledermatology to sustain our practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moving forward, there are 2 critical factors to consider: continued technological innovation and permanent coverage for telehealth reimbursement at in-office visit levels. With these challenges resolved, we can move forward and consider novel models that may be able to deliver dermatologic care to a broader patient population, thereby solving the critical issue of access to care for so many patients in need in our country.

The world of telemedicine—especially teledermatology—had been a sleepy underutilized afterthought for most physicians until we were faced with a global pandemic the likes of which none of us had seen in our lifetimes. And just like that, teledermatology went from an afterthought to part of the “new normal.” Although those of us already practicing telemedicine knew of potential pitfalls and concerns, this great social experiment of throwing everyone into unexplored territory led to a great deal of frustration with technology and workflows that were not optimized for dermatology visits. The process is still changing, and the technical aspects of conducting teledermatology visits will no doubt improve, but what about the bigger question of reimbursement? Without adequate payments and financial models, the long-term future of telemedicine is uncertain, so an understanding of the current and likely future landscape of telemedicine reimbursement is critical.

Waivers During the Public Health Emergency

The declaration of a public health emergency (PHE)allowed for significant flexibility by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Importantly, the CMS was permitted to act quickly to allow telehealth to flourish during the worst of the pandemic and throughout the declared PHE, which has been extended several times already. Currently, the PHE is set to expire on April 20, 2021, but may be extended again if the pandemic is ongoing. The most important of these waivers was probably the removal of both the originating site and geographic requirements for telehealth services.¹ Prior to the COVID-19 PHE, a patient would have to travel to a doctor’s office, hospital, or skilled nursing facility to receive telehealth care (originating site requirement), and even then this was only allowed in defined rural areas of the country (geographic requirement). Both of these requirements were waived, allowing for any patient to receive telehealth services within their own homes. Concurrently, the requirement that patients must have an established relationship with the provider (ie, telehealth could not be used to provide care to new patients) also was waived.¹

In the spirit of expanding access to care and providing reasonable reimbursement for medical services, other changes were made for which the CMS should be commended. In acknowledging that many Medicare/Medicaid beneficiaries may not have access to devices that permit real-time, 2-way audio/video communication, which previously were necessary to qualify for a telehealth encounter, the CMS decided to cover telephone visits and provide reimbursement at the level of an established visit.¹ They also changed the billing structure to remove the place of service (POS) designation for telehealth (POS 02) and replace it with the normal physician’s office POS designation (usually POS 11), bringing back a telehealth modifier (modifier -95) in the process. The benefit of this change is solely to increase reimbursement for these services, as telehealth POS services generally are covered at lower facility rates, whereas POS 11 codes are reimbursed at the full level of a nonfacility physician’s office rate.

Finally, other waivers such as the Office of Civil Rights’ decision to waive HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) violations for telehealth platforms during the PHE allowed offices to take on telemedicine quickly without having to implement a new infrastructure.² Numerous codes were added to the list of covered services for telehealth, but these generally are not relevant for dermatologists. The CMS also allowed physicians’ offices to waive the patient responsibility/co-pay during the COVID-19 PHE, which previously was not allowed due to concerns about the anti-kickback statute.¹ These co-pay waivers were intended to remove another barrier to care for patients who were hesitant to participate in virtual visits. For the most part, the waiver of state licensing requirements is a bit less useful. As part of the CMS waiver, providers technically are allowed to see out-of-state Medicare/Medicaid beneficiaries, but state licensing laws are still in effect; thus, in the absence of a blanket state-level waiver (which some states enacted, modeled after the Uniform Emergency Volunteer Health Practitioner Act of 2006³), providers still cannot see most out-of-state patients from a legal and malpractice coverage standpoint.

An important flexibility during the COVID-19 PHE is one that often is underrecognized. The CMS has been clear about the ability to provide direct supervision for advanced practice providers (APPs) and residents via telehealth during the PHE, which allows for incident-to billing for APPs at remote sites given that the supervising physician is immediately available via an interactive, 2-way, live audio/video telecommunications method. It also allows for direct supervision of APPs and residents using such technology. For dermatology, which does not have a primary care waiver, an attending must still directly supervise each patient and see the patient via a live audio/video modality but does not have to be on-site to do so. This is a very interesting concept that, if extended, could truly impact practice management for the long-term.

Response From Commercial Insurance Carriers

Tracking along with the CMS waivers and flexibilities during the PHE, most commercial carriers quickly adopted similar policies to cover telehealth services. It should be noted that for most commercial insurance carriers, the coverage was already broader than Medicare/Medicaid coverage for telehealth prior to the PHE, so in many ways it is an extension of that concept and acceptance of telemedicine as a whole. What is sometimes confusing, though, is that various policies and requirements around billing exist; for example, while most carriers emulated the POS requirements that the CMS adopted, some carriers still stuck with the telemedicine POS but paid full in-office visit rates for those codes. Some carriers adopted higher reimbursement rates for telephone visits, similar to the CMS, while others instructed providers to just bill for the established office visit codes and allowed for telephone-only visits to qualify for these billing codes. Some carriers also waived co-pays for telehealth visits for their members (whether related to COVID-19 or not). It is beyond the scope of this article to delve into the specifics, which may vary not only by carrier but by region and plan. However, it is important to stay on top of one’s insurance carriers to find out what their latest directives are for billing for telehealth.

Postpandemic Teledermatology

What about the future of teledermatology? Although many dermatologists have adopted telehealth services out of necessity during the COVID-19 PHE, the jury is still out on the long-term forecast for telemedicine in dermatology. Concerns about liability/malpractice and technology issues abound, and for many, the headaches of teledermatology—such as trying to focus on a blurry photograph of a nevus that the patient is concerned about—make it unappealing. Some of these issues will be addressed by better technology, but the reimbursement structure must continue for teledermatology to remain in widespread use.

Currently, the biggest question facing telehealth is whether the waivers for originating site and geographic requirements will be able to continue. The CMS itself does not have the statutory authority to make these changes permanent and was only allowed to act due to a waiver under section 1135 of the Social Security Act during a PHE. It would take an act of Congress to change the law to allow for this specific expansion of telehealth services. A number of federal bills, including S 2741 (Creating Opportunities Now for Necessary and Effective Care Technologies [CONNECT] for Health Act of 2019) and S 4796 (Fair Care Act of 2020) from the Senate, contain such provisions, but none have been passed at the time of writing. There does seem to be broad support of the concept of expanding telemedicine access, such as noted by New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo in his 2021 State of the State address,⁴ but it remains to be seen when action will come.

Some regulations, such as the HIPAA waiver and the ability to waive co-pays, are not slated to continue after the pandemic. The ability to supervise residents via telehealth (real-time audio/video) has been made permanent, but only in rural areas. Direct supervision of APPs via telehealth will continue through the end of the calendar year of the PHE or the end of 2021, whichever comes later, but it remains to be seen whether remote supervision will continue. The CMS has stated in its comments that it is looking at this issue closely and may establish certain guardrails to ensure quality of care is maintained.¹ Telephone/audio-only visits also may come under further scrutiny, but research has supported the concept that patients who are more likely to gain access through audio-only modalities are older, Medicare/Medicaid (vs commercial), and Black (vs White) patients,⁵ so it would indeed introduce an unfair barrier to access if such coverage was rolled back.

Final Thoughts

Overall, we have made much progress in teledermatology. Once utilized by a small fraction of dermatologists, the vast majority of us turned to teledermatology to sustain our practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Moving forward, there are 2 critical factors to consider: continued technological innovation and permanent coverage for telehealth reimbursement at in-office visit levels. With these challenges resolved, we can move forward and consider novel models that may be able to deliver dermatologic care to a broader patient population, thereby solving the critical issue of access to care for so many patients in need in our country.

Despite the high mortality rate for acquired hemophilia and the availability of suggested drug treatments, there are no randomized, controlled studies to inform doctors of the best therapies for their patients.

Immunoabsorption therapy (IA) is one such treatment that has been proposed as valid because of its ability to remove factor VIII clotting inhibitors from the bloodstream, but the data on its effectiveness are limited, according to Michael Esteves Pereira, of the Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital and the University of Bern, and colleagues.

In order to help answer the question of the benefits of IA for treating acquired hemophilia, the researchers performed a retrospective study assessing observational data as well as a systemic review and meta-analysis of published literature. They found evidence that the therapy was effective, but suggest that more confirmatory studies are needed, according to their report published online in Transfusion Medicine Reviews.

Data from the authors’ institution were available for 12 patients with acquired hemophilia treated since 2002. The median age was 76 years and four patients were women. The bleeding phenotype was extensive bruising and/or muscle hematomas in nine patients, gastrointestinal bleeding in two patients, and extensive bleeding after tooth extraction in one patient. Their data were added to the 10 published studies included in the literature review, resulting in a total of 118 patients.
 

Promising results

The author’s single institution analysis showed that IA treatment stopped bleeding in nine patients, while three patients did not respond. At 3 months, the median factor VIII increased to 80 IU/dL (considered complete remission) and the median inhibitor titer decreased to 0.15 BU/mL.

The pooled proportion of the meta-analysis patients treated with IA who achieved factor VIII recovery defined as complete remission was 86% (95% confidence interval, 76%-94%). The pooled proportion of patients with a reduction of the inhibitor titer was 95% (95% CI, 83%-100%), while the pooled mortality was 7% (95% CI, 0%-18%). Sensitivity analyses did not reveal any significant differences in retrospective studies or in studies using different absorbing agents.

In addition, there were few reported side effects, most of which were considered mild, according to the researchers. These included nausea and vomiting, paresthesia, and mild hypotension. The authors did suggest that, as a central venous catheter is often used, patients were exposed to an added risk of bleeding and infection.

“At our institution, IA is considered on a case-by-case base rather than a strict cutoff level. Strong arguments are life-threatening bleeding complications, inhibitor titers 20 BU/mL or greater, or failed immunosuppressive treatment with corticosteroids and cyclophosphamide using an established dose regimen,” the researchers stated.

“Even though firm evidence is still lacking and the actual ‘added value’ of IA cannot be adequately assessed, we believe that IA might be a beneficial adjunctive treatment modality in some patients with acquired hemophilia. It was associated with a complete remission in the majority of patients, most of whom are at high risk of bleeding,” the researchers added.

The authors reported that they had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Despite the high mortality rate for acquired hemophilia and the availability of suggested drug treatments, there are no randomized, controlled studies to inform doctors of the best therapies for their patients.

Immunoabsorption therapy (IA) is one such treatment that has been proposed as valid because of its ability to remove factor VIII clotting inhibitors from the bloodstream, but the data on its effectiveness are limited, according to Michael Esteves Pereira, of the Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital and the University of Bern, and colleagues.

In order to help answer the question of the benefits of IA for treating acquired hemophilia, the researchers performed a retrospective study assessing observational data as well as a systemic review and meta-analysis of published literature. They found evidence that the therapy was effective, but suggest that more confirmatory studies are needed, according to their report published online in Transfusion Medicine Reviews.

Data from the authors’ institution were available for 12 patients with acquired hemophilia treated since 2002. The median age was 76 years and four patients were women. The bleeding phenotype was extensive bruising and/or muscle hematomas in nine patients, gastrointestinal bleeding in two patients, and extensive bleeding after tooth extraction in one patient. Their data were added to the 10 published studies included in the literature review, resulting in a total of 118 patients.
 

Promising results

The author’s single institution analysis showed that IA treatment stopped bleeding in nine patients, while three patients did not respond. At 3 months, the median factor VIII increased to 80 IU/dL (considered complete remission) and the median inhibitor titer decreased to 0.15 BU/mL.

The pooled proportion of the meta-analysis patients treated with IA who achieved factor VIII recovery defined as complete remission was 86% (95% confidence interval, 76%-94%). The pooled proportion of patients with a reduction of the inhibitor titer was 95% (95% CI, 83%-100%), while the pooled mortality was 7% (95% CI, 0%-18%). Sensitivity analyses did not reveal any significant differences in retrospective studies or in studies using different absorbing agents.

In addition, there were few reported side effects, most of which were considered mild, according to the researchers. These included nausea and vomiting, paresthesia, and mild hypotension. The authors did suggest that, as a central venous catheter is often used, patients were exposed to an added risk of bleeding and infection.

“At our institution, IA is considered on a case-by-case base rather than a strict cutoff level. Strong arguments are life-threatening bleeding complications, inhibitor titers 20 BU/mL or greater, or failed immunosuppressive treatment with corticosteroids and cyclophosphamide using an established dose regimen,” the researchers stated.

“Even though firm evidence is still lacking and the actual ‘added value’ of IA cannot be adequately assessed, we believe that IA might be a beneficial adjunctive treatment modality in some patients with acquired hemophilia. It was associated with a complete remission in the majority of patients, most of whom are at high risk of bleeding,” the researchers added.

The authors reported that they had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Despite the high mortality rate for acquired hemophilia and the availability of suggested drug treatments, there are no randomized, controlled studies to inform doctors of the best therapies for their patients.

Immunoabsorption therapy (IA) is one such treatment that has been proposed as valid because of its ability to remove factor VIII clotting inhibitors from the bloodstream, but the data on its effectiveness are limited, according to Michael Esteves Pereira, of the Bern (Switzerland) University Hospital and the University of Bern, and colleagues.

In order to help answer the question of the benefits of IA for treating acquired hemophilia, the researchers performed a retrospective study assessing observational data as well as a systemic review and meta-analysis of published literature. They found evidence that the therapy was effective, but suggest that more confirmatory studies are needed, according to their report published online in Transfusion Medicine Reviews.

Data from the authors’ institution were available for 12 patients with acquired hemophilia treated since 2002. The median age was 76 years and four patients were women. The bleeding phenotype was extensive bruising and/or muscle hematomas in nine patients, gastrointestinal bleeding in two patients, and extensive bleeding after tooth extraction in one patient. Their data were added to the 10 published studies included in the literature review, resulting in a total of 118 patients.
 

Promising results

The author’s single institution analysis showed that IA treatment stopped bleeding in nine patients, while three patients did not respond. At 3 months, the median factor VIII increased to 80 IU/dL (considered complete remission) and the median inhibitor titer decreased to 0.15 BU/mL.

The pooled proportion of the meta-analysis patients treated with IA who achieved factor VIII recovery defined as complete remission was 86% (95% confidence interval, 76%-94%). The pooled proportion of patients with a reduction of the inhibitor titer was 95% (95% CI, 83%-100%), while the pooled mortality was 7% (95% CI, 0%-18%). Sensitivity analyses did not reveal any significant differences in retrospective studies or in studies using different absorbing agents.

In addition, there were few reported side effects, most of which were considered mild, according to the researchers. These included nausea and vomiting, paresthesia, and mild hypotension. The authors did suggest that, as a central venous catheter is often used, patients were exposed to an added risk of bleeding and infection.

“At our institution, IA is considered on a case-by-case base rather than a strict cutoff level. Strong arguments are life-threatening bleeding complications, inhibitor titers 20 BU/mL or greater, or failed immunosuppressive treatment with corticosteroids and cyclophosphamide using an established dose regimen,” the researchers stated.

“Even though firm evidence is still lacking and the actual ‘added value’ of IA cannot be adequately assessed, we believe that IA might be a beneficial adjunctive treatment modality in some patients with acquired hemophilia. It was associated with a complete remission in the majority of patients, most of whom are at high risk of bleeding,” the researchers added.

The authors reported that they had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Areas with active cannabis dispensaries have seen a decrease in opioid-related mortalities, recent research has shown.

“Our findings suggest that higher storefront cannabis dispensary counts are associated with reduced opioid related mortality rates at the county level,” wrote Greta Hsu, PhD, professor of management, University of California, Davis, and Balázs Kovács, PhD, associate professor of organizational behavior, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “This association holds for both medical and recreational dispensaries, and appears particularly strong for deaths associated with synthetic (nonmethadone) opioids, which include the highly potent synthetic opioid fentanyl and its analogs.”

Results ‘may be even stronger’ than reported

Christopher G. Fichtner, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry and neuroscience at the University of California, Riverside, said in an interview that the evidence for using cannabis as an opioid substitution for pain management has not been balanced, but noted “the bulk of it suggests that there is some harm reduction benefit by having liberalized access to cannabis.”

Courtesy Dr. Christopher Fichtner

One strength of the study by Dr. Hsu and Dr. Kovács was how they were able to examine implementation of legalization of medical or recreational cannabis, rather than simply a change in the law, he said.

“By looking at dispensary count, it’s actually looking at a better measure of on-the-ground implementation than just change in policy,” Dr. Fichtner explained. “You’re looking at what was actually accomplished in terms of making cannabis legally available.”

The choice to evaluate storefront dispensaries only and not include delivery services in their data, “probably makes it a relatively conservative estimate. I think that would be a strength, that their findings may be even stronger than what it is they’re reporting,” Dr. Fichtner said.

“I do think, if anything, the paper is relatively tentative about advancing its conclusions, which I think is a weakness in a lot of these studies,” he added. In 2017, the National Academy of Sciences released a report that found evidence cannabis or cannabinoids can significantly reduce pain symptoms. In that report, “one of their strongest conclusions is that there’s conclusive or substantial evidence that cannabis or cannabinoids are effective management of chronic pain,” Dr. Fichtner said.

He said that digging deeper into what kinds of pain cannabis can treat is one area for future research. “Certainly, it seems that it’s unlikely that cannabis is going to be good for every kind of pain,” he said. “What kinds of pain is it better for than others? Is it some benefit for many kinds of pain, or only a few types of pain?”

The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Fichtner is the author of a book on cannabis policy in the United States, but reported no other financial disclosures.
 

Areas with active cannabis dispensaries have seen a decrease in opioid-related mortalities, recent research has shown.

“Our findings suggest that higher storefront cannabis dispensary counts are associated with reduced opioid related mortality rates at the county level,” wrote Greta Hsu, PhD, professor of management, University of California, Davis, and Balázs Kovács, PhD, associate professor of organizational behavior, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “This association holds for both medical and recreational dispensaries, and appears particularly strong for deaths associated with synthetic (nonmethadone) opioids, which include the highly potent synthetic opioid fentanyl and its analogs.”

Results ‘may be even stronger’ than reported

Christopher G. Fichtner, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry and neuroscience at the University of California, Riverside, said in an interview that the evidence for using cannabis as an opioid substitution for pain management has not been balanced, but noted “the bulk of it suggests that there is some harm reduction benefit by having liberalized access to cannabis.”

Courtesy Dr. Christopher Fichtner

One strength of the study by Dr. Hsu and Dr. Kovács was how they were able to examine implementation of legalization of medical or recreational cannabis, rather than simply a change in the law, he said.

“By looking at dispensary count, it’s actually looking at a better measure of on-the-ground implementation than just change in policy,” Dr. Fichtner explained. “You’re looking at what was actually accomplished in terms of making cannabis legally available.”

The choice to evaluate storefront dispensaries only and not include delivery services in their data, “probably makes it a relatively conservative estimate. I think that would be a strength, that their findings may be even stronger than what it is they’re reporting,” Dr. Fichtner said.

“I do think, if anything, the paper is relatively tentative about advancing its conclusions, which I think is a weakness in a lot of these studies,” he added. In 2017, the National Academy of Sciences released a report that found evidence cannabis or cannabinoids can significantly reduce pain symptoms. In that report, “one of their strongest conclusions is that there’s conclusive or substantial evidence that cannabis or cannabinoids are effective management of chronic pain,” Dr. Fichtner said.

He said that digging deeper into what kinds of pain cannabis can treat is one area for future research. “Certainly, it seems that it’s unlikely that cannabis is going to be good for every kind of pain,” he said. “What kinds of pain is it better for than others? Is it some benefit for many kinds of pain, or only a few types of pain?”

The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Fichtner is the author of a book on cannabis policy in the United States, but reported no other financial disclosures.
 

Areas with active cannabis dispensaries have seen a decrease in opioid-related mortalities, recent research has shown.

“Our findings suggest that higher storefront cannabis dispensary counts are associated with reduced opioid related mortality rates at the county level,” wrote Greta Hsu, PhD, professor of management, University of California, Davis, and Balázs Kovács, PhD, associate professor of organizational behavior, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. “This association holds for both medical and recreational dispensaries, and appears particularly strong for deaths associated with synthetic (nonmethadone) opioids, which include the highly potent synthetic opioid fentanyl and its analogs.”

Results ‘may be even stronger’ than reported

Christopher G. Fichtner, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry and neuroscience at the University of California, Riverside, said in an interview that the evidence for using cannabis as an opioid substitution for pain management has not been balanced, but noted “the bulk of it suggests that there is some harm reduction benefit by having liberalized access to cannabis.”

Courtesy Dr. Christopher Fichtner

One strength of the study by Dr. Hsu and Dr. Kovács was how they were able to examine implementation of legalization of medical or recreational cannabis, rather than simply a change in the law, he said.

“By looking at dispensary count, it’s actually looking at a better measure of on-the-ground implementation than just change in policy,” Dr. Fichtner explained. “You’re looking at what was actually accomplished in terms of making cannabis legally available.”

The choice to evaluate storefront dispensaries only and not include delivery services in their data, “probably makes it a relatively conservative estimate. I think that would be a strength, that their findings may be even stronger than what it is they’re reporting,” Dr. Fichtner said.

“I do think, if anything, the paper is relatively tentative about advancing its conclusions, which I think is a weakness in a lot of these studies,” he added. In 2017, the National Academy of Sciences released a report that found evidence cannabis or cannabinoids can significantly reduce pain symptoms. In that report, “one of their strongest conclusions is that there’s conclusive or substantial evidence that cannabis or cannabinoids are effective management of chronic pain,” Dr. Fichtner said.

He said that digging deeper into what kinds of pain cannabis can treat is one area for future research. “Certainly, it seems that it’s unlikely that cannabis is going to be good for every kind of pain,” he said. “What kinds of pain is it better for than others? Is it some benefit for many kinds of pain, or only a few types of pain?”

The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures. Dr. Fichtner is the author of a book on cannabis policy in the United States, but reported no other financial disclosures.
 

A novel blood test has shown promise for colorectal cancer screening.

The “multiomics” test, under development by Freenome, has previously been shown to detect early-stage (I/II) colorectal cancer with a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 94%.

A new study shows that it can also detect precancerous lesions, colorectal advanced adenomas (AAs).

“The ability to detect advanced adenomas is incredibly important because we can remove them before they become cancerous,” senior author Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, chief of gastroenterology at Minneapolis VA Health Care System and professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said in a statement.

At the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2021, she presented data showing that the novel test was able to detect AAs with a sensitivity of 41% and a specificity of 90%.

This sensitivity of the new test is better than or similar to that of currently available stool tests, noted study author C. Jimmy Lin, MD, PhD, MHS, chief scientific officer at Freenome.

The new test had almost double the sensitivity for detecting AAs (41% vs. 24%) as the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and its sensitivity was comparable to that of FIT-DNA testing (41% vs. 42%).

In addition, it showed much higher sensitivity (41% vs 22%) for detecting AAs than the Epi proColon, a screening blood test that has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for detecting methylated septin 9 DNA (mSEPT9).

“What’s special about our company is ... that we use a multinomic technology, meaning we look at DNA, RNA, protein, and other biomarkers – all of these things together,” Dr. Lin told this news organization.

Their platform integrates assays for circulating free DNA, methylation, and proteins using advanced computational biology and machine-learning techniques, which provide a multidimensional view of both tumor- and immune-derived signatures that enable the early detection of cancer.

In contrast to other blood tests that are under development for cancer screening, some of which claim to detect several common cancer types, Freenome is focusing on only colorectal cancer. “There are other companies in the early-detection space, but some of them are doing multicancer screening and have a generalized product,” said Dr. Lin. “Our approach is to focus on a specific cancer type, and we are beginning with colorectal cancer screening, and then will expand to other types.”
 

Better sensitivity

The study that was presented at the meeting evaluated the novel multiomics blood test for AA detection.

Blood samples were obtained from participants in the AI-EMERGE study, a prospective, multicenter study that included primarily average-risk screening patients from 30 clinical sites in the United States and Canada. The study included a total of 542 samples, including 122 histopathologically confirmed AAs and 420 colonoscopy-confirmed negative control samples.

AA sensitivity of the novel test was greater than that with the mSEPT9 test, which is the only blood test currently available for colorectal cancer screening. The new test’s sensitivity was much higher than that of FIT and was comparable to that of FIT-DNA. Sensitivity increased with increasing lesion size and was consistent across location and histology except for serrated lesions, the authors noted in the abstract.

“By combining signatures from both tumor and non–tumor-derived sources, our multiomics signatures detect twice as many AAs as methylation only or single-protein approaches,” Dr. Lin said. “And we have now shown that sensitive AA detection at a level similar to or better than currently available stool tests is achievable in blood, which is necessary for effective early detection and prevention of colorectal cancers.”

The company has begun the regulatory process for having the test approved by the FDA. The company’s goal is to enroll 14,000 participants and have prospectively collected data.

The research was funded by Freenome. Dr. Lin is the chief scientific officer at Freenome and has relationships with Labroots, Natera, and Neon Therapeutics. Shaukat has relationships with Freenome and Iterative Scopes.

Help your patients understand colorectal cancer prevention, and screening options by sharing AGA’s patient education from the GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/CRC.

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

A novel blood test has shown promise for colorectal cancer screening.

The “multiomics” test, under development by Freenome, has previously been shown to detect early-stage (I/II) colorectal cancer with a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 94%.

A new study shows that it can also detect precancerous lesions, colorectal advanced adenomas (AAs).

“The ability to detect advanced adenomas is incredibly important because we can remove them before they become cancerous,” senior author Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, chief of gastroenterology at Minneapolis VA Health Care System and professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said in a statement.

At the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2021, she presented data showing that the novel test was able to detect AAs with a sensitivity of 41% and a specificity of 90%.

This sensitivity of the new test is better than or similar to that of currently available stool tests, noted study author C. Jimmy Lin, MD, PhD, MHS, chief scientific officer at Freenome.

The new test had almost double the sensitivity for detecting AAs (41% vs. 24%) as the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and its sensitivity was comparable to that of FIT-DNA testing (41% vs. 42%).

In addition, it showed much higher sensitivity (41% vs 22%) for detecting AAs than the Epi proColon, a screening blood test that has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for detecting methylated septin 9 DNA (mSEPT9).

“What’s special about our company is ... that we use a multinomic technology, meaning we look at DNA, RNA, protein, and other biomarkers – all of these things together,” Dr. Lin told this news organization.

Their platform integrates assays for circulating free DNA, methylation, and proteins using advanced computational biology and machine-learning techniques, which provide a multidimensional view of both tumor- and immune-derived signatures that enable the early detection of cancer.

In contrast to other blood tests that are under development for cancer screening, some of which claim to detect several common cancer types, Freenome is focusing on only colorectal cancer. “There are other companies in the early-detection space, but some of them are doing multicancer screening and have a generalized product,” said Dr. Lin. “Our approach is to focus on a specific cancer type, and we are beginning with colorectal cancer screening, and then will expand to other types.”
 

Better sensitivity

The study that was presented at the meeting evaluated the novel multiomics blood test for AA detection.

Blood samples were obtained from participants in the AI-EMERGE study, a prospective, multicenter study that included primarily average-risk screening patients from 30 clinical sites in the United States and Canada. The study included a total of 542 samples, including 122 histopathologically confirmed AAs and 420 colonoscopy-confirmed negative control samples.

AA sensitivity of the novel test was greater than that with the mSEPT9 test, which is the only blood test currently available for colorectal cancer screening. The new test’s sensitivity was much higher than that of FIT and was comparable to that of FIT-DNA. Sensitivity increased with increasing lesion size and was consistent across location and histology except for serrated lesions, the authors noted in the abstract.

“By combining signatures from both tumor and non–tumor-derived sources, our multiomics signatures detect twice as many AAs as methylation only or single-protein approaches,” Dr. Lin said. “And we have now shown that sensitive AA detection at a level similar to or better than currently available stool tests is achievable in blood, which is necessary for effective early detection and prevention of colorectal cancers.”

The company has begun the regulatory process for having the test approved by the FDA. The company’s goal is to enroll 14,000 participants and have prospectively collected data.

The research was funded by Freenome. Dr. Lin is the chief scientific officer at Freenome and has relationships with Labroots, Natera, and Neon Therapeutics. Shaukat has relationships with Freenome and Iterative Scopes.

Help your patients understand colorectal cancer prevention, and screening options by sharing AGA’s patient education from the GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/CRC.

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

A novel blood test has shown promise for colorectal cancer screening.

The “multiomics” test, under development by Freenome, has previously been shown to detect early-stage (I/II) colorectal cancer with a sensitivity of 94% and a specificity of 94%.

A new study shows that it can also detect precancerous lesions, colorectal advanced adenomas (AAs).

“The ability to detect advanced adenomas is incredibly important because we can remove them before they become cancerous,” senior author Aasma Shaukat, MD, MPH, chief of gastroenterology at Minneapolis VA Health Care System and professor of medicine at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, said in a statement.

At the Gastrointestinal Cancers Symposium 2021, she presented data showing that the novel test was able to detect AAs with a sensitivity of 41% and a specificity of 90%.

This sensitivity of the new test is better than or similar to that of currently available stool tests, noted study author C. Jimmy Lin, MD, PhD, MHS, chief scientific officer at Freenome.

The new test had almost double the sensitivity for detecting AAs (41% vs. 24%) as the fecal immunochemical test (FIT), and its sensitivity was comparable to that of FIT-DNA testing (41% vs. 42%).

In addition, it showed much higher sensitivity (41% vs 22%) for detecting AAs than the Epi proColon, a screening blood test that has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for detecting methylated septin 9 DNA (mSEPT9).

“What’s special about our company is ... that we use a multinomic technology, meaning we look at DNA, RNA, protein, and other biomarkers – all of these things together,” Dr. Lin told this news organization.

Their platform integrates assays for circulating free DNA, methylation, and proteins using advanced computational biology and machine-learning techniques, which provide a multidimensional view of both tumor- and immune-derived signatures that enable the early detection of cancer.

In contrast to other blood tests that are under development for cancer screening, some of which claim to detect several common cancer types, Freenome is focusing on only colorectal cancer. “There are other companies in the early-detection space, but some of them are doing multicancer screening and have a generalized product,” said Dr. Lin. “Our approach is to focus on a specific cancer type, and we are beginning with colorectal cancer screening, and then will expand to other types.”
 

Better sensitivity

The study that was presented at the meeting evaluated the novel multiomics blood test for AA detection.

Blood samples were obtained from participants in the AI-EMERGE study, a prospective, multicenter study that included primarily average-risk screening patients from 30 clinical sites in the United States and Canada. The study included a total of 542 samples, including 122 histopathologically confirmed AAs and 420 colonoscopy-confirmed negative control samples.

AA sensitivity of the novel test was greater than that with the mSEPT9 test, which is the only blood test currently available for colorectal cancer screening. The new test’s sensitivity was much higher than that of FIT and was comparable to that of FIT-DNA. Sensitivity increased with increasing lesion size and was consistent across location and histology except for serrated lesions, the authors noted in the abstract.

“By combining signatures from both tumor and non–tumor-derived sources, our multiomics signatures detect twice as many AAs as methylation only or single-protein approaches,” Dr. Lin said. “And we have now shown that sensitive AA detection at a level similar to or better than currently available stool tests is achievable in blood, which is necessary for effective early detection and prevention of colorectal cancers.”

The company has begun the regulatory process for having the test approved by the FDA. The company’s goal is to enroll 14,000 participants and have prospectively collected data.

The research was funded by Freenome. Dr. Lin is the chief scientific officer at Freenome and has relationships with Labroots, Natera, and Neon Therapeutics. Shaukat has relationships with Freenome and Iterative Scopes.

Help your patients understand colorectal cancer prevention, and screening options by sharing AGA’s patient education from the GI Patient Center: www.gastro.org/CRC.

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

When a patient presents with a palpable nodule greater than 1 cm in diameter more than 2 weeks after injection of cosmetic filler, sorting out whether the culprit is an infection or an immune reaction is no easy task.

“It’s sometime very difficult to distinguish between the two,” Terrence Keaney, MD, said during the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference. “Classically, an early-onset infection presents as a suppurative mass that’s fluctuant and tender. The challenge with delayed-onset infection is that it often does not tend to be fluctuant. It doesn’t resemble the classic infection you see in regular dermatology practice.”

Dr. Keaney, a dermatologist who is founder and director of SkinDC in Arlington, Va., said that the source of delayed infection could stem from inoculation at the time of injection – primarily via the skin microflora. “There are also rare case reports of mycobacterial infections from watered gauze,” which he said is why he does not use watered gauze in his practice. “This risk reinforces the importance of filler hygiene when you’re using dermal fillers. Isopropyl alcohol is often not enough. A lot of practices use chlorhexidine, avoiding its use around the eyes, to reduce the skin flora. Hypochlorous acid is another safe antiseptic for the face. You also want to be very careful with the needle or cannula tip not to touch your glove and to minimize going in and out of the skin so you’re not seeding the filler with bacteria.”

Other potential sources of a delayed infection described in the literature include a dental abscess, pimple popping, and subsequent injections from acupuncture or hyaluronidase.

When patients present with a nonfluctuant delayed nodule that shows no obvious signs of infection, however, the root cause can stump clinicians. “Is this infectious or not?” asked Dr. Keaney, who is also clinical associate faculty in the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “Is this a focus on chronic inflammation in response to the product, or is this a collection of chronic bacteria, a biofilm too large to be engulfed by a single cell?” A review of the topic found that three risk factors for the development of biofilms include the surface area of product (large boluses of filler), longevity of the product, and inadequate sterilization technique.

Dr. Keaney said that biofilms create an impaired immune system penetration, which boosts their resistance to antibiotics by 1,000-fold. “These bacteria also have a reduced growth rate, an altered microenvironment, and altered gene expression, so it makes it difficult to clear these biofilms.”

To determine if a delayed nodule is infectious or not, performing a biopsy with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis of tissue samples is ideal. “This would amplify the DNA by electrophoresis,” Dr. Keaney continued. “The problem is, it is often difficult to find labs to perform PCR. Also, you’re likely going to have to biopsy someone’s face. The patient is likely already upset that they have a delayed nodule. Ideally, you would want to avoid having to do a punch biopsy of a patient’s lip, tear trough, temple, or chin. The flip side of the coin is, how do you accurately determine if this is a noninfectious delayed nodule? If it is noninfectious, what is the mechanism of action?”

According to Dr. Keaney, short hyaluronic acid (HA) fragments can act as substrates for cell trafficking and can activate macrophages, dendritic cells, and T cells. In an analysis of immune cell response that used in vitro cell-based assays and was presented during a poster session at the 2018 Anti-Aging Medicine World Congress, researchers found no evidence of inflammatory or immune response to HA used for dermal fillers, regardless of size or formulation. However, physiologic degradation of HA to intermediate/small fragments tends to occur 4-5 months after injection.

“The hypothesis is that proinflammatory HA fragments may prime the immune system for an inflammatory response in the setting of a triggering event,” Dr. Keaney said. “The presence of an inflammatory reaction triggers an immune response to the HA fragments. Possible triggers include infections, dental procedures, and immunizations.”

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS) recently published a guidance regarding SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine side effects in dermal filler patients after three patients developed a reaction to the Moderna vaccine, in clinical trials. “One patient, a 29-year-old, had previous angioedema from a flu vaccine, so the question is: Is it truly a delayed nodule or an immunologic reaction to the ingredients in the vaccine?” Dr. Keaney said. Two other patients, a 51-year-old female and a 46-year-old female, developed facial swelling that were believed to be related to a previous filler injection. Both cases resolved.

“Is the COVID vaccine more of an immunologic trigger than other vaccines?” Dr. Keaney asked. “Are we going to see this more frequently? We may. We just don’t know the denominator. We do not know how many patients in the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine studies had been previously treated with dermal fillers. In patients who have had previous filler treatments, I’m still advising them to get the COVID vaccine if they can.”

Dr. Keaney’s algorithm for treating a delayed nodule that is fluctuant starts with culturing any exudate and beginning a course of empiric antibiotic therapy. “If it’s a nonfluctuant delayed nodule where you’re not sure if it’s related to a biofilm or to an immunologic reaction, there are multiple global consensus papers about this challenging condition in the medical literature,” he said. “Among the papers, there is no consensus treatment, even among consensus panels. They often recommend multiple antibiotic regimens when biofilm is the suspected culprit. For a noninfectious delayed nodule, they recommend prednisone or anti-inflammatory medications. If the nodule is recalcitrant to anti-inflammatory treatments, consider adding empiric antibiotic therapy or dissolve the product.”

In other specialties, the No. 1 priority of a biofilm infection is to get rid of the implant. In orthopedics, for example, the surgeon may remove the artificial joint, Dr. Keaney said. “If that delayed nodule is not responding to comprehensive antibiotic therapy or prednisone anti-inflammatories, you may consider dissolving the filler. The challenge is, there is wide variation in the ability of different hyaluronidase [products] and fillers to dissolve. Another concern is that you may make smaller, more immunogenic HA fragments by dissolving the filler.”

One approach for vascular occlusions introduced by Claudio DeLorenzi, MD, a plastic surgeon in private practice in Kitchener, Ontario, is to dissolve dermal fillers with high-dose pulsed hyaluronidase using up to 1,500 IU every hour. “In the U.S., hyaluronidase comes in 150-200-unit sizes,” Dr. Keaney said. “In my practice, it’s not enough to have one bottle of hyaluronidase. You need around 15-20 bottles to be able to treat for a vascular incident, but if you have a delayed nodule you may also have to use high doses of hyaluronidase.”

Dr. Keaney reported that he is a consultant to and/or an advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

When a patient presents with a palpable nodule greater than 1 cm in diameter more than 2 weeks after injection of cosmetic filler, sorting out whether the culprit is an infection or an immune reaction is no easy task.

“It’s sometime very difficult to distinguish between the two,” Terrence Keaney, MD, said during the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference. “Classically, an early-onset infection presents as a suppurative mass that’s fluctuant and tender. The challenge with delayed-onset infection is that it often does not tend to be fluctuant. It doesn’t resemble the classic infection you see in regular dermatology practice.”

Dr. Keaney, a dermatologist who is founder and director of SkinDC in Arlington, Va., said that the source of delayed infection could stem from inoculation at the time of injection – primarily via the skin microflora. “There are also rare case reports of mycobacterial infections from watered gauze,” which he said is why he does not use watered gauze in his practice. “This risk reinforces the importance of filler hygiene when you’re using dermal fillers. Isopropyl alcohol is often not enough. A lot of practices use chlorhexidine, avoiding its use around the eyes, to reduce the skin flora. Hypochlorous acid is another safe antiseptic for the face. You also want to be very careful with the needle or cannula tip not to touch your glove and to minimize going in and out of the skin so you’re not seeding the filler with bacteria.”

Other potential sources of a delayed infection described in the literature include a dental abscess, pimple popping, and subsequent injections from acupuncture or hyaluronidase.

When patients present with a nonfluctuant delayed nodule that shows no obvious signs of infection, however, the root cause can stump clinicians. “Is this infectious or not?” asked Dr. Keaney, who is also clinical associate faculty in the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “Is this a focus on chronic inflammation in response to the product, or is this a collection of chronic bacteria, a biofilm too large to be engulfed by a single cell?” A review of the topic found that three risk factors for the development of biofilms include the surface area of product (large boluses of filler), longevity of the product, and inadequate sterilization technique.

Dr. Keaney said that biofilms create an impaired immune system penetration, which boosts their resistance to antibiotics by 1,000-fold. “These bacteria also have a reduced growth rate, an altered microenvironment, and altered gene expression, so it makes it difficult to clear these biofilms.”

To determine if a delayed nodule is infectious or not, performing a biopsy with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis of tissue samples is ideal. “This would amplify the DNA by electrophoresis,” Dr. Keaney continued. “The problem is, it is often difficult to find labs to perform PCR. Also, you’re likely going to have to biopsy someone’s face. The patient is likely already upset that they have a delayed nodule. Ideally, you would want to avoid having to do a punch biopsy of a patient’s lip, tear trough, temple, or chin. The flip side of the coin is, how do you accurately determine if this is a noninfectious delayed nodule? If it is noninfectious, what is the mechanism of action?”

According to Dr. Keaney, short hyaluronic acid (HA) fragments can act as substrates for cell trafficking and can activate macrophages, dendritic cells, and T cells. In an analysis of immune cell response that used in vitro cell-based assays and was presented during a poster session at the 2018 Anti-Aging Medicine World Congress, researchers found no evidence of inflammatory or immune response to HA used for dermal fillers, regardless of size or formulation. However, physiologic degradation of HA to intermediate/small fragments tends to occur 4-5 months after injection.

“The hypothesis is that proinflammatory HA fragments may prime the immune system for an inflammatory response in the setting of a triggering event,” Dr. Keaney said. “The presence of an inflammatory reaction triggers an immune response to the HA fragments. Possible triggers include infections, dental procedures, and immunizations.”

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS) recently published a guidance regarding SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine side effects in dermal filler patients after three patients developed a reaction to the Moderna vaccine, in clinical trials. “One patient, a 29-year-old, had previous angioedema from a flu vaccine, so the question is: Is it truly a delayed nodule or an immunologic reaction to the ingredients in the vaccine?” Dr. Keaney said. Two other patients, a 51-year-old female and a 46-year-old female, developed facial swelling that were believed to be related to a previous filler injection. Both cases resolved.

“Is the COVID vaccine more of an immunologic trigger than other vaccines?” Dr. Keaney asked. “Are we going to see this more frequently? We may. We just don’t know the denominator. We do not know how many patients in the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine studies had been previously treated with dermal fillers. In patients who have had previous filler treatments, I’m still advising them to get the COVID vaccine if they can.”

Dr. Keaney’s algorithm for treating a delayed nodule that is fluctuant starts with culturing any exudate and beginning a course of empiric antibiotic therapy. “If it’s a nonfluctuant delayed nodule where you’re not sure if it’s related to a biofilm or to an immunologic reaction, there are multiple global consensus papers about this challenging condition in the medical literature,” he said. “Among the papers, there is no consensus treatment, even among consensus panels. They often recommend multiple antibiotic regimens when biofilm is the suspected culprit. For a noninfectious delayed nodule, they recommend prednisone or anti-inflammatory medications. If the nodule is recalcitrant to anti-inflammatory treatments, consider adding empiric antibiotic therapy or dissolve the product.”

In other specialties, the No. 1 priority of a biofilm infection is to get rid of the implant. In orthopedics, for example, the surgeon may remove the artificial joint, Dr. Keaney said. “If that delayed nodule is not responding to comprehensive antibiotic therapy or prednisone anti-inflammatories, you may consider dissolving the filler. The challenge is, there is wide variation in the ability of different hyaluronidase [products] and fillers to dissolve. Another concern is that you may make smaller, more immunogenic HA fragments by dissolving the filler.”

One approach for vascular occlusions introduced by Claudio DeLorenzi, MD, a plastic surgeon in private practice in Kitchener, Ontario, is to dissolve dermal fillers with high-dose pulsed hyaluronidase using up to 1,500 IU every hour. “In the U.S., hyaluronidase comes in 150-200-unit sizes,” Dr. Keaney said. “In my practice, it’s not enough to have one bottle of hyaluronidase. You need around 15-20 bottles to be able to treat for a vascular incident, but if you have a delayed nodule you may also have to use high doses of hyaluronidase.”

Dr. Keaney reported that he is a consultant to and/or an advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

When a patient presents with a palpable nodule greater than 1 cm in diameter more than 2 weeks after injection of cosmetic filler, sorting out whether the culprit is an infection or an immune reaction is no easy task.

“It’s sometime very difficult to distinguish between the two,” Terrence Keaney, MD, said during the Orlando Dermatology Aesthetic and Clinical Conference. “Classically, an early-onset infection presents as a suppurative mass that’s fluctuant and tender. The challenge with delayed-onset infection is that it often does not tend to be fluctuant. It doesn’t resemble the classic infection you see in regular dermatology practice.”

Dr. Keaney, a dermatologist who is founder and director of SkinDC in Arlington, Va., said that the source of delayed infection could stem from inoculation at the time of injection – primarily via the skin microflora. “There are also rare case reports of mycobacterial infections from watered gauze,” which he said is why he does not use watered gauze in his practice. “This risk reinforces the importance of filler hygiene when you’re using dermal fillers. Isopropyl alcohol is often not enough. A lot of practices use chlorhexidine, avoiding its use around the eyes, to reduce the skin flora. Hypochlorous acid is another safe antiseptic for the face. You also want to be very careful with the needle or cannula tip not to touch your glove and to minimize going in and out of the skin so you’re not seeding the filler with bacteria.”

Other potential sources of a delayed infection described in the literature include a dental abscess, pimple popping, and subsequent injections from acupuncture or hyaluronidase.

When patients present with a nonfluctuant delayed nodule that shows no obvious signs of infection, however, the root cause can stump clinicians. “Is this infectious or not?” asked Dr. Keaney, who is also clinical associate faculty in the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “Is this a focus on chronic inflammation in response to the product, or is this a collection of chronic bacteria, a biofilm too large to be engulfed by a single cell?” A review of the topic found that three risk factors for the development of biofilms include the surface area of product (large boluses of filler), longevity of the product, and inadequate sterilization technique.

Dr. Keaney said that biofilms create an impaired immune system penetration, which boosts their resistance to antibiotics by 1,000-fold. “These bacteria also have a reduced growth rate, an altered microenvironment, and altered gene expression, so it makes it difficult to clear these biofilms.”

To determine if a delayed nodule is infectious or not, performing a biopsy with polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis of tissue samples is ideal. “This would amplify the DNA by electrophoresis,” Dr. Keaney continued. “The problem is, it is often difficult to find labs to perform PCR. Also, you’re likely going to have to biopsy someone’s face. The patient is likely already upset that they have a delayed nodule. Ideally, you would want to avoid having to do a punch biopsy of a patient’s lip, tear trough, temple, or chin. The flip side of the coin is, how do you accurately determine if this is a noninfectious delayed nodule? If it is noninfectious, what is the mechanism of action?”

According to Dr. Keaney, short hyaluronic acid (HA) fragments can act as substrates for cell trafficking and can activate macrophages, dendritic cells, and T cells. In an analysis of immune cell response that used in vitro cell-based assays and was presented during a poster session at the 2018 Anti-Aging Medicine World Congress, researchers found no evidence of inflammatory or immune response to HA used for dermal fillers, regardless of size or formulation. However, physiologic degradation of HA to intermediate/small fragments tends to occur 4-5 months after injection.

“The hypothesis is that proinflammatory HA fragments may prime the immune system for an inflammatory response in the setting of a triggering event,” Dr. Keaney said. “The presence of an inflammatory reaction triggers an immune response to the HA fragments. Possible triggers include infections, dental procedures, and immunizations.”

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery (ASDS) recently published a guidance regarding SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine side effects in dermal filler patients after three patients developed a reaction to the Moderna vaccine, in clinical trials. “One patient, a 29-year-old, had previous angioedema from a flu vaccine, so the question is: Is it truly a delayed nodule or an immunologic reaction to the ingredients in the vaccine?” Dr. Keaney said. Two other patients, a 51-year-old female and a 46-year-old female, developed facial swelling that were believed to be related to a previous filler injection. Both cases resolved.

“Is the COVID vaccine more of an immunologic trigger than other vaccines?” Dr. Keaney asked. “Are we going to see this more frequently? We may. We just don’t know the denominator. We do not know how many patients in the Moderna or Pfizer vaccine studies had been previously treated with dermal fillers. In patients who have had previous filler treatments, I’m still advising them to get the COVID vaccine if they can.”

Dr. Keaney’s algorithm for treating a delayed nodule that is fluctuant starts with culturing any exudate and beginning a course of empiric antibiotic therapy. “If it’s a nonfluctuant delayed nodule where you’re not sure if it’s related to a biofilm or to an immunologic reaction, there are multiple global consensus papers about this challenging condition in the medical literature,” he said. “Among the papers, there is no consensus treatment, even among consensus panels. They often recommend multiple antibiotic regimens when biofilm is the suspected culprit. For a noninfectious delayed nodule, they recommend prednisone or anti-inflammatory medications. If the nodule is recalcitrant to anti-inflammatory treatments, consider adding empiric antibiotic therapy or dissolve the product.”

In other specialties, the No. 1 priority of a biofilm infection is to get rid of the implant. In orthopedics, for example, the surgeon may remove the artificial joint, Dr. Keaney said. “If that delayed nodule is not responding to comprehensive antibiotic therapy or prednisone anti-inflammatories, you may consider dissolving the filler. The challenge is, there is wide variation in the ability of different hyaluronidase [products] and fillers to dissolve. Another concern is that you may make smaller, more immunogenic HA fragments by dissolving the filler.”

One approach for vascular occlusions introduced by Claudio DeLorenzi, MD, a plastic surgeon in private practice in Kitchener, Ontario, is to dissolve dermal fillers with high-dose pulsed hyaluronidase using up to 1,500 IU every hour. “In the U.S., hyaluronidase comes in 150-200-unit sizes,” Dr. Keaney said. “In my practice, it’s not enough to have one bottle of hyaluronidase. You need around 15-20 bottles to be able to treat for a vascular incident, but if you have a delayed nodule you may also have to use high doses of hyaluronidase.”

Dr. Keaney reported that he is a consultant to and/or an advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies.

[email protected]

The Blitz was a Nazi bombing campaign targeting London. It was designed to break the spirit of the British. Knowing London would be the centerpiece of the campaign, the British rather hastily established several psychiatric hospitals for the expected panic in the streets. However, despite 9 months of bombing, 43,000 civilians killed and 139,000 more wounded, the predicted chaos in the streets did not manifest. Civilians continued to work, industry continued to churn, and eventually, Hitler’s eye turned east toward Russia.

H. F. Davis/Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain

The surprising lack of pandemonium in London inspired Dr. John T. MacCurdy, who chronicled his findings in a book The Structure of Morale, more recently popularized in Malcolm Gladwell’s David and Goliath. A brief summary of Dr. MacCurdy’s theory divides the targeted Londoners into the following categories:

• Direct hit
• Near miss
• Remote miss

The direct hit group was defined as those killed by the bombing. However, As Dr. MacCurdy stated, “The morale of the community depends on the reaction of the survivors…Put this way, the fact is obvious, corpses do not run about spreading panic.”

A near miss were those for whom wounds were inflicted or loved ones were killed. This group felt the real repercussions of the bombing. However, with 139,000 wounded out of a city of 8 million people, they were a small minority.

The majority of Londoners, then, fit into the third group – the remote miss. These people faced a serious fear, but survived, often totally unscathed. The process of facing that fear without having panicked or having been harmed, then, led to “a feeling of excitement with a flavour of invulnerability.”

Therefore, rather than a city of millions running in fear in the streets, requiring military presence to control the chaos, London became a city of people who felt themselves, perhaps, invincible.

A similar threat passed through the world in the first several months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospitals were expected to be overrun, and ethics committees convened to discuss allocation of scarce ventilators. However, due, at least in part, to the impressive efforts of the populace of the United States, the majority of civilians did not feel the burden of this frightening disease. Certainly, in a few places, hospitals were overwhelmed, and resources were unavailable due to sheer numbers. These places saw those who suffered direct hits with the highest frequency. However, a disease with an infection fatality ratio recently estimated at 0.5-1%, with a relatively high rate of asymptomatic disease, led to a large majority of people who experienced the first wave of COVID-19 in the United States as a remote miss. COVID-19’s flattened first peak gave much of the population a sense of relief, and, perhaps, a “flavour of invulnerability.”

An anonymous, but concerned, household contact wrote The New York Times and illustrated perfectly the invulnerable feelings of a remote miss:

“I’m doing my best to avoid social contact, along with two other members of my household. We have sufficient supplies for a month. Despite that, one member insists on going out for trivial reasons, such as not liking the kind of apples we have. He’s 92. I’ve tried explaining and cajoling, using graphs and anecdotes to make the danger to all of us seem ‘real.’ It doesn’t take. His risk of death is many times greater than mine, and he’s poking holes in a lifeboat we all have to rely on. What is the correct path?”

American culture expects certainty from science. Therein lies the problem with a new disease no medical provider or researcher had seen prior to November 2019. Action was required in the effort to slow the spread with little to no data as a guide. Therefore, messages that seemed contradictory reached the public. “A mask less than N-95 grade will not protect you,” evolved to, “everyone should wear a homemade cloth mask.” As the pandemic evolved and data was gathered, new recommendations were presented. Unfortunately, such well-meaning and necessary changes led to confusion, mistrust, and conspiracy theories.

Medicine’s response

The science of COVID-19 carries phenomenal uncertainties, but the psychology of those who have suffered direct hits or near misses are the daily bedside challenge of all physicians, but particularly of hospitalists. We live at the front lines of disease – as one colleague put it to me, “we are the watchers on the wall.” Though we do not yet have our hoped-for, evidence-based treatment for this virus, we are familiar with acute illness. We know the rapid change of health to disease, and we know the chronically ill who suffer exacerbations of such illness. Supporting patients and their loved ones through those times is our daily practice.

On the other hand, those who have experienced only remote misses remain vulnerable in this pandemic, despite their feelings of invincibility. Those that feel invincible may be the least interested in our advice. This, too, is no strange position for a physician. We have tools to reach patients who do not reach out to us. Traditional media outlets have been saturated with headlines and talking points about this disease. Physicians who have taken to social media have been met with appreciation in some situations, but ignored, doubted, or shunned in others. In May 2020, NBC News reported an ED doctor’s attempt to dispel some COVID myths on social media. Unfortunately, his remarks were summarily dismissed. Through the frustration, we persevere.

Out of the many responsible authorities who help battle misinformation, the World Health Organization’s mythbusting website (www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters) directly confronts many incorrect circulating ideas. My personal favorite at the time of this writing is: “Being able to hold your breath for 10 seconds or more without coughing or feeling discomfort DOES NOT mean you are free from COVID-19.”

For the policy and communication side of medicine in the midst of this pandemic, I will not claim to have a silver bullet. There are many intelligent, policy-minded people who are working on that very problem. However, as individual practitioners and as individual citizens, I can see two powerful tools that may help us move forward.

1) Confidence and humility: We live in a world of uncertainty, and we struggle against that every day. This pandemic has put our uncertainty clearly on display. However, we may also be confident in providing the best currently known care, even while holding the humility that what we know will likely change. Before COVID-19, we have all seen patients who received multiple different answers from multiple different providers. When I am willing to admit my uncertainty, I have witnessed patients’ skepticism transform into assuming an active role in their care.

For those who have suffered a direct hit or a near miss, honest conversations are vital to build a trusting physician-patient relationship. For the remote miss group, speaking candidly about our uncertainty displays our authenticity and helps combat conspiracy-type theories of ulterior motives. This becomes all the more crucial when new technologies are being deployed – for instance, a September 2020 CBS News survey showed only 21% of Americans planned to get a COVID-19 vaccine “as soon as possible.”

2) Insight into our driving emotions: While the near miss patients are likely ready to continue prevention measures, the remote miss group is often more difficult. When we do have the opportunity to discuss actions to impede the virus’ spread with the remote miss group, understanding their potentially unrecognized motivations helps with that conversation. I have shared the story of the London Blitz and the remote miss and seen people connect the dots with their own emotions. Effective counseling – expecting the feelings of invulnerability amongst the remote miss group – can support endurance with prevention measures amongst that group and help flatten the curve.

Communicating our strengths, transparently discussing our weaknesses, and better understanding underlying emotions for ourselves and our patients may help save lives. As physicians, that is our daily practice, unchanged even as medicine takes center stage in our national conversation.

Dr. Walthall completed his internal medicine residency at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, SC. After residency, he joined the faculty at MUSC in the Division of Hospital Medicine. He is also interested in systems-based care and has taken on the role of physician advisor. This essay appeared first on The Hospital Leader, the official blog of SHM.

The Blitz was a Nazi bombing campaign targeting London. It was designed to break the spirit of the British. Knowing London would be the centerpiece of the campaign, the British rather hastily established several psychiatric hospitals for the expected panic in the streets. However, despite 9 months of bombing, 43,000 civilians killed and 139,000 more wounded, the predicted chaos in the streets did not manifest. Civilians continued to work, industry continued to churn, and eventually, Hitler’s eye turned east toward Russia.

H. F. Davis/Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain

The surprising lack of pandemonium in London inspired Dr. John T. MacCurdy, who chronicled his findings in a book The Structure of Morale, more recently popularized in Malcolm Gladwell’s David and Goliath. A brief summary of Dr. MacCurdy’s theory divides the targeted Londoners into the following categories:

• Direct hit
• Near miss
• Remote miss

The direct hit group was defined as those killed by the bombing. However, As Dr. MacCurdy stated, “The morale of the community depends on the reaction of the survivors…Put this way, the fact is obvious, corpses do not run about spreading panic.”

A near miss were those for whom wounds were inflicted or loved ones were killed. This group felt the real repercussions of the bombing. However, with 139,000 wounded out of a city of 8 million people, they were a small minority.

The majority of Londoners, then, fit into the third group – the remote miss. These people faced a serious fear, but survived, often totally unscathed. The process of facing that fear without having panicked or having been harmed, then, led to “a feeling of excitement with a flavour of invulnerability.”

Therefore, rather than a city of millions running in fear in the streets, requiring military presence to control the chaos, London became a city of people who felt themselves, perhaps, invincible.

A similar threat passed through the world in the first several months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospitals were expected to be overrun, and ethics committees convened to discuss allocation of scarce ventilators. However, due, at least in part, to the impressive efforts of the populace of the United States, the majority of civilians did not feel the burden of this frightening disease. Certainly, in a few places, hospitals were overwhelmed, and resources were unavailable due to sheer numbers. These places saw those who suffered direct hits with the highest frequency. However, a disease with an infection fatality ratio recently estimated at 0.5-1%, with a relatively high rate of asymptomatic disease, led to a large majority of people who experienced the first wave of COVID-19 in the United States as a remote miss. COVID-19’s flattened first peak gave much of the population a sense of relief, and, perhaps, a “flavour of invulnerability.”

An anonymous, but concerned, household contact wrote The New York Times and illustrated perfectly the invulnerable feelings of a remote miss:

“I’m doing my best to avoid social contact, along with two other members of my household. We have sufficient supplies for a month. Despite that, one member insists on going out for trivial reasons, such as not liking the kind of apples we have. He’s 92. I’ve tried explaining and cajoling, using graphs and anecdotes to make the danger to all of us seem ‘real.’ It doesn’t take. His risk of death is many times greater than mine, and he’s poking holes in a lifeboat we all have to rely on. What is the correct path?”

American culture expects certainty from science. Therein lies the problem with a new disease no medical provider or researcher had seen prior to November 2019. Action was required in the effort to slow the spread with little to no data as a guide. Therefore, messages that seemed contradictory reached the public. “A mask less than N-95 grade will not protect you,” evolved to, “everyone should wear a homemade cloth mask.” As the pandemic evolved and data was gathered, new recommendations were presented. Unfortunately, such well-meaning and necessary changes led to confusion, mistrust, and conspiracy theories.

Medicine’s response

The science of COVID-19 carries phenomenal uncertainties, but the psychology of those who have suffered direct hits or near misses are the daily bedside challenge of all physicians, but particularly of hospitalists. We live at the front lines of disease – as one colleague put it to me, “we are the watchers on the wall.” Though we do not yet have our hoped-for, evidence-based treatment for this virus, we are familiar with acute illness. We know the rapid change of health to disease, and we know the chronically ill who suffer exacerbations of such illness. Supporting patients and their loved ones through those times is our daily practice.

On the other hand, those who have experienced only remote misses remain vulnerable in this pandemic, despite their feelings of invincibility. Those that feel invincible may be the least interested in our advice. This, too, is no strange position for a physician. We have tools to reach patients who do not reach out to us. Traditional media outlets have been saturated with headlines and talking points about this disease. Physicians who have taken to social media have been met with appreciation in some situations, but ignored, doubted, or shunned in others. In May 2020, NBC News reported an ED doctor’s attempt to dispel some COVID myths on social media. Unfortunately, his remarks were summarily dismissed. Through the frustration, we persevere.

Out of the many responsible authorities who help battle misinformation, the World Health Organization’s mythbusting website (www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters) directly confronts many incorrect circulating ideas. My personal favorite at the time of this writing is: “Being able to hold your breath for 10 seconds or more without coughing or feeling discomfort DOES NOT mean you are free from COVID-19.”

For the policy and communication side of medicine in the midst of this pandemic, I will not claim to have a silver bullet. There are many intelligent, policy-minded people who are working on that very problem. However, as individual practitioners and as individual citizens, I can see two powerful tools that may help us move forward.

1) Confidence and humility: We live in a world of uncertainty, and we struggle against that every day. This pandemic has put our uncertainty clearly on display. However, we may also be confident in providing the best currently known care, even while holding the humility that what we know will likely change. Before COVID-19, we have all seen patients who received multiple different answers from multiple different providers. When I am willing to admit my uncertainty, I have witnessed patients’ skepticism transform into assuming an active role in their care.

For those who have suffered a direct hit or a near miss, honest conversations are vital to build a trusting physician-patient relationship. For the remote miss group, speaking candidly about our uncertainty displays our authenticity and helps combat conspiracy-type theories of ulterior motives. This becomes all the more crucial when new technologies are being deployed – for instance, a September 2020 CBS News survey showed only 21% of Americans planned to get a COVID-19 vaccine “as soon as possible.”

2) Insight into our driving emotions: While the near miss patients are likely ready to continue prevention measures, the remote miss group is often more difficult. When we do have the opportunity to discuss actions to impede the virus’ spread with the remote miss group, understanding their potentially unrecognized motivations helps with that conversation. I have shared the story of the London Blitz and the remote miss and seen people connect the dots with their own emotions. Effective counseling – expecting the feelings of invulnerability amongst the remote miss group – can support endurance with prevention measures amongst that group and help flatten the curve.

Communicating our strengths, transparently discussing our weaknesses, and better understanding underlying emotions for ourselves and our patients may help save lives. As physicians, that is our daily practice, unchanged even as medicine takes center stage in our national conversation.

Dr. Walthall completed his internal medicine residency at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, SC. After residency, he joined the faculty at MUSC in the Division of Hospital Medicine. He is also interested in systems-based care and has taken on the role of physician advisor. This essay appeared first on The Hospital Leader, the official blog of SHM.

The Blitz was a Nazi bombing campaign targeting London. It was designed to break the spirit of the British. Knowing London would be the centerpiece of the campaign, the British rather hastily established several psychiatric hospitals for the expected panic in the streets. However, despite 9 months of bombing, 43,000 civilians killed and 139,000 more wounded, the predicted chaos in the streets did not manifest. Civilians continued to work, industry continued to churn, and eventually, Hitler’s eye turned east toward Russia.

H. F. Davis/Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain

The surprising lack of pandemonium in London inspired Dr. John T. MacCurdy, who chronicled his findings in a book The Structure of Morale, more recently popularized in Malcolm Gladwell’s David and Goliath. A brief summary of Dr. MacCurdy’s theory divides the targeted Londoners into the following categories:

• Direct hit
• Near miss
• Remote miss

The direct hit group was defined as those killed by the bombing. However, As Dr. MacCurdy stated, “The morale of the community depends on the reaction of the survivors…Put this way, the fact is obvious, corpses do not run about spreading panic.”

A near miss were those for whom wounds were inflicted or loved ones were killed. This group felt the real repercussions of the bombing. However, with 139,000 wounded out of a city of 8 million people, they were a small minority.

The majority of Londoners, then, fit into the third group – the remote miss. These people faced a serious fear, but survived, often totally unscathed. The process of facing that fear without having panicked or having been harmed, then, led to “a feeling of excitement with a flavour of invulnerability.”

Therefore, rather than a city of millions running in fear in the streets, requiring military presence to control the chaos, London became a city of people who felt themselves, perhaps, invincible.

A similar threat passed through the world in the first several months of the COVID-19 pandemic. Hospitals were expected to be overrun, and ethics committees convened to discuss allocation of scarce ventilators. However, due, at least in part, to the impressive efforts of the populace of the United States, the majority of civilians did not feel the burden of this frightening disease. Certainly, in a few places, hospitals were overwhelmed, and resources were unavailable due to sheer numbers. These places saw those who suffered direct hits with the highest frequency. However, a disease with an infection fatality ratio recently estimated at 0.5-1%, with a relatively high rate of asymptomatic disease, led to a large majority of people who experienced the first wave of COVID-19 in the United States as a remote miss. COVID-19’s flattened first peak gave much of the population a sense of relief, and, perhaps, a “flavour of invulnerability.”

An anonymous, but concerned, household contact wrote The New York Times and illustrated perfectly the invulnerable feelings of a remote miss:

“I’m doing my best to avoid social contact, along with two other members of my household. We have sufficient supplies for a month. Despite that, one member insists on going out for trivial reasons, such as not liking the kind of apples we have. He’s 92. I’ve tried explaining and cajoling, using graphs and anecdotes to make the danger to all of us seem ‘real.’ It doesn’t take. His risk of death is many times greater than mine, and he’s poking holes in a lifeboat we all have to rely on. What is the correct path?”

American culture expects certainty from science. Therein lies the problem with a new disease no medical provider or researcher had seen prior to November 2019. Action was required in the effort to slow the spread with little to no data as a guide. Therefore, messages that seemed contradictory reached the public. “A mask less than N-95 grade will not protect you,” evolved to, “everyone should wear a homemade cloth mask.” As the pandemic evolved and data was gathered, new recommendations were presented. Unfortunately, such well-meaning and necessary changes led to confusion, mistrust, and conspiracy theories.

Medicine’s response

The science of COVID-19 carries phenomenal uncertainties, but the psychology of those who have suffered direct hits or near misses are the daily bedside challenge of all physicians, but particularly of hospitalists. We live at the front lines of disease – as one colleague put it to me, “we are the watchers on the wall.” Though we do not yet have our hoped-for, evidence-based treatment for this virus, we are familiar with acute illness. We know the rapid change of health to disease, and we know the chronically ill who suffer exacerbations of such illness. Supporting patients and their loved ones through those times is our daily practice.

On the other hand, those who have experienced only remote misses remain vulnerable in this pandemic, despite their feelings of invincibility. Those that feel invincible may be the least interested in our advice. This, too, is no strange position for a physician. We have tools to reach patients who do not reach out to us. Traditional media outlets have been saturated with headlines and talking points about this disease. Physicians who have taken to social media have been met with appreciation in some situations, but ignored, doubted, or shunned in others. In May 2020, NBC News reported an ED doctor’s attempt to dispel some COVID myths on social media. Unfortunately, his remarks were summarily dismissed. Through the frustration, we persevere.

Out of the many responsible authorities who help battle misinformation, the World Health Organization’s mythbusting website (www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters) directly confronts many incorrect circulating ideas. My personal favorite at the time of this writing is: “Being able to hold your breath for 10 seconds or more without coughing or feeling discomfort DOES NOT mean you are free from COVID-19.”

For the policy and communication side of medicine in the midst of this pandemic, I will not claim to have a silver bullet. There are many intelligent, policy-minded people who are working on that very problem. However, as individual practitioners and as individual citizens, I can see two powerful tools that may help us move forward.

1) Confidence and humility: We live in a world of uncertainty, and we struggle against that every day. This pandemic has put our uncertainty clearly on display. However, we may also be confident in providing the best currently known care, even while holding the humility that what we know will likely change. Before COVID-19, we have all seen patients who received multiple different answers from multiple different providers. When I am willing to admit my uncertainty, I have witnessed patients’ skepticism transform into assuming an active role in their care.

For those who have suffered a direct hit or a near miss, honest conversations are vital to build a trusting physician-patient relationship. For the remote miss group, speaking candidly about our uncertainty displays our authenticity and helps combat conspiracy-type theories of ulterior motives. This becomes all the more crucial when new technologies are being deployed – for instance, a September 2020 CBS News survey showed only 21% of Americans planned to get a COVID-19 vaccine “as soon as possible.”

2) Insight into our driving emotions: While the near miss patients are likely ready to continue prevention measures, the remote miss group is often more difficult. When we do have the opportunity to discuss actions to impede the virus’ spread with the remote miss group, understanding their potentially unrecognized motivations helps with that conversation. I have shared the story of the London Blitz and the remote miss and seen people connect the dots with their own emotions. Effective counseling – expecting the feelings of invulnerability amongst the remote miss group – can support endurance with prevention measures amongst that group and help flatten the curve.

Communicating our strengths, transparently discussing our weaknesses, and better understanding underlying emotions for ourselves and our patients may help save lives. As physicians, that is our daily practice, unchanged even as medicine takes center stage in our national conversation.

Dr. Walthall completed his internal medicine residency at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, SC. After residency, he joined the faculty at MUSC in the Division of Hospital Medicine. He is also interested in systems-based care and has taken on the role of physician advisor. This essay appeared first on The Hospital Leader, the official blog of SHM.

A small, single-center randomized trial of patients with obesity and advanced type 2 diabetes, defined as diabetes for ≥ 5 years and A1c ≥ 7%, found that a quarter to a half of patients who had metabolic surgery had diabetes remission (cure) that lasted 5-9 years.

That is, of the 60 randomized patients, 50% who had biliopancreatic diversion and 25% who had Roux-en-Y gastric bypass – but none who had received current medical therapy – still had diabetes remission a decade later.

Until now, there had only been 5-year follow-up data from this and similar trials, Geltrude Mingrone, MD, PhD, and colleagues noted in the study published online Jan. 23 in The Lancet.

These results provide “the most robust scientific evidence yet that full-blown type 2 diabetes is a curable disease, not inevitably progressive, and irreversible,” senior author Francesco Rubino, MD, chair of bariatric and metabolic surgery at King’s College London, said in a statement from his institution.

“The results of this trial will make a noticeable difference in the field and convince even the most skeptical of clinicians about the role of metabolic surgery as part of optimal care for their patients with difficult to control type 2 diabetes,” predicted two editorialists.

Alexander D. Miras, PhD, section of metabolism, digestion, and reproduction, Imperial College London, and Carel le Roux, MBChB, PhD, of the Diabetes Complications Research Centre, University College Dublin, penned the accompanying commentary.

Patients who had metabolic surgery also had greater weight loss, reduced medication use, lower cardiovascular risk, better quality of life, and a lower incidence of diabetes-related complications compared with those who received medical therapy.

“Clinicians and policymakers should ensure that metabolic surgery is appropriately considered in the management of patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes,” advised Dr. Mingrone of King’s College London and the Catholic University of Rome, and colleagues.
 

“Reassuring results, will make a difference in the field”

“It is reassuring that we now have 10-year data showing greater efficacy of metabolic surgery than conventional medical therapy,” Dr. Miras and Dr. le Roux wrote in their commentary.

There were no unexpected risks associated with surgery, they noted, and the findings are consistent with those of 12 other randomized controlled trials in the past 12 years.

“New generations of diabetologists are now more open to the use of metabolic surgery for patients with suboptimal responses to medical treatments,” they wrote, rather than endlessly intensifying insulin and blaming poor response on poor compliance.

And Dr. Miras and Dr. le Roux “eagerly await” 10-year data from the 150-patient STAMPEDE trial – which is examining sleeve gastrectomy, currently the most widely performed bariatric procedure, as well as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and medical therapy – following the 5-year results published in 2017.  
 

Diabetes for at least 5 years, mid 40s, half on insulin

Dr. Mingrone and colleagues previously reported 5-year findings from the 60 patients with obesity and advanced diabetes who were seen in a single center in Rome and randomized to three treatments (20 in each group) in 2009-2011.

Biliopancreatic diversion “remains infrequently performed but is still considered the best operation for glycemic control,” the researchers noted.

The primary endpoint was diabetes remission at 2 years (fasting plasma glucose < 100 mg/dL [5.6 mmol/L] and A1c < 6.5%) without the need for ongoing pharmacological treatment for at least 1 year.

Patients were a mean age of 44 years and had a mean body mass index of 44 kg/m^2. About half were men. They had diabetes for a mean of 5.8 years and an average A1c of 8.6%. About half were taking insulin.

Patient retention rate was high (95%) and trial outcomes were assessed by nonsurgeons.

At 10 years, patients’ mean A1c had dropped to 6.4%, 6.7%, and 7.6%, in the biliopancreatic diversion, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, and medical therapy groups, respectively; only 2.5% of patients in the surgery groups, versus 53% in the medical therapy group, required insulin.

At study end, patients in the surgery groups had lost about 29% of their initial weight versus a weight loss of 4.2% in the medical therapy group.
 

First 2 years after surgery is key

“We also learnt that patients who do not go into remission after 2 years are very unlikely to ever do so,” Dr. Miras and Dr. le Roux observed, which “might help us to intensify modern and potent glucose-lowering therapies like SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists earlier after metabolic surgery.”

Ten of 19 patients (53%) in the biliopancreatic diversion group and 10 of 15 patients (67%) in the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass group who had diabetes remission at 2 years had a diabetes relapse, but at 10 years, they all had adequate glycemic control (mean A1c 6.7%), despite drastically reduced use of diabetes medications.

The two patients who crossed over to surgery from the medical therapy group had postoperative diabetes remission, which was maintained at 10 years in one patient.
 

Better risk-to-benefit ratio with Roux-en-y gastric bypass

No patient in the medical therapy group had a serious adverse event, but one patient in each surgery group had deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, and one patient in the biliopancreatic diversion group had an episode of atrial fibrillation. There were no late surgical complications.

Iron deficiency and mild osteopenia occurred in both surgical groups, but were more common in the biliopancreatic diversion group. And osteoporosis, transient nyctalopia (night blindness) due to vitamin A deficiency, and kidney stones were observed only with biliopancreatic diversion.

This suggests that despite the greater antidiabetic potential of biliopancreatic diversion, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass might have a more favorable risk-to-benefit profile as a standard surgical option for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, Dr. Mingrone and colleagues concluded.

The authors and Dr. Miras have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. le Roux has reported receiving funding from the Science Foundation Ireland, the Health Research Board, and the Irish Research Council for type 2 diabetes research, and serves on several advisory boards outside of the scope of the current study.

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

A small, single-center randomized trial of patients with obesity and advanced type 2 diabetes, defined as diabetes for ≥ 5 years and A1c ≥ 7%, found that a quarter to a half of patients who had metabolic surgery had diabetes remission (cure) that lasted 5-9 years.

That is, of the 60 randomized patients, 50% who had biliopancreatic diversion and 25% who had Roux-en-Y gastric bypass – but none who had received current medical therapy – still had diabetes remission a decade later.

Until now, there had only been 5-year follow-up data from this and similar trials, Geltrude Mingrone, MD, PhD, and colleagues noted in the study published online Jan. 23 in The Lancet.

These results provide “the most robust scientific evidence yet that full-blown type 2 diabetes is a curable disease, not inevitably progressive, and irreversible,” senior author Francesco Rubino, MD, chair of bariatric and metabolic surgery at King’s College London, said in a statement from his institution.

“The results of this trial will make a noticeable difference in the field and convince even the most skeptical of clinicians about the role of metabolic surgery as part of optimal care for their patients with difficult to control type 2 diabetes,” predicted two editorialists.

Alexander D. Miras, PhD, section of metabolism, digestion, and reproduction, Imperial College London, and Carel le Roux, MBChB, PhD, of the Diabetes Complications Research Centre, University College Dublin, penned the accompanying commentary.

Patients who had metabolic surgery also had greater weight loss, reduced medication use, lower cardiovascular risk, better quality of life, and a lower incidence of diabetes-related complications compared with those who received medical therapy.

“Clinicians and policymakers should ensure that metabolic surgery is appropriately considered in the management of patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes,” advised Dr. Mingrone of King’s College London and the Catholic University of Rome, and colleagues.
 

“Reassuring results, will make a difference in the field”

“It is reassuring that we now have 10-year data showing greater efficacy of metabolic surgery than conventional medical therapy,” Dr. Miras and Dr. le Roux wrote in their commentary.

There were no unexpected risks associated with surgery, they noted, and the findings are consistent with those of 12 other randomized controlled trials in the past 12 years.

“New generations of diabetologists are now more open to the use of metabolic surgery for patients with suboptimal responses to medical treatments,” they wrote, rather than endlessly intensifying insulin and blaming poor response on poor compliance.

And Dr. Miras and Dr. le Roux “eagerly await” 10-year data from the 150-patient STAMPEDE trial – which is examining sleeve gastrectomy, currently the most widely performed bariatric procedure, as well as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and medical therapy – following the 5-year results published in 2017.  
 

Diabetes for at least 5 years, mid 40s, half on insulin

Dr. Mingrone and colleagues previously reported 5-year findings from the 60 patients with obesity and advanced diabetes who were seen in a single center in Rome and randomized to three treatments (20 in each group) in 2009-2011.

Biliopancreatic diversion “remains infrequently performed but is still considered the best operation for glycemic control,” the researchers noted.

The primary endpoint was diabetes remission at 2 years (fasting plasma glucose < 100 mg/dL [5.6 mmol/L] and A1c < 6.5%) without the need for ongoing pharmacological treatment for at least 1 year.

Patients were a mean age of 44 years and had a mean body mass index of 44 kg/m^2. About half were men. They had diabetes for a mean of 5.8 years and an average A1c of 8.6%. About half were taking insulin.

Patient retention rate was high (95%) and trial outcomes were assessed by nonsurgeons.

At 10 years, patients’ mean A1c had dropped to 6.4%, 6.7%, and 7.6%, in the biliopancreatic diversion, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, and medical therapy groups, respectively; only 2.5% of patients in the surgery groups, versus 53% in the medical therapy group, required insulin.

At study end, patients in the surgery groups had lost about 29% of their initial weight versus a weight loss of 4.2% in the medical therapy group.
 

First 2 years after surgery is key

“We also learnt that patients who do not go into remission after 2 years are very unlikely to ever do so,” Dr. Miras and Dr. le Roux observed, which “might help us to intensify modern and potent glucose-lowering therapies like SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists earlier after metabolic surgery.”

Ten of 19 patients (53%) in the biliopancreatic diversion group and 10 of 15 patients (67%) in the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass group who had diabetes remission at 2 years had a diabetes relapse, but at 10 years, they all had adequate glycemic control (mean A1c 6.7%), despite drastically reduced use of diabetes medications.

The two patients who crossed over to surgery from the medical therapy group had postoperative diabetes remission, which was maintained at 10 years in one patient.
 

Better risk-to-benefit ratio with Roux-en-y gastric bypass

No patient in the medical therapy group had a serious adverse event, but one patient in each surgery group had deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, and one patient in the biliopancreatic diversion group had an episode of atrial fibrillation. There were no late surgical complications.

Iron deficiency and mild osteopenia occurred in both surgical groups, but were more common in the biliopancreatic diversion group. And osteoporosis, transient nyctalopia (night blindness) due to vitamin A deficiency, and kidney stones were observed only with biliopancreatic diversion.

This suggests that despite the greater antidiabetic potential of biliopancreatic diversion, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass might have a more favorable risk-to-benefit profile as a standard surgical option for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, Dr. Mingrone and colleagues concluded.

The authors and Dr. Miras have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. le Roux has reported receiving funding from the Science Foundation Ireland, the Health Research Board, and the Irish Research Council for type 2 diabetes research, and serves on several advisory boards outside of the scope of the current study.

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

A small, single-center randomized trial of patients with obesity and advanced type 2 diabetes, defined as diabetes for ≥ 5 years and A1c ≥ 7%, found that a quarter to a half of patients who had metabolic surgery had diabetes remission (cure) that lasted 5-9 years.

That is, of the 60 randomized patients, 50% who had biliopancreatic diversion and 25% who had Roux-en-Y gastric bypass – but none who had received current medical therapy – still had diabetes remission a decade later.

Until now, there had only been 5-year follow-up data from this and similar trials, Geltrude Mingrone, MD, PhD, and colleagues noted in the study published online Jan. 23 in The Lancet.

These results provide “the most robust scientific evidence yet that full-blown type 2 diabetes is a curable disease, not inevitably progressive, and irreversible,” senior author Francesco Rubino, MD, chair of bariatric and metabolic surgery at King’s College London, said in a statement from his institution.

“The results of this trial will make a noticeable difference in the field and convince even the most skeptical of clinicians about the role of metabolic surgery as part of optimal care for their patients with difficult to control type 2 diabetes,” predicted two editorialists.

Alexander D. Miras, PhD, section of metabolism, digestion, and reproduction, Imperial College London, and Carel le Roux, MBChB, PhD, of the Diabetes Complications Research Centre, University College Dublin, penned the accompanying commentary.

Patients who had metabolic surgery also had greater weight loss, reduced medication use, lower cardiovascular risk, better quality of life, and a lower incidence of diabetes-related complications compared with those who received medical therapy.

“Clinicians and policymakers should ensure that metabolic surgery is appropriately considered in the management of patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes,” advised Dr. Mingrone of King’s College London and the Catholic University of Rome, and colleagues.
 

“Reassuring results, will make a difference in the field”

“It is reassuring that we now have 10-year data showing greater efficacy of metabolic surgery than conventional medical therapy,” Dr. Miras and Dr. le Roux wrote in their commentary.

There were no unexpected risks associated with surgery, they noted, and the findings are consistent with those of 12 other randomized controlled trials in the past 12 years.

“New generations of diabetologists are now more open to the use of metabolic surgery for patients with suboptimal responses to medical treatments,” they wrote, rather than endlessly intensifying insulin and blaming poor response on poor compliance.

And Dr. Miras and Dr. le Roux “eagerly await” 10-year data from the 150-patient STAMPEDE trial – which is examining sleeve gastrectomy, currently the most widely performed bariatric procedure, as well as Roux-en-Y gastric bypass and medical therapy – following the 5-year results published in 2017.  
 

Diabetes for at least 5 years, mid 40s, half on insulin

Dr. Mingrone and colleagues previously reported 5-year findings from the 60 patients with obesity and advanced diabetes who were seen in a single center in Rome and randomized to three treatments (20 in each group) in 2009-2011.

Biliopancreatic diversion “remains infrequently performed but is still considered the best operation for glycemic control,” the researchers noted.

The primary endpoint was diabetes remission at 2 years (fasting plasma glucose < 100 mg/dL [5.6 mmol/L] and A1c < 6.5%) without the need for ongoing pharmacological treatment for at least 1 year.

Patients were a mean age of 44 years and had a mean body mass index of 44 kg/m^2. About half were men. They had diabetes for a mean of 5.8 years and an average A1c of 8.6%. About half were taking insulin.

Patient retention rate was high (95%) and trial outcomes were assessed by nonsurgeons.

At 10 years, patients’ mean A1c had dropped to 6.4%, 6.7%, and 7.6%, in the biliopancreatic diversion, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, and medical therapy groups, respectively; only 2.5% of patients in the surgery groups, versus 53% in the medical therapy group, required insulin.

At study end, patients in the surgery groups had lost about 29% of their initial weight versus a weight loss of 4.2% in the medical therapy group.
 

First 2 years after surgery is key

“We also learnt that patients who do not go into remission after 2 years are very unlikely to ever do so,” Dr. Miras and Dr. le Roux observed, which “might help us to intensify modern and potent glucose-lowering therapies like SGLT2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists earlier after metabolic surgery.”

Ten of 19 patients (53%) in the biliopancreatic diversion group and 10 of 15 patients (67%) in the Roux-en-Y gastric bypass group who had diabetes remission at 2 years had a diabetes relapse, but at 10 years, they all had adequate glycemic control (mean A1c 6.7%), despite drastically reduced use of diabetes medications.

The two patients who crossed over to surgery from the medical therapy group had postoperative diabetes remission, which was maintained at 10 years in one patient.
 

Better risk-to-benefit ratio with Roux-en-y gastric bypass

No patient in the medical therapy group had a serious adverse event, but one patient in each surgery group had deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, and one patient in the biliopancreatic diversion group had an episode of atrial fibrillation. There were no late surgical complications.

Iron deficiency and mild osteopenia occurred in both surgical groups, but were more common in the biliopancreatic diversion group. And osteoporosis, transient nyctalopia (night blindness) due to vitamin A deficiency, and kidney stones were observed only with biliopancreatic diversion.

This suggests that despite the greater antidiabetic potential of biliopancreatic diversion, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass might have a more favorable risk-to-benefit profile as a standard surgical option for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, Dr. Mingrone and colleagues concluded.

The authors and Dr. Miras have reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. le Roux has reported receiving funding from the Science Foundation Ireland, the Health Research Board, and the Irish Research Council for type 2 diabetes research, and serves on several advisory boards outside of the scope of the current study.

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

Read More

Read More

Read More

Oral contraceptive use is associated with a decreased risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer 3 decades after discontinuation, according to an analysis of data from more than 250,000 women.

At the same time, oral contraceptive use is associated with a short-term increased risk of breast cancer after discontinuation, although the lifetime risk of breast cancer is not significantly different, the researchers found.

The absolute risk of breast cancer after discontinuation is “extremely small” and should be a limited factor when deciding whether to start oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), a doctor said.

The study was conducted by Torgny Karlsson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues and published online in Cancer Research.


 

Reinforcing and extending knowledge

“These findings are generally consistent with what is known, but extend that knowledge, most notably by the longer-term follow-up for the cohort,” commented Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. “Other studies have also shown that OCPs lower risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer. This study suggests that this protective benefit extends up to 30-35 years after discontinuing OCPs.”

The results “reinforce the message to patients of the protective effect of OCPs on risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer,” Dr. Keating said. “Women concerned about these cancers can be reassured that this protective effect appears to persist for decades after discontinuing use.”

Prior studies have indicated that oral contraceptives may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

In terms of breast cancer risk, the study “again extends follow-up and shows that risk of breast cancer was higher for current and ever users through age 50,” although the lifetime risk was not elevated, Dr. Keating said.

“The counseling regarding the effect on breast cancer is more complex,” she said. “I tell women about the very small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after use. Because cancer is very rare among women at the ages when OCPs are typically prescribed, the absolute risk increase is extremely small. This paper adds reassurance that this small increase in risk does not persist.”

For certain patients, the association may be more relevant.

“For most women, this risk is so small that it should be a limited factor in their decision to start OCPs,” Dr. Keating said. “However, for women with a substantially higher risk of breast cancer, or a family history of breast cancer at a young age, the small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after OCP use is more relevant, and counseling should include carefully weighing the benefits and harms of OCPs with other forms of contraception (and no contraception).”

Although the protective effects of oral contraceptives on ovarian and endometrial cancer were well known, the study describes long-term outcomes that can further inform patient counseling, said Samuel S. Badalian, MD, PhD, chief of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Bassett Medical Center in Cooperstown, N.Y., and clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the State University of New York, Syracuse.

“Women with individual or family risk factors of ovarian or endometrial cancers will need to know about the protective effects of oral contraceptives and long-term benefits related with their use (30-35 years after discontinuation),” Dr. Badalian said. “Women with family history of breast cancer need to know that lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”
 

Data from the U.K. Biobank

To examine the time-dependent effects between long-term oral contraceptive use and cancer risk, the researchers examined data from 256,661 women from the U.K. Biobank who were born between 1939 and 1970. The researchers identified cancer diagnoses using information from national registers and self-reported data until March 2019.

Of the women included in the study, 82% had used or still were using oral contraceptives, whereas 18% had never used oral contraceptives. Overall, ever users were younger, more frequently smokers, and had a lower body mass index, compared with never users. Most women started using oral contraceptives between 1969 and 1978. Last use of oral contraceptives occurred on average 10.7 years after starting.

The researchers adjusted for covariates and used logistic regression analyses to measure the cumulative risk of cancer. They used Cox regression analysis to examine instantaneous risk, measured using hazard ratios.

In all, there were 17,739 cases of breast cancer (6.9%), 1,966 cases of ovarian cancer (0.76%), and 2,462 cases of endometrial cancer (0.96%).

Among ever users, the likelihood of ovarian cancer (OR, 0.72) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.68) was lower, compared with never users. “However, we did not see a significant association between oral contraceptive use and breast cancer” for the study period as a whole, the researchers reported. When the researchers limited follow-up to age 50 years, however, the odds ratio for breast cancer was increased (OR, 1.09).

“Surprisingly, we only found a small increased risk of breast cancer among oral contraceptive users, and the increased risk disappeared within a few years after discontinuation,” Åsa Johansson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala University and one of the study authors, said in a news release. “Our results suggest that the lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”

Oral contraceptives today typically use lower doses of estrogen and other types of progesterone, compared with formulas commonly used when participants in the study started taking them, so the results may not directly apply to patients currently taking oral contraceptives, the researchers noted.

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Kjell and Märta Beijers, the Marcus Borgström, the Åke Wiberg, and the A and M Rudbergs foundations. The authors, Dr. Keating, and Dr. Badalian had no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

Oral contraceptive use is associated with a decreased risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer 3 decades after discontinuation, according to an analysis of data from more than 250,000 women.

At the same time, oral contraceptive use is associated with a short-term increased risk of breast cancer after discontinuation, although the lifetime risk of breast cancer is not significantly different, the researchers found.

The absolute risk of breast cancer after discontinuation is “extremely small” and should be a limited factor when deciding whether to start oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), a doctor said.

The study was conducted by Torgny Karlsson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues and published online in Cancer Research.


 

Reinforcing and extending knowledge

“These findings are generally consistent with what is known, but extend that knowledge, most notably by the longer-term follow-up for the cohort,” commented Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. “Other studies have also shown that OCPs lower risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer. This study suggests that this protective benefit extends up to 30-35 years after discontinuing OCPs.”

The results “reinforce the message to patients of the protective effect of OCPs on risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer,” Dr. Keating said. “Women concerned about these cancers can be reassured that this protective effect appears to persist for decades after discontinuing use.”

Prior studies have indicated that oral contraceptives may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

In terms of breast cancer risk, the study “again extends follow-up and shows that risk of breast cancer was higher for current and ever users through age 50,” although the lifetime risk was not elevated, Dr. Keating said.

“The counseling regarding the effect on breast cancer is more complex,” she said. “I tell women about the very small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after use. Because cancer is very rare among women at the ages when OCPs are typically prescribed, the absolute risk increase is extremely small. This paper adds reassurance that this small increase in risk does not persist.”

For certain patients, the association may be more relevant.

“For most women, this risk is so small that it should be a limited factor in their decision to start OCPs,” Dr. Keating said. “However, for women with a substantially higher risk of breast cancer, or a family history of breast cancer at a young age, the small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after OCP use is more relevant, and counseling should include carefully weighing the benefits and harms of OCPs with other forms of contraception (and no contraception).”

Although the protective effects of oral contraceptives on ovarian and endometrial cancer were well known, the study describes long-term outcomes that can further inform patient counseling, said Samuel S. Badalian, MD, PhD, chief of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Bassett Medical Center in Cooperstown, N.Y., and clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the State University of New York, Syracuse.

“Women with individual or family risk factors of ovarian or endometrial cancers will need to know about the protective effects of oral contraceptives and long-term benefits related with their use (30-35 years after discontinuation),” Dr. Badalian said. “Women with family history of breast cancer need to know that lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”
 

Data from the U.K. Biobank

To examine the time-dependent effects between long-term oral contraceptive use and cancer risk, the researchers examined data from 256,661 women from the U.K. Biobank who were born between 1939 and 1970. The researchers identified cancer diagnoses using information from national registers and self-reported data until March 2019.

Of the women included in the study, 82% had used or still were using oral contraceptives, whereas 18% had never used oral contraceptives. Overall, ever users were younger, more frequently smokers, and had a lower body mass index, compared with never users. Most women started using oral contraceptives between 1969 and 1978. Last use of oral contraceptives occurred on average 10.7 years after starting.

The researchers adjusted for covariates and used logistic regression analyses to measure the cumulative risk of cancer. They used Cox regression analysis to examine instantaneous risk, measured using hazard ratios.

In all, there were 17,739 cases of breast cancer (6.9%), 1,966 cases of ovarian cancer (0.76%), and 2,462 cases of endometrial cancer (0.96%).

Among ever users, the likelihood of ovarian cancer (OR, 0.72) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.68) was lower, compared with never users. “However, we did not see a significant association between oral contraceptive use and breast cancer” for the study period as a whole, the researchers reported. When the researchers limited follow-up to age 50 years, however, the odds ratio for breast cancer was increased (OR, 1.09).

“Surprisingly, we only found a small increased risk of breast cancer among oral contraceptive users, and the increased risk disappeared within a few years after discontinuation,” Åsa Johansson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala University and one of the study authors, said in a news release. “Our results suggest that the lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”

Oral contraceptives today typically use lower doses of estrogen and other types of progesterone, compared with formulas commonly used when participants in the study started taking them, so the results may not directly apply to patients currently taking oral contraceptives, the researchers noted.

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Kjell and Märta Beijers, the Marcus Borgström, the Åke Wiberg, and the A and M Rudbergs foundations. The authors, Dr. Keating, and Dr. Badalian had no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]

Oral contraceptive use is associated with a decreased risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer 3 decades after discontinuation, according to an analysis of data from more than 250,000 women.

At the same time, oral contraceptive use is associated with a short-term increased risk of breast cancer after discontinuation, although the lifetime risk of breast cancer is not significantly different, the researchers found.

The absolute risk of breast cancer after discontinuation is “extremely small” and should be a limited factor when deciding whether to start oral contraceptive pills (OCPs), a doctor said.

The study was conducted by Torgny Karlsson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala (Sweden) University, and colleagues and published online in Cancer Research.


 

Reinforcing and extending knowledge

“These findings are generally consistent with what is known, but extend that knowledge, most notably by the longer-term follow-up for the cohort,” commented Nancy L. Keating, MD, MPH, professor of health care policy and medicine at Harvard Medical School and a physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston. “Other studies have also shown that OCPs lower risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer. This study suggests that this protective benefit extends up to 30-35 years after discontinuing OCPs.”

The results “reinforce the message to patients of the protective effect of OCPs on risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer,” Dr. Keating said. “Women concerned about these cancers can be reassured that this protective effect appears to persist for decades after discontinuing use.”

Prior studies have indicated that oral contraceptives may be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

In terms of breast cancer risk, the study “again extends follow-up and shows that risk of breast cancer was higher for current and ever users through age 50,” although the lifetime risk was not elevated, Dr. Keating said.

“The counseling regarding the effect on breast cancer is more complex,” she said. “I tell women about the very small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after use. Because cancer is very rare among women at the ages when OCPs are typically prescribed, the absolute risk increase is extremely small. This paper adds reassurance that this small increase in risk does not persist.”

For certain patients, the association may be more relevant.

“For most women, this risk is so small that it should be a limited factor in their decision to start OCPs,” Dr. Keating said. “However, for women with a substantially higher risk of breast cancer, or a family history of breast cancer at a young age, the small increased risk of breast cancer during and immediately after OCP use is more relevant, and counseling should include carefully weighing the benefits and harms of OCPs with other forms of contraception (and no contraception).”

Although the protective effects of oral contraceptives on ovarian and endometrial cancer were well known, the study describes long-term outcomes that can further inform patient counseling, said Samuel S. Badalian, MD, PhD, chief of the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Bassett Medical Center in Cooperstown, N.Y., and clinical professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the State University of New York, Syracuse.

“Women with individual or family risk factors of ovarian or endometrial cancers will need to know about the protective effects of oral contraceptives and long-term benefits related with their use (30-35 years after discontinuation),” Dr. Badalian said. “Women with family history of breast cancer need to know that lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”
 

Data from the U.K. Biobank

To examine the time-dependent effects between long-term oral contraceptive use and cancer risk, the researchers examined data from 256,661 women from the U.K. Biobank who were born between 1939 and 1970. The researchers identified cancer diagnoses using information from national registers and self-reported data until March 2019.

Of the women included in the study, 82% had used or still were using oral contraceptives, whereas 18% had never used oral contraceptives. Overall, ever users were younger, more frequently smokers, and had a lower body mass index, compared with never users. Most women started using oral contraceptives between 1969 and 1978. Last use of oral contraceptives occurred on average 10.7 years after starting.

The researchers adjusted for covariates and used logistic regression analyses to measure the cumulative risk of cancer. They used Cox regression analysis to examine instantaneous risk, measured using hazard ratios.

In all, there were 17,739 cases of breast cancer (6.9%), 1,966 cases of ovarian cancer (0.76%), and 2,462 cases of endometrial cancer (0.96%).

Among ever users, the likelihood of ovarian cancer (OR, 0.72) and endometrial cancer (OR, 0.68) was lower, compared with never users. “However, we did not see a significant association between oral contraceptive use and breast cancer” for the study period as a whole, the researchers reported. When the researchers limited follow-up to age 50 years, however, the odds ratio for breast cancer was increased (OR, 1.09).

“Surprisingly, we only found a small increased risk of breast cancer among oral contraceptive users, and the increased risk disappeared within a few years after discontinuation,” Åsa Johansson, PhD, a researcher in the department of immunology, genetics, and pathology at Uppsala University and one of the study authors, said in a news release. “Our results suggest that the lifetime risk of breast cancer might not differ between ever and never users, even if there is an increased short-term risk.”

Oral contraceptives today typically use lower doses of estrogen and other types of progesterone, compared with formulas commonly used when participants in the study started taking them, so the results may not directly apply to patients currently taking oral contraceptives, the researchers noted.

The study was supported by the Swedish Research Council, the Swedish Cancer Society, and the Kjell and Märta Beijers, the Marcus Borgström, the Åke Wiberg, and the A and M Rudbergs foundations. The authors, Dr. Keating, and Dr. Badalian had no conflicts of interest.
 

[email protected]