Key clinical point: Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis have a lower concentration of serum magnesium (Mg). However, the association between serum Mg concentration and osteopenia is not significant.

Major finding: Serum Mg concentration was lower in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis vs. healthy controls (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.02 to −0.09). However, the concentration of serum Mg did not differ between those with osteopenia and healthy controls (SMD, −0.30; 95% CI, −0.69 to 0.09).

Study details: A meta-analysis of 11 studies including 2,776 postmenopausal women.

Disclosures: The study was financially supported through grants from the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, the Medical and Health Science and Technology Development Project of Shandong Province, the Clinical Medical Science and Technology Innovation Program of the Jinan Science and Technology Bureau, and the Traditional Chinese Medicine Technology Development Plan of Shandong Province. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chang J et al. Front Med. 2020 Aug 4. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2020.00381.

Key clinical point: Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis have a lower concentration of serum magnesium (Mg). However, the association between serum Mg concentration and osteopenia is not significant.

Major finding: Serum Mg concentration was lower in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis vs. healthy controls (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.02 to −0.09). However, the concentration of serum Mg did not differ between those with osteopenia and healthy controls (SMD, −0.30; 95% CI, −0.69 to 0.09).

Study details: A meta-analysis of 11 studies including 2,776 postmenopausal women.

Disclosures: The study was financially supported through grants from the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, the Medical and Health Science and Technology Development Project of Shandong Province, the Clinical Medical Science and Technology Innovation Program of the Jinan Science and Technology Bureau, and the Traditional Chinese Medicine Technology Development Plan of Shandong Province. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chang J et al. Front Med. 2020 Aug 4. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2020.00381.

Key clinical point: Postmenopausal women with osteoporosis have a lower concentration of serum magnesium (Mg). However, the association between serum Mg concentration and osteopenia is not significant.

Major finding: Serum Mg concentration was lower in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis vs. healthy controls (standardized mean difference [SMD], −0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], −1.02 to −0.09). However, the concentration of serum Mg did not differ between those with osteopenia and healthy controls (SMD, −0.30; 95% CI, −0.69 to 0.09).

Study details: A meta-analysis of 11 studies including 2,776 postmenopausal women.

Disclosures: The study was financially supported through grants from the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province, the Medical and Health Science and Technology Development Project of Shandong Province, the Clinical Medical Science and Technology Innovation Program of the Jinan Science and Technology Bureau, and the Traditional Chinese Medicine Technology Development Plan of Shandong Province. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chang J et al. Front Med. 2020 Aug 4. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2020.00381.

Key clinical point: Early treatment with romosozumab significantly improves bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar spine (LS) in postmenopausal osteoporosis. The response is attenuated by previous treatment and predicted by early changes in bone turnover markers.

Major finding: At 6 months of romosozumab induction, the naïve group had the highest increase in LS BMD (13.6%; P less than .001), followed by teriparatide (8.7%; P less than .001), bisphosphonates (7.5%; P less than .001), and denosumab (3.6%; P less than .001) groups. Serum N-terminal type I procollagen propeptide value at baseline and 1 month and isoform 5b of tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase value at baseline and its percentage change at 1 and 6 months were significant predictors (P less than .05) of LS BMD change at 6 months.

Study details: The data come from a prospective, observational, multicenter study of postmenopausal patients with osteoporosis who were either treatment naïve and received romosozumab (n = 37) or were previously treated with bisphosphonates (n = 33), denosumab (n = 45), or teriparatide (n = 15) and switched to romosozumab.

Disclosures: The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Kosuke Ebina and Dr. Ken Nakata are affiliated with the Department of Musculoskeletal Regenerative Medicine, Osaka University, Graduate School of Medicine, which is supported by Taisho. Dr. Kosuke Ebina, Dr. Makoto Hirao, Dr. Hideki Tsuboi, Dr. Yoshio Nagayama, and Dr. Masafumi Kashii have received research grants from various pharmaceutical companies. The remaining authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Ebina K et al. Bone. 2020 Aug 7. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115574.

Key clinical point: Early treatment with romosozumab significantly improves bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar spine (LS) in postmenopausal osteoporosis. The response is attenuated by previous treatment and predicted by early changes in bone turnover markers.

Major finding: At 6 months of romosozumab induction, the naïve group had the highest increase in LS BMD (13.6%; P less than .001), followed by teriparatide (8.7%; P less than .001), bisphosphonates (7.5%; P less than .001), and denosumab (3.6%; P less than .001) groups. Serum N-terminal type I procollagen propeptide value at baseline and 1 month and isoform 5b of tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase value at baseline and its percentage change at 1 and 6 months were significant predictors (P less than .05) of LS BMD change at 6 months.

Study details: The data come from a prospective, observational, multicenter study of postmenopausal patients with osteoporosis who were either treatment naïve and received romosozumab (n = 37) or were previously treated with bisphosphonates (n = 33), denosumab (n = 45), or teriparatide (n = 15) and switched to romosozumab.

Disclosures: The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Kosuke Ebina and Dr. Ken Nakata are affiliated with the Department of Musculoskeletal Regenerative Medicine, Osaka University, Graduate School of Medicine, which is supported by Taisho. Dr. Kosuke Ebina, Dr. Makoto Hirao, Dr. Hideki Tsuboi, Dr. Yoshio Nagayama, and Dr. Masafumi Kashii have received research grants from various pharmaceutical companies. The remaining authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Ebina K et al. Bone. 2020 Aug 7. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115574.

Key clinical point: Early treatment with romosozumab significantly improves bone mineral density (BMD) of the lumbar spine (LS) in postmenopausal osteoporosis. The response is attenuated by previous treatment and predicted by early changes in bone turnover markers.

Major finding: At 6 months of romosozumab induction, the naïve group had the highest increase in LS BMD (13.6%; P less than .001), followed by teriparatide (8.7%; P less than .001), bisphosphonates (7.5%; P less than .001), and denosumab (3.6%; P less than .001) groups. Serum N-terminal type I procollagen propeptide value at baseline and 1 month and isoform 5b of tartrate-resistant acid phosphatase value at baseline and its percentage change at 1 and 6 months were significant predictors (P less than .05) of LS BMD change at 6 months.

Study details: The data come from a prospective, observational, multicenter study of postmenopausal patients with osteoporosis who were either treatment naïve and received romosozumab (n = 37) or were previously treated with bisphosphonates (n = 33), denosumab (n = 45), or teriparatide (n = 15) and switched to romosozumab.

Disclosures: The study received no commercial funding. Dr. Kosuke Ebina and Dr. Ken Nakata are affiliated with the Department of Musculoskeletal Regenerative Medicine, Osaka University, Graduate School of Medicine, which is supported by Taisho. Dr. Kosuke Ebina, Dr. Makoto Hirao, Dr. Hideki Tsuboi, Dr. Yoshio Nagayama, and Dr. Masafumi Kashii have received research grants from various pharmaceutical companies. The remaining authors reported no conflicts of interest.

Source: Ebina K et al. Bone. 2020 Aug 7. doi: 10.1016/j.bone.2020.115574.

Key clinical point: Diets rich in pro-inflammatory components may increase the risk of osteoporosis, fractures, and lower bone mineral density (BMD) of lumbar spine and total hip.

Major finding: Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII) was negatively linked with BMD of lumbar spine (odds ratios [OR], 0.990; P = .144) and total hip (OR, 0.995; P = .392). The highest category of DII was associated with an elevated risk of osteoporosis (pooled effect size [ES], 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.48) and fractures (pooled ES, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.59) compared with the lowest category of DII.

Study details: A meta-analysis of 11 studies (4 cohort, 1 case-control, and 6 cross-sectional) involving 127,769 participants.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Fang Y et al. Osteoporos Int. 2020 Aug 1. doi: 10.1007/s00198-020-05578-8.

Key clinical point: Diets rich in pro-inflammatory components may increase the risk of osteoporosis, fractures, and lower bone mineral density (BMD) of lumbar spine and total hip.

Major finding: Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII) was negatively linked with BMD of lumbar spine (odds ratios [OR], 0.990; P = .144) and total hip (OR, 0.995; P = .392). The highest category of DII was associated with an elevated risk of osteoporosis (pooled effect size [ES], 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.48) and fractures (pooled ES, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.59) compared with the lowest category of DII.

Study details: A meta-analysis of 11 studies (4 cohort, 1 case-control, and 6 cross-sectional) involving 127,769 participants.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Fang Y et al. Osteoporos Int. 2020 Aug 1. doi: 10.1007/s00198-020-05578-8.

Key clinical point: Diets rich in pro-inflammatory components may increase the risk of osteoporosis, fractures, and lower bone mineral density (BMD) of lumbar spine and total hip.

Major finding: Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII) was negatively linked with BMD of lumbar spine (odds ratios [OR], 0.990; P = .144) and total hip (OR, 0.995; P = .392). The highest category of DII was associated with an elevated risk of osteoporosis (pooled effect size [ES], 1.31; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-1.48) and fractures (pooled ES, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.03-1.59) compared with the lowest category of DII.

Study details: A meta-analysis of 11 studies (4 cohort, 1 case-control, and 6 cross-sectional) involving 127,769 participants.

Disclosures: The study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Fang Y et al. Osteoporos Int. 2020 Aug 1. doi: 10.1007/s00198-020-05578-8.

Key clinical point: Postmenopausal osteoporotic women with low body mass index (BMI) have a higher risk of developing osteosarcopenia. Moreover, appropriate assessments, including the presence of comorbidities, will help in identifying patients at a greater risk of developing osteosarcopenia, especially for patients aged 65-74 years.

Major finding: Patients with osteosarcopenia had a higher risk of frailty vs. those with osteoporosis alone (odds ratio [OR], 2.33; P = .028). BMI (per 1 kg/m² decrease) seemed to be the strongest factor associated with osteosarcopenia risk (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.71; P less than .01). In patients aged 65-74 years, estimated glomerular filtration rate (per 10 mL/min/1.73m² decrease) and glycated hemoglobin (per 1% decrease) were identified as independent predictors of osteosarcopenia (aOR, 1.75; P = .01 and aOR, 5.01; P = .01, respectively).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective study of 276 patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis (osteoporosis alone: n=222 and osteosarcopenia: n=54).

Disclosures: The study was supported by grants awarded to Dr. Koji Ishikawa by KAKENHI and Grant of Japan Orthopaedics and Traumatology Research Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Okamura H et al. PLoS One. 2020 Aug 7. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237454.

Key clinical point: Postmenopausal osteoporotic women with low body mass index (BMI) have a higher risk of developing osteosarcopenia. Moreover, appropriate assessments, including the presence of comorbidities, will help in identifying patients at a greater risk of developing osteosarcopenia, especially for patients aged 65-74 years.

Major finding: Patients with osteosarcopenia had a higher risk of frailty vs. those with osteoporosis alone (odds ratio [OR], 2.33; P = .028). BMI (per 1 kg/m² decrease) seemed to be the strongest factor associated with osteosarcopenia risk (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.71; P less than .01). In patients aged 65-74 years, estimated glomerular filtration rate (per 10 mL/min/1.73m² decrease) and glycated hemoglobin (per 1% decrease) were identified as independent predictors of osteosarcopenia (aOR, 1.75; P = .01 and aOR, 5.01; P = .01, respectively).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective study of 276 patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis (osteoporosis alone: n=222 and osteosarcopenia: n=54).

Disclosures: The study was supported by grants awarded to Dr. Koji Ishikawa by KAKENHI and Grant of Japan Orthopaedics and Traumatology Research Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Okamura H et al. PLoS One. 2020 Aug 7. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237454.

Key clinical point: Postmenopausal osteoporotic women with low body mass index (BMI) have a higher risk of developing osteosarcopenia. Moreover, appropriate assessments, including the presence of comorbidities, will help in identifying patients at a greater risk of developing osteosarcopenia, especially for patients aged 65-74 years.

Major finding: Patients with osteosarcopenia had a higher risk of frailty vs. those with osteoporosis alone (odds ratio [OR], 2.33; P = .028). BMI (per 1 kg/m² decrease) seemed to be the strongest factor associated with osteosarcopenia risk (adjusted OR [aOR], 1.71; P less than .01). In patients aged 65-74 years, estimated glomerular filtration rate (per 10 mL/min/1.73m² decrease) and glycated hemoglobin (per 1% decrease) were identified as independent predictors of osteosarcopenia (aOR, 1.75; P = .01 and aOR, 5.01; P = .01, respectively).

Study details: The data come from a retrospective study of 276 patients with postmenopausal osteoporosis (osteoporosis alone: n=222 and osteosarcopenia: n=54).

Disclosures: The study was supported by grants awarded to Dr. Koji Ishikawa by KAKENHI and Grant of Japan Orthopaedics and Traumatology Research Foundation. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Okamura H et al. PLoS One. 2020 Aug 7. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237454.

Key clinical point: Asthma is associated with an increased risk of osteoporosis and fragility fractures (FF), particularly vertebral and humerus fractures.

Major finding: The risk of osteoporosis and FF was higher in asthma vs. non-asthma group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.18 and 1.12, respectively). The effect was stronger in younger age groups (P_interaction less than .0001). Forearm-wrist (aHR, 1.21) and vertebra (aHR, 1.19) were the sites associated with a higher risk. Among patients with asthma, a single oral corticosteroid course increased the risk of osteoporosis, and greater use of inhaled corticosteroids increased the risk of both bone diseases.

Study details: This population-based matched cohort study included 138,123 patients with asthma and 520,626 age-, sex-, and practice-matched people without asthma using data from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Disclosures: The study was funded by a research grant from the British Medical Association. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chalitsios CV et al. Eur Respir J. 2020 Aug 6. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01251-2020.

Key clinical point: Asthma is associated with an increased risk of osteoporosis and fragility fractures (FF), particularly vertebral and humerus fractures.

Major finding: The risk of osteoporosis and FF was higher in asthma vs. non-asthma group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.18 and 1.12, respectively). The effect was stronger in younger age groups (P_interaction less than .0001). Forearm-wrist (aHR, 1.21) and vertebra (aHR, 1.19) were the sites associated with a higher risk. Among patients with asthma, a single oral corticosteroid course increased the risk of osteoporosis, and greater use of inhaled corticosteroids increased the risk of both bone diseases.

Study details: This population-based matched cohort study included 138,123 patients with asthma and 520,626 age-, sex-, and practice-matched people without asthma using data from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Disclosures: The study was funded by a research grant from the British Medical Association. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chalitsios CV et al. Eur Respir J. 2020 Aug 6. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01251-2020.

Key clinical point: Asthma is associated with an increased risk of osteoporosis and fragility fractures (FF), particularly vertebral and humerus fractures.

Major finding: The risk of osteoporosis and FF was higher in asthma vs. non-asthma group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR]: 1.18 and 1.12, respectively). The effect was stronger in younger age groups (P_interaction less than .0001). Forearm-wrist (aHR, 1.21) and vertebra (aHR, 1.19) were the sites associated with a higher risk. Among patients with asthma, a single oral corticosteroid course increased the risk of osteoporosis, and greater use of inhaled corticosteroids increased the risk of both bone diseases.

Study details: This population-based matched cohort study included 138,123 patients with asthma and 520,626 age-, sex-, and practice-matched people without asthma using data from the U.K. Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

Disclosures: The study was funded by a research grant from the British Medical Association. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chalitsios CV et al. Eur Respir J. 2020 Aug 6. doi: 10.1183/13993003.01251-2020.

Application of oil to the hair and scalp – purported to promote increased shine, health, and growth, and decrease graying of the hair – is used in many different cultures worldwide, including in India and among people of the African diaspora. Hair oiling typically entails combing the hair, followed by applying oil from the roots to the ends about once a week prior to shampooing. Hair oiling daily or every other day, often with a hair braid, is also practiced, using coconut oil or other oils. Oil is found in various hair products and has been popular in the United States, particularly as hot oil treatments in the 1980s.

Oils are used as part of Abhyanga massage, either by an Ayurvedic practitioner or as self-massage, as part of ancient Indian Ayurvedic medicine practice. The type of oil used is determined by the practitioner depending on the individual’s needs; cold-pressed sesame oil or coconut oil is often used as the base oil. Abhyanga is often performed with oil on the entire body as an act of self-care, which includes massage of the hair and scalp. The oil and herbs that are often added to the oil, as well as the scalp massage itself, are explained by practitioners as having therapeutic effects on the hair, including exfoliation of a dry scalp and on overall well-being. Outside of Ayurvedic medicine, hair oiling is also sometimes performed in India as part of routine hair care and can be a bonding experience among parents, grandparents, and children.

Amla oil, which is derived from Indian gooseberry (Phyllanthus emblica L.) and is often used in India on the hair, contains Vitamin C and has been shown to have activity against dermatophytes. In a study conducted in India, amla oil was found to have the most activity against Microsporum canis, M. gypseum, and Trichophyton rubrum, followed by cantharidine and coconut oil, while T. mentagrophytes was most susceptible to coconut oil, followed by amla and cantharidine oil.¹ A study conducted in mice in Thailand found that 5-alpha-reductase was reduced with the dried form of the herb Phyllanthus emblica L, as well as with some other traditional Thai herbs used as hair treatments.²

Castor oil has been utilized in many cultures to promote hair growth. Ricinoleic acid, an unsaturated omega-9 fatty acid and hydroxy acid, is the major component of seed oil obtained from mature castor plants. It has anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial effects, and in one study,³ was found to inhibit prostaglandin D2, which has been implicated in the pathogenesis of androgenetic alopecia.⁴ Jamaican black castor oil is darker in color and has a more alkaline pH compared with traditional castor oil (both contain ricinoleic acid). To produce Jamaican black castor oil, the seed is roasted, ground to a thick paste, boiled in a pot of hot water, then the oil is skimmed off of the top into individual bottles, whereas regular castor oil is cold pressed. The alkalinity of Jamaican black castor oil may play a role in opening up the hair cuticle, which may be beneficial, but application also needs to be followed by a routine that includes closing the cuticle to avoid increasing hair fragility; such a routine could include, for example, leave-in conditioner or rinsing conditioner with colder water.

Castor oil is sometimes used on its own or in combination with other oils, and it is also an ingredient in some hair care products. However, publicly available peer-reviewed research articles demonstrating the effects of castor oil when applied directly to the hair and scalp for hair growth are needed.

Different types of hair oils are used in African American hair care products and, worldwide, by people of the African diaspora as part of regular hair care and hair styling. Common oils include jojoba, coconut, castor, argan, olive, sunflower, and almond oils. Very curly hair often dries out more easily, especially in drier climates; and sebum build-up on the scalp does not occur as quickly, so hair typically does not need to be shampooed frequently. As such, over-shampooing also often dries the hair out faster, especially if hair has been chemically processed. Thus, oils help to coat and protect the hair, and smooth the cuticle. Oils themselves do not moisturize, but can seal moisture into the hair or act as humectants and draw moisture in. Rather than applying on dry hair, oils, when used as daily care as opposed to before shampooing, are often applied on clean hair after shampooing and after a leave-in conditioner has been applied to help seal in moisture for the most benefit. For treatment of scalp conditions, depending on the type of hair care practice performed at home, oils may be preferred over potentially drying solutions and foams if available, for optimum hair care.

Hair oiling is a long-standing practice which, when used correctly, can be beneficial for hair management and health. There are, however, caveats to hair oiling, which include being careful not to excessively brush or comb hair that has a lot of oil in it because the hair is slick, which can cause hair to fall out during combing. Some oils have elevated levels of lauric acid (coconut oil has 50%), which has a high affinity for hair proteins.⁵ While this can support hair strength, care should be taken not to overuse some oils or other products known as “protein packs,” which should be used as directed. Since hair is protein, excess protein build-up coating the hair can block needed moisture, making the hair more knotted and brittle, potentially resulting in more breakage with brushing or other hair care practices.

Some oil-containing hair products also contain artificial fragrances and/or dyes, which in some individuals, may promote an immunogenic effect, such as contact dermatitis. Certain oils, particularly olive oil, can promote an environment favorable to yeast growth, especially Malassezia species, implicated in seborrheic dermatitis. Practices that involve excessive application of oil to the scalp can also result in build up if not shampooed regularly. Sulfonated castor oil (also known as Turkey Red oil) has been reported to cause contact dermatitis.⁶
 

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.

Application of oil to the hair and scalp – purported to promote increased shine, health, and growth, and decrease graying of the hair – is used in many different cultures worldwide, including in India and among people of the African diaspora. Hair oiling typically entails combing the hair, followed by applying oil from the roots to the ends about once a week prior to shampooing. Hair oiling daily or every other day, often with a hair braid, is also practiced, using coconut oil or other oils. Oil is found in various hair products and has been popular in the United States, particularly as hot oil treatments in the 1980s.

Oils are used as part of Abhyanga massage, either by an Ayurvedic practitioner or as self-massage, as part of ancient Indian Ayurvedic medicine practice. The type of oil used is determined by the practitioner depending on the individual’s needs; cold-pressed sesame oil or coconut oil is often used as the base oil. Abhyanga is often performed with oil on the entire body as an act of self-care, which includes massage of the hair and scalp. The oil and herbs that are often added to the oil, as well as the scalp massage itself, are explained by practitioners as having therapeutic effects on the hair, including exfoliation of a dry scalp and on overall well-being. Outside of Ayurvedic medicine, hair oiling is also sometimes performed in India as part of routine hair care and can be a bonding experience among parents, grandparents, and children.

Amla oil, which is derived from Indian gooseberry (Phyllanthus emblica L.) and is often used in India on the hair, contains Vitamin C and has been shown to have activity against dermatophytes. In a study conducted in India, amla oil was found to have the most activity against Microsporum canis, M. gypseum, and Trichophyton rubrum, followed by cantharidine and coconut oil, while T. mentagrophytes was most susceptible to coconut oil, followed by amla and cantharidine oil.¹ A study conducted in mice in Thailand found that 5-alpha-reductase was reduced with the dried form of the herb Phyllanthus emblica L, as well as with some other traditional Thai herbs used as hair treatments.²

Castor oil has been utilized in many cultures to promote hair growth. Ricinoleic acid, an unsaturated omega-9 fatty acid and hydroxy acid, is the major component of seed oil obtained from mature castor plants. It has anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial effects, and in one study,³ was found to inhibit prostaglandin D2, which has been implicated in the pathogenesis of androgenetic alopecia.⁴ Jamaican black castor oil is darker in color and has a more alkaline pH compared with traditional castor oil (both contain ricinoleic acid). To produce Jamaican black castor oil, the seed is roasted, ground to a thick paste, boiled in a pot of hot water, then the oil is skimmed off of the top into individual bottles, whereas regular castor oil is cold pressed. The alkalinity of Jamaican black castor oil may play a role in opening up the hair cuticle, which may be beneficial, but application also needs to be followed by a routine that includes closing the cuticle to avoid increasing hair fragility; such a routine could include, for example, leave-in conditioner or rinsing conditioner with colder water.

Castor oil is sometimes used on its own or in combination with other oils, and it is also an ingredient in some hair care products. However, publicly available peer-reviewed research articles demonstrating the effects of castor oil when applied directly to the hair and scalp for hair growth are needed.

Different types of hair oils are used in African American hair care products and, worldwide, by people of the African diaspora as part of regular hair care and hair styling. Common oils include jojoba, coconut, castor, argan, olive, sunflower, and almond oils. Very curly hair often dries out more easily, especially in drier climates; and sebum build-up on the scalp does not occur as quickly, so hair typically does not need to be shampooed frequently. As such, over-shampooing also often dries the hair out faster, especially if hair has been chemically processed. Thus, oils help to coat and protect the hair, and smooth the cuticle. Oils themselves do not moisturize, but can seal moisture into the hair or act as humectants and draw moisture in. Rather than applying on dry hair, oils, when used as daily care as opposed to before shampooing, are often applied on clean hair after shampooing and after a leave-in conditioner has been applied to help seal in moisture for the most benefit. For treatment of scalp conditions, depending on the type of hair care practice performed at home, oils may be preferred over potentially drying solutions and foams if available, for optimum hair care.

Hair oiling is a long-standing practice which, when used correctly, can be beneficial for hair management and health. There are, however, caveats to hair oiling, which include being careful not to excessively brush or comb hair that has a lot of oil in it because the hair is slick, which can cause hair to fall out during combing. Some oils have elevated levels of lauric acid (coconut oil has 50%), which has a high affinity for hair proteins.⁵ While this can support hair strength, care should be taken not to overuse some oils or other products known as “protein packs,” which should be used as directed. Since hair is protein, excess protein build-up coating the hair can block needed moisture, making the hair more knotted and brittle, potentially resulting in more breakage with brushing or other hair care practices.

Some oil-containing hair products also contain artificial fragrances and/or dyes, which in some individuals, may promote an immunogenic effect, such as contact dermatitis. Certain oils, particularly olive oil, can promote an environment favorable to yeast growth, especially Malassezia species, implicated in seborrheic dermatitis. Practices that involve excessive application of oil to the scalp can also result in build up if not shampooed regularly. Sulfonated castor oil (also known as Turkey Red oil) has been reported to cause contact dermatitis.⁶
 

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.

Application of oil to the hair and scalp – purported to promote increased shine, health, and growth, and decrease graying of the hair – is used in many different cultures worldwide, including in India and among people of the African diaspora. Hair oiling typically entails combing the hair, followed by applying oil from the roots to the ends about once a week prior to shampooing. Hair oiling daily or every other day, often with a hair braid, is also practiced, using coconut oil or other oils. Oil is found in various hair products and has been popular in the United States, particularly as hot oil treatments in the 1980s.

Oils are used as part of Abhyanga massage, either by an Ayurvedic practitioner or as self-massage, as part of ancient Indian Ayurvedic medicine practice. The type of oil used is determined by the practitioner depending on the individual’s needs; cold-pressed sesame oil or coconut oil is often used as the base oil. Abhyanga is often performed with oil on the entire body as an act of self-care, which includes massage of the hair and scalp. The oil and herbs that are often added to the oil, as well as the scalp massage itself, are explained by practitioners as having therapeutic effects on the hair, including exfoliation of a dry scalp and on overall well-being. Outside of Ayurvedic medicine, hair oiling is also sometimes performed in India as part of routine hair care and can be a bonding experience among parents, grandparents, and children.

Amla oil, which is derived from Indian gooseberry (Phyllanthus emblica L.) and is often used in India on the hair, contains Vitamin C and has been shown to have activity against dermatophytes. In a study conducted in India, amla oil was found to have the most activity against Microsporum canis, M. gypseum, and Trichophyton rubrum, followed by cantharidine and coconut oil, while T. mentagrophytes was most susceptible to coconut oil, followed by amla and cantharidine oil.¹ A study conducted in mice in Thailand found that 5-alpha-reductase was reduced with the dried form of the herb Phyllanthus emblica L, as well as with some other traditional Thai herbs used as hair treatments.²

Castor oil has been utilized in many cultures to promote hair growth. Ricinoleic acid, an unsaturated omega-9 fatty acid and hydroxy acid, is the major component of seed oil obtained from mature castor plants. It has anti-inflammatory and antimicrobial effects, and in one study,³ was found to inhibit prostaglandin D2, which has been implicated in the pathogenesis of androgenetic alopecia.⁴ Jamaican black castor oil is darker in color and has a more alkaline pH compared with traditional castor oil (both contain ricinoleic acid). To produce Jamaican black castor oil, the seed is roasted, ground to a thick paste, boiled in a pot of hot water, then the oil is skimmed off of the top into individual bottles, whereas regular castor oil is cold pressed. The alkalinity of Jamaican black castor oil may play a role in opening up the hair cuticle, which may be beneficial, but application also needs to be followed by a routine that includes closing the cuticle to avoid increasing hair fragility; such a routine could include, for example, leave-in conditioner or rinsing conditioner with colder water.

Castor oil is sometimes used on its own or in combination with other oils, and it is also an ingredient in some hair care products. However, publicly available peer-reviewed research articles demonstrating the effects of castor oil when applied directly to the hair and scalp for hair growth are needed.

Different types of hair oils are used in African American hair care products and, worldwide, by people of the African diaspora as part of regular hair care and hair styling. Common oils include jojoba, coconut, castor, argan, olive, sunflower, and almond oils. Very curly hair often dries out more easily, especially in drier climates; and sebum build-up on the scalp does not occur as quickly, so hair typically does not need to be shampooed frequently. As such, over-shampooing also often dries the hair out faster, especially if hair has been chemically processed. Thus, oils help to coat and protect the hair, and smooth the cuticle. Oils themselves do not moisturize, but can seal moisture into the hair or act as humectants and draw moisture in. Rather than applying on dry hair, oils, when used as daily care as opposed to before shampooing, are often applied on clean hair after shampooing and after a leave-in conditioner has been applied to help seal in moisture for the most benefit. For treatment of scalp conditions, depending on the type of hair care practice performed at home, oils may be preferred over potentially drying solutions and foams if available, for optimum hair care.

Hair oiling is a long-standing practice which, when used correctly, can be beneficial for hair management and health. There are, however, caveats to hair oiling, which include being careful not to excessively brush or comb hair that has a lot of oil in it because the hair is slick, which can cause hair to fall out during combing. Some oils have elevated levels of lauric acid (coconut oil has 50%), which has a high affinity for hair proteins.⁵ While this can support hair strength, care should be taken not to overuse some oils or other products known as “protein packs,” which should be used as directed. Since hair is protein, excess protein build-up coating the hair can block needed moisture, making the hair more knotted and brittle, potentially resulting in more breakage with brushing or other hair care practices.

Some oil-containing hair products also contain artificial fragrances and/or dyes, which in some individuals, may promote an immunogenic effect, such as contact dermatitis. Certain oils, particularly olive oil, can promote an environment favorable to yeast growth, especially Malassezia species, implicated in seborrheic dermatitis. Practices that involve excessive application of oil to the scalp can also result in build up if not shampooed regularly. Sulfonated castor oil (also known as Turkey Red oil) has been reported to cause contact dermatitis.⁶
 

Dr. Wesley and Dr. Talakoub are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. This month’s column is by Dr. Wesley. Write to them at [email protected]. They had no relevant disclosures.

In this historical portrait, I am focusing mainly on dermatologists who have developed a skin care line, and I am loosely following a chronological order. Thanks to all the readers of Part 1 (The interesting history of dermatologist-developed skin care), who gave me interesting feedback on my Facebook and LinkedIn accounts. There was so much interest that I will write Part 3 next month. Feel free to DM me your ideas on LinkedIn.

The history of dermatologist-developed skin care continues as more dermatologists become interested in developing a skin care line or retailing skin care in their medical practice. A report in July 2020 showed that physician-dispensed skin care is the largest growing segment of the skin care business with a projected compound annual growth rate of 9.9% from 2020 to 2027. I have not seen national sales numbers since this July report, but we have noticed a large increase in online sales for the doctors using my Skin Type Solutions System. This is most likely because, in a national crisis, the self-care and beauty business segments often see growth. So as you can see, dermatologist-dispensed skin care is becoming a major player in national skin care sales. Let’s get back to the story of how this came to be the case.

Peter Elias, MD. Dr. Elias is professor in the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. In 1996, Dr. Elias published a landmark paper in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology demonstrating that a 1:1:1 ratio of ceramides, fatty acids, and cholesterol is required to repair a damaged skin barrier. He filed multiple patents for using these lipids in moisturizers as early as 1992. His lipid research has stood the test of time, and this paper is still frequently cited. Dr. Elias has authored over 500 peer reviewed articles on the skin barrier, has edited or coauthored three books on skin barrier science, and developed EpiCeram, a product that utilizes ceramide, the fatty acid linoleic acid, and cholesterol. EpiCeram is the only barrier repair moisturizer approved by the Food and Drug Administration and is available by prescription only.

Kathy Fields, MD, and Katie Rodan, MD. Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan met at Stanford (Calif.) University. In the 1980s, these entrepreneurial dermatologists realized that patients did not understand the role of preventing acne rather than just treating it. As dermatologists, they knew that a consistent daily routine to prevent acne was much more effective than waiting for an outbreak and spot-treating lesions. They took an already available OTC medication – benzoyl peroxide – and educated consumers through infomercials that they needed to stay ahead of acne instead of waiting for a breakout. Using infomercials to sell skin care, selling skin care kits, and educating patients about the need to prevent acne rather than spot treat it was very unusual at the time. As we all know, reeducating your patients is a huge challenge. Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan changed consumers thinking in a genius way that continues to resonate today by choosing a brand name to make their point: Proactiv. Their simple 3-step acne kit encouraged patients to be proactive about their acne and encouraged compliance. (Patients love exact skin care steps as demonstrated again by the success of the skin care line from plastic surgeon Suzan Obagi, MD, which became available around 1988).

Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan first offered Proactiv to Neutrogena, which turned it down. This early disappointment did not deter them and ended up benefiting them because this gave them the idea to do infomercials. Guthy Renker agreed to market and distribute the product, and the first Proactiv infomercial appeared on TV in 1995. It quickly became popular and is still one of the best selling skin care lines of all time. It’s important to note that the “overnight success” of Proactiv took at least a decade of effort.

Heather Woolery Lloyd, MD. Dr. Woolery Lloyd got her medical degree at the University of Miami where she also completed her dermatology residency. Her interest in skin of color led to her appointment as director of Ethnic Skin Care at the University of Miami, the country’s first cosmetic ethnic skin care department at a major university. She spent years lecturing around the world on skin of color issues and performing clinical trials before she developed the “Specific Beauty” skin care line for melanin rich skin types. Specific Beauty was acquired by Guthy Renker and is available online. It is the most popular dermatologist developed skin care line for skin of color.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, other dermatologists threw their hats into the ring and came out with skin care lines – some successful and some not. Unfortunately, many skin care lines at that time were based on “pseudoscience” and exaggerated claims, which fueled the fire of those who felt dermatologists should steer clear of these entrepreneurial pursuits. A debate about the ethics of doctors retailing skin care began, and the controversy led to this 2010 statement by the American Medical Association: “In-office sale of health-related products by physicians presents a financial conflict of interest, risks placing undue pressure on the patient, and threatens to erode patient trust and undermine the primary obligation of physicians to serve the interests of their patients before their own.”

Many dermatologists dropped out of the AMA as a result because they felt the organization was no longer representing dermatologist’s interests. After all, we know skin care science better than anyone, and many dermatologists were insulted by the suggestion that we would place our personal financial gain over the best interests of our patients.

This is a perfect example of how the actions of a few unscrupulous dermatologists can affect the entire specialty. I like to focus on the ethical entrepreneurial dermatologists who made great contributions to the skin care industry based on science, efficacy, and patient education and encourage the ethical among us to provide this science-based information to our patients to protect them from pseudoscience-based opportunists. It is obvious that I believe that dermatologists have a responsibility to provide medical advice on skin care to their patients. If not us, who will do it as ethically as we will? But I plead with those of you out there who are promoting foolish stem cell–containing creams and other impossible technologies to remember that you are hurting the credibility of our entire dermatology profession.

In my next column, I will discuss dermatologists who have played a significant role behind the scenes in the development of the skin care industry.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].  

References

Castanedo-Tardan MP, Baumann L. Clin Dermatol. Jul-Aug 2009;27(4):355-8.

Gormley DE. Arch Dermatol. 1999 Jul;135(7):765-6.

Miller RC. Arch Dermatol. 1999 Mar;135(3):255-6.

Virtual Mentor. 2010;12(12):925-7.
 

In this historical portrait, I am focusing mainly on dermatologists who have developed a skin care line, and I am loosely following a chronological order. Thanks to all the readers of Part 1 (The interesting history of dermatologist-developed skin care), who gave me interesting feedback on my Facebook and LinkedIn accounts. There was so much interest that I will write Part 3 next month. Feel free to DM me your ideas on LinkedIn.

The history of dermatologist-developed skin care continues as more dermatologists become interested in developing a skin care line or retailing skin care in their medical practice. A report in July 2020 showed that physician-dispensed skin care is the largest growing segment of the skin care business with a projected compound annual growth rate of 9.9% from 2020 to 2027. I have not seen national sales numbers since this July report, but we have noticed a large increase in online sales for the doctors using my Skin Type Solutions System. This is most likely because, in a national crisis, the self-care and beauty business segments often see growth. So as you can see, dermatologist-dispensed skin care is becoming a major player in national skin care sales. Let’s get back to the story of how this came to be the case.

Peter Elias, MD. Dr. Elias is professor in the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. In 1996, Dr. Elias published a landmark paper in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology demonstrating that a 1:1:1 ratio of ceramides, fatty acids, and cholesterol is required to repair a damaged skin barrier. He filed multiple patents for using these lipids in moisturizers as early as 1992. His lipid research has stood the test of time, and this paper is still frequently cited. Dr. Elias has authored over 500 peer reviewed articles on the skin barrier, has edited or coauthored three books on skin barrier science, and developed EpiCeram, a product that utilizes ceramide, the fatty acid linoleic acid, and cholesterol. EpiCeram is the only barrier repair moisturizer approved by the Food and Drug Administration and is available by prescription only.

Kathy Fields, MD, and Katie Rodan, MD. Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan met at Stanford (Calif.) University. In the 1980s, these entrepreneurial dermatologists realized that patients did not understand the role of preventing acne rather than just treating it. As dermatologists, they knew that a consistent daily routine to prevent acne was much more effective than waiting for an outbreak and spot-treating lesions. They took an already available OTC medication – benzoyl peroxide – and educated consumers through infomercials that they needed to stay ahead of acne instead of waiting for a breakout. Using infomercials to sell skin care, selling skin care kits, and educating patients about the need to prevent acne rather than spot treat it was very unusual at the time. As we all know, reeducating your patients is a huge challenge. Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan changed consumers thinking in a genius way that continues to resonate today by choosing a brand name to make their point: Proactiv. Their simple 3-step acne kit encouraged patients to be proactive about their acne and encouraged compliance. (Patients love exact skin care steps as demonstrated again by the success of the skin care line from plastic surgeon Suzan Obagi, MD, which became available around 1988).

Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan first offered Proactiv to Neutrogena, which turned it down. This early disappointment did not deter them and ended up benefiting them because this gave them the idea to do infomercials. Guthy Renker agreed to market and distribute the product, and the first Proactiv infomercial appeared on TV in 1995. It quickly became popular and is still one of the best selling skin care lines of all time. It’s important to note that the “overnight success” of Proactiv took at least a decade of effort.

Heather Woolery Lloyd, MD. Dr. Woolery Lloyd got her medical degree at the University of Miami where she also completed her dermatology residency. Her interest in skin of color led to her appointment as director of Ethnic Skin Care at the University of Miami, the country’s first cosmetic ethnic skin care department at a major university. She spent years lecturing around the world on skin of color issues and performing clinical trials before she developed the “Specific Beauty” skin care line for melanin rich skin types. Specific Beauty was acquired by Guthy Renker and is available online. It is the most popular dermatologist developed skin care line for skin of color.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, other dermatologists threw their hats into the ring and came out with skin care lines – some successful and some not. Unfortunately, many skin care lines at that time were based on “pseudoscience” and exaggerated claims, which fueled the fire of those who felt dermatologists should steer clear of these entrepreneurial pursuits. A debate about the ethics of doctors retailing skin care began, and the controversy led to this 2010 statement by the American Medical Association: “In-office sale of health-related products by physicians presents a financial conflict of interest, risks placing undue pressure on the patient, and threatens to erode patient trust and undermine the primary obligation of physicians to serve the interests of their patients before their own.”

Many dermatologists dropped out of the AMA as a result because they felt the organization was no longer representing dermatologist’s interests. After all, we know skin care science better than anyone, and many dermatologists were insulted by the suggestion that we would place our personal financial gain over the best interests of our patients.

This is a perfect example of how the actions of a few unscrupulous dermatologists can affect the entire specialty. I like to focus on the ethical entrepreneurial dermatologists who made great contributions to the skin care industry based on science, efficacy, and patient education and encourage the ethical among us to provide this science-based information to our patients to protect them from pseudoscience-based opportunists. It is obvious that I believe that dermatologists have a responsibility to provide medical advice on skin care to their patients. If not us, who will do it as ethically as we will? But I plead with those of you out there who are promoting foolish stem cell–containing creams and other impossible technologies to remember that you are hurting the credibility of our entire dermatology profession.

In my next column, I will discuss dermatologists who have played a significant role behind the scenes in the development of the skin care industry.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].  

References

Castanedo-Tardan MP, Baumann L. Clin Dermatol. Jul-Aug 2009;27(4):355-8.

Gormley DE. Arch Dermatol. 1999 Jul;135(7):765-6.

Miller RC. Arch Dermatol. 1999 Mar;135(3):255-6.

Virtual Mentor. 2010;12(12):925-7.
 

In this historical portrait, I am focusing mainly on dermatologists who have developed a skin care line, and I am loosely following a chronological order. Thanks to all the readers of Part 1 (The interesting history of dermatologist-developed skin care), who gave me interesting feedback on my Facebook and LinkedIn accounts. There was so much interest that I will write Part 3 next month. Feel free to DM me your ideas on LinkedIn.

The history of dermatologist-developed skin care continues as more dermatologists become interested in developing a skin care line or retailing skin care in their medical practice. A report in July 2020 showed that physician-dispensed skin care is the largest growing segment of the skin care business with a projected compound annual growth rate of 9.9% from 2020 to 2027. I have not seen national sales numbers since this July report, but we have noticed a large increase in online sales for the doctors using my Skin Type Solutions System. This is most likely because, in a national crisis, the self-care and beauty business segments often see growth. So as you can see, dermatologist-dispensed skin care is becoming a major player in national skin care sales. Let’s get back to the story of how this came to be the case.

Peter Elias, MD. Dr. Elias is professor in the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. In 1996, Dr. Elias published a landmark paper in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology demonstrating that a 1:1:1 ratio of ceramides, fatty acids, and cholesterol is required to repair a damaged skin barrier. He filed multiple patents for using these lipids in moisturizers as early as 1992. His lipid research has stood the test of time, and this paper is still frequently cited. Dr. Elias has authored over 500 peer reviewed articles on the skin barrier, has edited or coauthored three books on skin barrier science, and developed EpiCeram, a product that utilizes ceramide, the fatty acid linoleic acid, and cholesterol. EpiCeram is the only barrier repair moisturizer approved by the Food and Drug Administration and is available by prescription only.

Kathy Fields, MD, and Katie Rodan, MD. Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan met at Stanford (Calif.) University. In the 1980s, these entrepreneurial dermatologists realized that patients did not understand the role of preventing acne rather than just treating it. As dermatologists, they knew that a consistent daily routine to prevent acne was much more effective than waiting for an outbreak and spot-treating lesions. They took an already available OTC medication – benzoyl peroxide – and educated consumers through infomercials that they needed to stay ahead of acne instead of waiting for a breakout. Using infomercials to sell skin care, selling skin care kits, and educating patients about the need to prevent acne rather than spot treat it was very unusual at the time. As we all know, reeducating your patients is a huge challenge. Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan changed consumers thinking in a genius way that continues to resonate today by choosing a brand name to make their point: Proactiv. Their simple 3-step acne kit encouraged patients to be proactive about their acne and encouraged compliance. (Patients love exact skin care steps as demonstrated again by the success of the skin care line from plastic surgeon Suzan Obagi, MD, which became available around 1988).

Dr. Fields and Dr. Rodan first offered Proactiv to Neutrogena, which turned it down. This early disappointment did not deter them and ended up benefiting them because this gave them the idea to do infomercials. Guthy Renker agreed to market and distribute the product, and the first Proactiv infomercial appeared on TV in 1995. It quickly became popular and is still one of the best selling skin care lines of all time. It’s important to note that the “overnight success” of Proactiv took at least a decade of effort.

Heather Woolery Lloyd, MD. Dr. Woolery Lloyd got her medical degree at the University of Miami where she also completed her dermatology residency. Her interest in skin of color led to her appointment as director of Ethnic Skin Care at the University of Miami, the country’s first cosmetic ethnic skin care department at a major university. She spent years lecturing around the world on skin of color issues and performing clinical trials before she developed the “Specific Beauty” skin care line for melanin rich skin types. Specific Beauty was acquired by Guthy Renker and is available online. It is the most popular dermatologist developed skin care line for skin of color.

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, other dermatologists threw their hats into the ring and came out with skin care lines – some successful and some not. Unfortunately, many skin care lines at that time were based on “pseudoscience” and exaggerated claims, which fueled the fire of those who felt dermatologists should steer clear of these entrepreneurial pursuits. A debate about the ethics of doctors retailing skin care began, and the controversy led to this 2010 statement by the American Medical Association: “In-office sale of health-related products by physicians presents a financial conflict of interest, risks placing undue pressure on the patient, and threatens to erode patient trust and undermine the primary obligation of physicians to serve the interests of their patients before their own.”

Many dermatologists dropped out of the AMA as a result because they felt the organization was no longer representing dermatologist’s interests. After all, we know skin care science better than anyone, and many dermatologists were insulted by the suggestion that we would place our personal financial gain over the best interests of our patients.

This is a perfect example of how the actions of a few unscrupulous dermatologists can affect the entire specialty. I like to focus on the ethical entrepreneurial dermatologists who made great contributions to the skin care industry based on science, efficacy, and patient education and encourage the ethical among us to provide this science-based information to our patients to protect them from pseudoscience-based opportunists. It is obvious that I believe that dermatologists have a responsibility to provide medical advice on skin care to their patients. If not us, who will do it as ethically as we will? But I plead with those of you out there who are promoting foolish stem cell–containing creams and other impossible technologies to remember that you are hurting the credibility of our entire dermatology profession.

In my next column, I will discuss dermatologists who have played a significant role behind the scenes in the development of the skin care industry.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur who practices in Miami. She founded the Cosmetic Dermatology Center at the University of Miami in 1997. Dr. Baumann has written two textbooks and a New York Times Best Sellers book for consumers. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Revance, Evolus, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions, a company that independently tests skin care products and makes recommendations to physicians on which skin care technologies are best. Write to her at [email protected].  

References

Castanedo-Tardan MP, Baumann L. Clin Dermatol. Jul-Aug 2009;27(4):355-8.

Gormley DE. Arch Dermatol. 1999 Jul;135(7):765-6.

Miller RC. Arch Dermatol. 1999 Mar;135(3):255-6.

Virtual Mentor. 2010;12(12):925-7.
 

Suicidality appears to have increased sharply in Israel during the initial nationwide lockdown implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Gil Zalsman, MD, MHA, reported at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

He presented highlights from a soon-to-be-published analysis of the content of online chat sessions fielded by a national crisis hotline (Sahar.org.il) during the first 6 months of 2020, compared with January through June 2019, in the pre-COVID-19 era.

It’s far too early to say whether actual deaths tied to suicide rose significantly during the spring lockdown, since medical examiners often take a long time before ruling suicide as cause of death. But this much is clear: The number of suicide-related chat sessions recorded at the volunteer-staffed national hotline during April 2020 was two-and-a-half times greater than in April 2019, and threefold greater in May 2020 than a year earlier, according to Dr. Zalsman, professor of psychiatry at Tel Aviv University and director of the Geha Mental Health Center in Petach Tikva, Israel, where he also directs an adolescent day unit.

The proportion of chats handled at the crisis hotline, many of them concerned with the standard topics – relationships, stress, fears, anxiety, and other non–suicide-related issues – was 48% greater in the first half of 2020, compared with a year earlier. Indeed, the pandemic is putting an enormous strain on crisis hotlines the world over.

“Everybody who is working hotlines knows that they’re falling apart. There are too many calls, too many chats. They need to multiply their volunteers,” Dr. Zalsman said.

The number of suicide-related online chats jumped the week of March 12, when schools closed across Israel and a partial lockdown began. The peak in suicide-related chats occurred beginning the week of April 17, when the forced total lockdown was declared.

“Everything was closed. You couldn’t go out or the police would arrest you,” Dr. Zalsman recalled.

The suicide-related chat count started to drop off in mid-May, when schools reopened, and continued to decline through the end of June.

Only a small percentage of suicide-related chats were deemed by crisis hotline volunteers and their supervisors to be truly life-threatening situations necessitating a call to the police. But the number of such exchanges was significantly greater in April and May 2020 than in January and February, or in April and May 2019.

Use of the crisis hotline is ordinarily skewed toward tech-savvy young people, or as Dr. Zalsman called them, “kids who live inside their computers.” He note that the psychological impact of the pandemic on children and adolescents is largely unexplored research territory to date.

“For some young kids, the fear that they will contaminate their parents or grandparents is horrifying. You can kill your grandfather by coughing,” Dr. Zalsman said.
 

Older people also seek help

A finding that he and his coinvestigators didn’t anticipate was the significantly increased use of the service by individuals aged 65 and older during the pandemic. This underscores the increased vulnerability of older people, which stems in part from their heightened risk for severe infection and consequent need for prolonged physical isolation, he said.

The conventional thinking among suicidologists is that during times of crisis – wars, natural disasters – suicidality plunges, then rises quickly afterward.

“People withhold themselves. When there’s a big danger from outside they ignore the danger from inside. And once the danger from outside is gone, they’re left with emptiness, unemployment, economic crisis, and they start” taking their own lives, Dr. Zalsman explained. He expects suicidality to increase after the pandemic, or as the Israeli crisis hotline data suggest, perhaps even during it, for multiple reasons. Patients with preexisting psychiatric disorders are often going untreated. The prolonged physical isolation causes emotional difficulties for some people, especially when accompanied by social isolation and loneliness. There is grief over the loss of friends and relatives because of COVID-19. And there is an expectation of looming economic hardship, with mounting unemployment and bankruptcies.

Dr. Zalsman reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zalsman G. ECNP 2020, Session TP.06.

Suicidality appears to have increased sharply in Israel during the initial nationwide lockdown implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Gil Zalsman, MD, MHA, reported at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

He presented highlights from a soon-to-be-published analysis of the content of online chat sessions fielded by a national crisis hotline (Sahar.org.il) during the first 6 months of 2020, compared with January through June 2019, in the pre-COVID-19 era.

It’s far too early to say whether actual deaths tied to suicide rose significantly during the spring lockdown, since medical examiners often take a long time before ruling suicide as cause of death. But this much is clear: The number of suicide-related chat sessions recorded at the volunteer-staffed national hotline during April 2020 was two-and-a-half times greater than in April 2019, and threefold greater in May 2020 than a year earlier, according to Dr. Zalsman, professor of psychiatry at Tel Aviv University and director of the Geha Mental Health Center in Petach Tikva, Israel, where he also directs an adolescent day unit.

The proportion of chats handled at the crisis hotline, many of them concerned with the standard topics – relationships, stress, fears, anxiety, and other non–suicide-related issues – was 48% greater in the first half of 2020, compared with a year earlier. Indeed, the pandemic is putting an enormous strain on crisis hotlines the world over.

“Everybody who is working hotlines knows that they’re falling apart. There are too many calls, too many chats. They need to multiply their volunteers,” Dr. Zalsman said.

The number of suicide-related online chats jumped the week of March 12, when schools closed across Israel and a partial lockdown began. The peak in suicide-related chats occurred beginning the week of April 17, when the forced total lockdown was declared.

“Everything was closed. You couldn’t go out or the police would arrest you,” Dr. Zalsman recalled.

The suicide-related chat count started to drop off in mid-May, when schools reopened, and continued to decline through the end of June.

Only a small percentage of suicide-related chats were deemed by crisis hotline volunteers and their supervisors to be truly life-threatening situations necessitating a call to the police. But the number of such exchanges was significantly greater in April and May 2020 than in January and February, or in April and May 2019.

Use of the crisis hotline is ordinarily skewed toward tech-savvy young people, or as Dr. Zalsman called them, “kids who live inside their computers.” He note that the psychological impact of the pandemic on children and adolescents is largely unexplored research territory to date.

“For some young kids, the fear that they will contaminate their parents or grandparents is horrifying. You can kill your grandfather by coughing,” Dr. Zalsman said.
 

Older people also seek help

A finding that he and his coinvestigators didn’t anticipate was the significantly increased use of the service by individuals aged 65 and older during the pandemic. This underscores the increased vulnerability of older people, which stems in part from their heightened risk for severe infection and consequent need for prolonged physical isolation, he said.

The conventional thinking among suicidologists is that during times of crisis – wars, natural disasters – suicidality plunges, then rises quickly afterward.

“People withhold themselves. When there’s a big danger from outside they ignore the danger from inside. And once the danger from outside is gone, they’re left with emptiness, unemployment, economic crisis, and they start” taking their own lives, Dr. Zalsman explained. He expects suicidality to increase after the pandemic, or as the Israeli crisis hotline data suggest, perhaps even during it, for multiple reasons. Patients with preexisting psychiatric disorders are often going untreated. The prolonged physical isolation causes emotional difficulties for some people, especially when accompanied by social isolation and loneliness. There is grief over the loss of friends and relatives because of COVID-19. And there is an expectation of looming economic hardship, with mounting unemployment and bankruptcies.

Dr. Zalsman reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zalsman G. ECNP 2020, Session TP.06.

Suicidality appears to have increased sharply in Israel during the initial nationwide lockdown implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Gil Zalsman, MD, MHA, reported at the virtual congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology.

He presented highlights from a soon-to-be-published analysis of the content of online chat sessions fielded by a national crisis hotline (Sahar.org.il) during the first 6 months of 2020, compared with January through June 2019, in the pre-COVID-19 era.

It’s far too early to say whether actual deaths tied to suicide rose significantly during the spring lockdown, since medical examiners often take a long time before ruling suicide as cause of death. But this much is clear: The number of suicide-related chat sessions recorded at the volunteer-staffed national hotline during April 2020 was two-and-a-half times greater than in April 2019, and threefold greater in May 2020 than a year earlier, according to Dr. Zalsman, professor of psychiatry at Tel Aviv University and director of the Geha Mental Health Center in Petach Tikva, Israel, where he also directs an adolescent day unit.

The proportion of chats handled at the crisis hotline, many of them concerned with the standard topics – relationships, stress, fears, anxiety, and other non–suicide-related issues – was 48% greater in the first half of 2020, compared with a year earlier. Indeed, the pandemic is putting an enormous strain on crisis hotlines the world over.

“Everybody who is working hotlines knows that they’re falling apart. There are too many calls, too many chats. They need to multiply their volunteers,” Dr. Zalsman said.

The number of suicide-related online chats jumped the week of March 12, when schools closed across Israel and a partial lockdown began. The peak in suicide-related chats occurred beginning the week of April 17, when the forced total lockdown was declared.

“Everything was closed. You couldn’t go out or the police would arrest you,” Dr. Zalsman recalled.

The suicide-related chat count started to drop off in mid-May, when schools reopened, and continued to decline through the end of June.

Only a small percentage of suicide-related chats were deemed by crisis hotline volunteers and their supervisors to be truly life-threatening situations necessitating a call to the police. But the number of such exchanges was significantly greater in April and May 2020 than in January and February, or in April and May 2019.

Use of the crisis hotline is ordinarily skewed toward tech-savvy young people, or as Dr. Zalsman called them, “kids who live inside their computers.” He note that the psychological impact of the pandemic on children and adolescents is largely unexplored research territory to date.

“For some young kids, the fear that they will contaminate their parents or grandparents is horrifying. You can kill your grandfather by coughing,” Dr. Zalsman said.
 

Older people also seek help

A finding that he and his coinvestigators didn’t anticipate was the significantly increased use of the service by individuals aged 65 and older during the pandemic. This underscores the increased vulnerability of older people, which stems in part from their heightened risk for severe infection and consequent need for prolonged physical isolation, he said.

The conventional thinking among suicidologists is that during times of crisis – wars, natural disasters – suicidality plunges, then rises quickly afterward.

“People withhold themselves. When there’s a big danger from outside they ignore the danger from inside. And once the danger from outside is gone, they’re left with emptiness, unemployment, economic crisis, and they start” taking their own lives, Dr. Zalsman explained. He expects suicidality to increase after the pandemic, or as the Israeli crisis hotline data suggest, perhaps even during it, for multiple reasons. Patients with preexisting psychiatric disorders are often going untreated. The prolonged physical isolation causes emotional difficulties for some people, especially when accompanied by social isolation and loneliness. There is grief over the loss of friends and relatives because of COVID-19. And there is an expectation of looming economic hardship, with mounting unemployment and bankruptcies.

Dr. Zalsman reported having no financial conflicts regarding his study, conducted free of commercial support.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Zalsman G. ECNP 2020, Session TP.06.

Further data suggesting that a lower dose of rituximab seems to offer similar effectiveness with a better safety profile than higher doses commonly used in multiple sclerosis (MS), according to a new observational study. “We showed similar numbers of relapses, MRI new/active lesions, and effects on disability with a higher and lower dose of rituximab over a median follow of 16 months,” said lead author, Luciana Midaglia, MD, Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia (Cemcat) at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona. “But adverse effects – particularly frequency of infection – were increased in the high-dose group.”

Dr. Midaglia presented the findings at the recent Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“There haven’t been large studies of rituximab in MS as the company [Genentech/Roche] prioritized development of ocrelizumab over rituximab,” she explained. Rituximab has, therefore, never been approved for this indication. But it is available for several other conditions, and it is often used off label for MS.

“Although we now have a lot of experience with rituximab in MS, a dosage regimen has not been standardized,” Dr. Midaglia noted.

The current study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of two different dosage regimens of rituximab used at two different Catalan MS centers.

In the Barcelona center, 249 patients received a regimen of 2 g IV for the first three 6-month cycles followed by 1 g every 6 months thereafter (higher-dose group). In the Girona center, 54 patients received just one loading dose of 2 g followed by 500 mg every 6 months thereafter (lower-dose group).

Patients were followed up clinically every 6 months, and MRI brain scans were performed at baseline and yearly thereafter. Blood samples for safety and B cell/immunoglobulin monitoring were drawn at 3 months after rituximab infusions.

Results showed that the annualized relapse rate reduced by 87% (from 0.4 to 0.05; P < .001) in the higher-dose cohort, and by 90% (from 0.31 to 0.03; P = .018) in the lower-dose cohort.

The Expanded Disability Status Scale score remained stable or improved in 83% of the higher-dose group versus 72% of the lower-dose group (P = .09).

Contrast-enhancing lesions were reduced by 92% by 12 months and by 100% by 36 months in the higher-dose group and by 81% and 100%, respectively, in the lower-dose group.

New T2 lesions were present in 19% of patients at 12 months and in 12% at 36 months in the higher-dose group and in 16% and 0%, respectively, in the lower-dose group.

Reductions in B cell levels were similar with both doses. However, a reduced rate of adverse effects, mainly infections, was seen in the lower-dose group.

Infections were reported in 7.2% of the higher-dose group and 3.7% of the lower-dose group at 1 year, in 9.7% versus 0% in the second year, and in 9.7% versus 0% in the third year. Urinary tract infections, followed by respiratory infections, were the most prevalent.

A randomized phase 3 study is now underway testing an even lower dose of rituximab. The trial, known as RIDOSE-MS, is comparing maintenance doses of 500 mg every 6 months and 500 mg every 12 months.

Dr. Midaglia said that most centers are using higher doses of rituximab – similar to the Barcelona cohort in this study.

“After this study, we will we now start a new protocol and use the lower dose for all MS patients,” she said.

She reported that her hospital has been using rituximab extensively in MS.

“There were delays to ocrelizumab being introduced in Spain, and while we were waiting, we started using rituximab,” she said. “We believe it is similarly effective to ocrelizumab. It has exactly the same mechanism of action. The only difference is that rituximab is a chimeric antibody while ocrelizumab is fully humanized.”

While rituximab has not had the validation of a full phase 3 trial, she added, “there are data available from several smaller studies and we feel we have learned how to use it in the real world, but we don’t have an approved dosage schedule. We started off using the dose approved for use in rheumatological and hematological conditions.”

Now that ocrelizumab is approved, Dr. Midaglia said they are using that drug for the patients who meet the approved criteria, but there are many patients who don’t qualify.

“For example, in progressive MS, ocrelizumab has quite a narrow indication – it is not reimbursed for patients without any inflammatory activity. So for these patients, we tend to use rituximab,” she noted.

“While there is no good data on its efficacy in these patients, we believe it has some effect and there is no other option at present. Rituximab is an inexpensive drug and has a long safety record in other conditions, so we feel it’s worth a try,” Dr. Midaglia concluded. “And now we have better data on the optimal dosage.”

Commenting on the study, Daniel Ontaneda, MD, comoderator of the session at which the study was presented, said: “Rituximab is not an [Food and Drug Administration]–approved medication for MS, but it has been used in clinical practice quite extensively in the U.S. and also in Europe. The study is of interest as it showed that the lower dose of rituximab achieved good control of disease activity.”

Dr. Ontaneda, a neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, added: “Many centers have been using lower doses or less frequent infusions and this study supports this practice. Some degree of residual confounding in the study in the differences in side effects may be related to the two different sites, but overall I think these results add to the real-world observational data now available for anti-CD20 therapies.”

Dr. Midaglia reported receiving travel funding from Genzyme, Roche, Biogen Idec, and Novartis, and personal fees for lectures from Roche.
 

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

Further data suggesting that a lower dose of rituximab seems to offer similar effectiveness with a better safety profile than higher doses commonly used in multiple sclerosis (MS), according to a new observational study. “We showed similar numbers of relapses, MRI new/active lesions, and effects on disability with a higher and lower dose of rituximab over a median follow of 16 months,” said lead author, Luciana Midaglia, MD, Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia (Cemcat) at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona. “But adverse effects – particularly frequency of infection – were increased in the high-dose group.”

Dr. Midaglia presented the findings at the recent Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“There haven’t been large studies of rituximab in MS as the company [Genentech/Roche] prioritized development of ocrelizumab over rituximab,” she explained. Rituximab has, therefore, never been approved for this indication. But it is available for several other conditions, and it is often used off label for MS.

“Although we now have a lot of experience with rituximab in MS, a dosage regimen has not been standardized,” Dr. Midaglia noted.

The current study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of two different dosage regimens of rituximab used at two different Catalan MS centers.

In the Barcelona center, 249 patients received a regimen of 2 g IV for the first three 6-month cycles followed by 1 g every 6 months thereafter (higher-dose group). In the Girona center, 54 patients received just one loading dose of 2 g followed by 500 mg every 6 months thereafter (lower-dose group).

Patients were followed up clinically every 6 months, and MRI brain scans were performed at baseline and yearly thereafter. Blood samples for safety and B cell/immunoglobulin monitoring were drawn at 3 months after rituximab infusions.

Results showed that the annualized relapse rate reduced by 87% (from 0.4 to 0.05; P < .001) in the higher-dose cohort, and by 90% (from 0.31 to 0.03; P = .018) in the lower-dose cohort.

The Expanded Disability Status Scale score remained stable or improved in 83% of the higher-dose group versus 72% of the lower-dose group (P = .09).

Contrast-enhancing lesions were reduced by 92% by 12 months and by 100% by 36 months in the higher-dose group and by 81% and 100%, respectively, in the lower-dose group.

New T2 lesions were present in 19% of patients at 12 months and in 12% at 36 months in the higher-dose group and in 16% and 0%, respectively, in the lower-dose group.

Reductions in B cell levels were similar with both doses. However, a reduced rate of adverse effects, mainly infections, was seen in the lower-dose group.

Infections were reported in 7.2% of the higher-dose group and 3.7% of the lower-dose group at 1 year, in 9.7% versus 0% in the second year, and in 9.7% versus 0% in the third year. Urinary tract infections, followed by respiratory infections, were the most prevalent.

A randomized phase 3 study is now underway testing an even lower dose of rituximab. The trial, known as RIDOSE-MS, is comparing maintenance doses of 500 mg every 6 months and 500 mg every 12 months.

Dr. Midaglia said that most centers are using higher doses of rituximab – similar to the Barcelona cohort in this study.

“After this study, we will we now start a new protocol and use the lower dose for all MS patients,” she said.

She reported that her hospital has been using rituximab extensively in MS.

“There were delays to ocrelizumab being introduced in Spain, and while we were waiting, we started using rituximab,” she said. “We believe it is similarly effective to ocrelizumab. It has exactly the same mechanism of action. The only difference is that rituximab is a chimeric antibody while ocrelizumab is fully humanized.”

While rituximab has not had the validation of a full phase 3 trial, she added, “there are data available from several smaller studies and we feel we have learned how to use it in the real world, but we don’t have an approved dosage schedule. We started off using the dose approved for use in rheumatological and hematological conditions.”

Now that ocrelizumab is approved, Dr. Midaglia said they are using that drug for the patients who meet the approved criteria, but there are many patients who don’t qualify.

“For example, in progressive MS, ocrelizumab has quite a narrow indication – it is not reimbursed for patients without any inflammatory activity. So for these patients, we tend to use rituximab,” she noted.

“While there is no good data on its efficacy in these patients, we believe it has some effect and there is no other option at present. Rituximab is an inexpensive drug and has a long safety record in other conditions, so we feel it’s worth a try,” Dr. Midaglia concluded. “And now we have better data on the optimal dosage.”

Commenting on the study, Daniel Ontaneda, MD, comoderator of the session at which the study was presented, said: “Rituximab is not an [Food and Drug Administration]–approved medication for MS, but it has been used in clinical practice quite extensively in the U.S. and also in Europe. The study is of interest as it showed that the lower dose of rituximab achieved good control of disease activity.”

Dr. Ontaneda, a neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, added: “Many centers have been using lower doses or less frequent infusions and this study supports this practice. Some degree of residual confounding in the study in the differences in side effects may be related to the two different sites, but overall I think these results add to the real-world observational data now available for anti-CD20 therapies.”

Dr. Midaglia reported receiving travel funding from Genzyme, Roche, Biogen Idec, and Novartis, and personal fees for lectures from Roche.
 

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

Further data suggesting that a lower dose of rituximab seems to offer similar effectiveness with a better safety profile than higher doses commonly used in multiple sclerosis (MS), according to a new observational study. “We showed similar numbers of relapses, MRI new/active lesions, and effects on disability with a higher and lower dose of rituximab over a median follow of 16 months,” said lead author, Luciana Midaglia, MD, Multiple Sclerosis Centre of Catalonia (Cemcat) at Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Barcelona. “But adverse effects – particularly frequency of infection – were increased in the high-dose group.”

Dr. Midaglia presented the findings at the recent Joint European Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis–Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis (ECTRIMS-ACTRIMS) 2020, this year known as MSVirtual2020.

“There haven’t been large studies of rituximab in MS as the company [Genentech/Roche] prioritized development of ocrelizumab over rituximab,” she explained. Rituximab has, therefore, never been approved for this indication. But it is available for several other conditions, and it is often used off label for MS.

“Although we now have a lot of experience with rituximab in MS, a dosage regimen has not been standardized,” Dr. Midaglia noted.

The current study was conducted to compare the efficacy and safety of two different dosage regimens of rituximab used at two different Catalan MS centers.

In the Barcelona center, 249 patients received a regimen of 2 g IV for the first three 6-month cycles followed by 1 g every 6 months thereafter (higher-dose group). In the Girona center, 54 patients received just one loading dose of 2 g followed by 500 mg every 6 months thereafter (lower-dose group).

Patients were followed up clinically every 6 months, and MRI brain scans were performed at baseline and yearly thereafter. Blood samples for safety and B cell/immunoglobulin monitoring were drawn at 3 months after rituximab infusions.

Results showed that the annualized relapse rate reduced by 87% (from 0.4 to 0.05; P < .001) in the higher-dose cohort, and by 90% (from 0.31 to 0.03; P = .018) in the lower-dose cohort.

The Expanded Disability Status Scale score remained stable or improved in 83% of the higher-dose group versus 72% of the lower-dose group (P = .09).

Contrast-enhancing lesions were reduced by 92% by 12 months and by 100% by 36 months in the higher-dose group and by 81% and 100%, respectively, in the lower-dose group.

New T2 lesions were present in 19% of patients at 12 months and in 12% at 36 months in the higher-dose group and in 16% and 0%, respectively, in the lower-dose group.

Reductions in B cell levels were similar with both doses. However, a reduced rate of adverse effects, mainly infections, was seen in the lower-dose group.

Infections were reported in 7.2% of the higher-dose group and 3.7% of the lower-dose group at 1 year, in 9.7% versus 0% in the second year, and in 9.7% versus 0% in the third year. Urinary tract infections, followed by respiratory infections, were the most prevalent.

A randomized phase 3 study is now underway testing an even lower dose of rituximab. The trial, known as RIDOSE-MS, is comparing maintenance doses of 500 mg every 6 months and 500 mg every 12 months.

Dr. Midaglia said that most centers are using higher doses of rituximab – similar to the Barcelona cohort in this study.

“After this study, we will we now start a new protocol and use the lower dose for all MS patients,” she said.

She reported that her hospital has been using rituximab extensively in MS.

“There were delays to ocrelizumab being introduced in Spain, and while we were waiting, we started using rituximab,” she said. “We believe it is similarly effective to ocrelizumab. It has exactly the same mechanism of action. The only difference is that rituximab is a chimeric antibody while ocrelizumab is fully humanized.”

While rituximab has not had the validation of a full phase 3 trial, she added, “there are data available from several smaller studies and we feel we have learned how to use it in the real world, but we don’t have an approved dosage schedule. We started off using the dose approved for use in rheumatological and hematological conditions.”

Now that ocrelizumab is approved, Dr. Midaglia said they are using that drug for the patients who meet the approved criteria, but there are many patients who don’t qualify.

“For example, in progressive MS, ocrelizumab has quite a narrow indication – it is not reimbursed for patients without any inflammatory activity. So for these patients, we tend to use rituximab,” she noted.

“While there is no good data on its efficacy in these patients, we believe it has some effect and there is no other option at present. Rituximab is an inexpensive drug and has a long safety record in other conditions, so we feel it’s worth a try,” Dr. Midaglia concluded. “And now we have better data on the optimal dosage.”

Commenting on the study, Daniel Ontaneda, MD, comoderator of the session at which the study was presented, said: “Rituximab is not an [Food and Drug Administration]–approved medication for MS, but it has been used in clinical practice quite extensively in the U.S. and also in Europe. The study is of interest as it showed that the lower dose of rituximab achieved good control of disease activity.”

Dr. Ontaneda, a neurologist at the Mellen Center for MS at the Cleveland Clinic, Ohio, added: “Many centers have been using lower doses or less frequent infusions and this study supports this practice. Some degree of residual confounding in the study in the differences in side effects may be related to the two different sites, but overall I think these results add to the real-world observational data now available for anti-CD20 therapies.”

Dr. Midaglia reported receiving travel funding from Genzyme, Roche, Biogen Idec, and Novartis, and personal fees for lectures from Roche.
 

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

In March 2020, following the announcement of the United States’ first death related to COVID-19, many physicians began using their voices to discuss the shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). Many physicians, myself included, petitioned elected leaders at the community, state, and federal levels to address the PPE shortage.

Historically, physicians have advocated for improved public health. From seat belt laws in the 1980s and 1990s to the Affordable Care Act in the 2000s, physicians have testified at the community, state, and federal levels to advocate for the health and safety of our patients and the public. Yet while we have been making our voices heard, we are often silent at the ballot box.

In the 1996 and 2000 elections, physicians voted 9% less often than the general public, and compared with lawyers – professionals with similar educational attainment and finances – physicians voted 22% less often.¹ It is unclear why physicians are less likely to vote. In a 2016 article, David Grande, MD, and Katrina Armstrong, MD, postulated that physicians may not vote because our work hours create barriers to visiting polls.²

Despite our lack of engagement at the ballot box, voting is important to improving our patients’ social determinants of health. In a recently published systematic review, the authors found several studies supporting the association between voting and social determinants of health. Their review found that, when large numbers of people from communities participated in voting, it translated into greater influence over determining who held political power in that community. Those with power introduced and supported policies responding to their constituents’ needs, ultimately influencing their constituents’ social determinants of health.³ By voting, we as physicians are helping to address the social determinants of health in our communities.

Many medical students have been doing their part to improve the social determinants of health in their communities by pledging to vote. In 2018, the American Medical Student Association launched their “Med Out the Vote” initiative prior to the election. The organization called on all health care providers and providers in training to pledge to vote in the election.⁴ They are continuing these efforts for the 2020 elections.

We should join our nation’s medical students by also pledging to vote. To begin, we can all Make A Plan To Vote. Each plan should include the following:

• Register to vote: In many states eligible voters can register online.
• Request an absentee ballot: Many states require registered voters to request absentee ballots online or by mail.
• Vote: Submit an absentee ballot prior to election or vote in-person on election day. Some counties allow voting early in person.

In practice, our plans will differ slightly because each state has its own election laws.

This election season let us ensure all physician voices are heard. Make A Plan To Vote for your patients and communities.
 

Dr. Kumar is the pediatric editor of The Hospitalist. She is clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University and a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s.

References

1. Grande D et al. Do Doctors Vote? J Gen Intern Med. 2007 May;22(5):585-9.

2. Grande D, Armstrong K. Will Physicians Vote? Ann Intern Med. 2016;165:814-5.

3. Brown CL et al. Voting, health and interventions in healthcare settings: A scoping review. Public Health Rev. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1186/s40985-020-00133-6.

4. American Medical Student Association. AMSA Launches Med Out the Vote Campaign, Call to Action. 2018 Jul 29. Accessed 2020 Sep 14. https://www.amsa.org/about/amsa-press-room/amsa-launches-med-out-the-vote-campaign-call-to-action/

In March 2020, following the announcement of the United States’ first death related to COVID-19, many physicians began using their voices to discuss the shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). Many physicians, myself included, petitioned elected leaders at the community, state, and federal levels to address the PPE shortage.

Historically, physicians have advocated for improved public health. From seat belt laws in the 1980s and 1990s to the Affordable Care Act in the 2000s, physicians have testified at the community, state, and federal levels to advocate for the health and safety of our patients and the public. Yet while we have been making our voices heard, we are often silent at the ballot box.

In the 1996 and 2000 elections, physicians voted 9% less often than the general public, and compared with lawyers – professionals with similar educational attainment and finances – physicians voted 22% less often.¹ It is unclear why physicians are less likely to vote. In a 2016 article, David Grande, MD, and Katrina Armstrong, MD, postulated that physicians may not vote because our work hours create barriers to visiting polls.²

Despite our lack of engagement at the ballot box, voting is important to improving our patients’ social determinants of health. In a recently published systematic review, the authors found several studies supporting the association between voting and social determinants of health. Their review found that, when large numbers of people from communities participated in voting, it translated into greater influence over determining who held political power in that community. Those with power introduced and supported policies responding to their constituents’ needs, ultimately influencing their constituents’ social determinants of health.³ By voting, we as physicians are helping to address the social determinants of health in our communities.

Many medical students have been doing their part to improve the social determinants of health in their communities by pledging to vote. In 2018, the American Medical Student Association launched their “Med Out the Vote” initiative prior to the election. The organization called on all health care providers and providers in training to pledge to vote in the election.⁴ They are continuing these efforts for the 2020 elections.

We should join our nation’s medical students by also pledging to vote. To begin, we can all Make A Plan To Vote. Each plan should include the following:

• Register to vote: In many states eligible voters can register online.
• Request an absentee ballot: Many states require registered voters to request absentee ballots online or by mail.
• Vote: Submit an absentee ballot prior to election or vote in-person on election day. Some counties allow voting early in person.

In practice, our plans will differ slightly because each state has its own election laws.

This election season let us ensure all physician voices are heard. Make A Plan To Vote for your patients and communities.
 

Dr. Kumar is the pediatric editor of The Hospitalist. She is clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University and a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s.

References

1. Grande D et al. Do Doctors Vote? J Gen Intern Med. 2007 May;22(5):585-9.

2. Grande D, Armstrong K. Will Physicians Vote? Ann Intern Med. 2016;165:814-5.

3. Brown CL et al. Voting, health and interventions in healthcare settings: A scoping review. Public Health Rev. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1186/s40985-020-00133-6.

4. American Medical Student Association. AMSA Launches Med Out the Vote Campaign, Call to Action. 2018 Jul 29. Accessed 2020 Sep 14. https://www.amsa.org/about/amsa-press-room/amsa-launches-med-out-the-vote-campaign-call-to-action/

In March 2020, following the announcement of the United States’ first death related to COVID-19, many physicians began using their voices to discuss the shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE). Many physicians, myself included, petitioned elected leaders at the community, state, and federal levels to address the PPE shortage.

Historically, physicians have advocated for improved public health. From seat belt laws in the 1980s and 1990s to the Affordable Care Act in the 2000s, physicians have testified at the community, state, and federal levels to advocate for the health and safety of our patients and the public. Yet while we have been making our voices heard, we are often silent at the ballot box.

In the 1996 and 2000 elections, physicians voted 9% less often than the general public, and compared with lawyers – professionals with similar educational attainment and finances – physicians voted 22% less often.¹ It is unclear why physicians are less likely to vote. In a 2016 article, David Grande, MD, and Katrina Armstrong, MD, postulated that physicians may not vote because our work hours create barriers to visiting polls.²

Despite our lack of engagement at the ballot box, voting is important to improving our patients’ social determinants of health. In a recently published systematic review, the authors found several studies supporting the association between voting and social determinants of health. Their review found that, when large numbers of people from communities participated in voting, it translated into greater influence over determining who held political power in that community. Those with power introduced and supported policies responding to their constituents’ needs, ultimately influencing their constituents’ social determinants of health.³ By voting, we as physicians are helping to address the social determinants of health in our communities.

Many medical students have been doing their part to improve the social determinants of health in their communities by pledging to vote. In 2018, the American Medical Student Association launched their “Med Out the Vote” initiative prior to the election. The organization called on all health care providers and providers in training to pledge to vote in the election.⁴ They are continuing these efforts for the 2020 elections.

We should join our nation’s medical students by also pledging to vote. To begin, we can all Make A Plan To Vote. Each plan should include the following:

• Register to vote: In many states eligible voters can register online.
• Request an absentee ballot: Many states require registered voters to request absentee ballots online or by mail.
• Vote: Submit an absentee ballot prior to election or vote in-person on election day. Some counties allow voting early in person.

In practice, our plans will differ slightly because each state has its own election laws.

This election season let us ensure all physician voices are heard. Make A Plan To Vote for your patients and communities.
 

Dr. Kumar is the pediatric editor of The Hospitalist. She is clinical assistant professor of pediatrics at the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine at Case Western Reserve University and a pediatric hospitalist at Cleveland Clinic Children’s.

References

1. Grande D et al. Do Doctors Vote? J Gen Intern Med. 2007 May;22(5):585-9.

2. Grande D, Armstrong K. Will Physicians Vote? Ann Intern Med. 2016;165:814-5.

3. Brown CL et al. Voting, health and interventions in healthcare settings: A scoping review. Public Health Rev. 2020 Jul. doi: 10.1186/s40985-020-00133-6.

4. American Medical Student Association. AMSA Launches Med Out the Vote Campaign, Call to Action. 2018 Jul 29. Accessed 2020 Sep 14. https://www.amsa.org/about/amsa-press-room/amsa-launches-med-out-the-vote-campaign-call-to-action/