Clinical question: What is the best management approach for adults who are admitted to the hospital with a calcium channel blocker (CCB) overdose?

Background: There is significant morbidity and mortality from cardiac drug poisoning. Overall, the level of evidence in the literature on the treatment of CCB toxicity is very low. Prior to the current publication there were no guidelines for treating patients admitted to the hospital with a CCB overdose.

Further lower-strength suggestions were made: insulin therapy as monotherapy if cardiac dysfunction present, or in combination with other therapies if there is no cardiac dysfunction; atropine in the setting of symptomatic bradycardia; and dobutamine or epinephrine in the presence of cardiogenic shock.

For refractory CCB, toxicity suggestions included incremental doses of high-dose insulin (if myocardial dysfunction is present, or even if it is not present in periarrest situations), IV lipid emulsion therapy, and pacemaker for unstable bradycardia (if there is no evidence of cardiac dysfunction). If the patient is in refractory shock or periarrest, the panel suggests the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO).

Limitations included the limited availability of evidence.

Bottom line: Management of CCB toxicity should include IV calcium and high-dose IV insulin, with vasopressors for shock, and other additional therapies for refractory cases.

Citation: St-Onge M, Anseeuw K, Cantrell FL, et al. Experts’ consensus recommendations for the management of calcium channel blocker poisoning in adults [published online ahead of print, Oct. 3, 2016]. Crit Care Med. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002087.

Dr. Balch is a clinical instructor at the University of Utah School of Medicine and an academic hospitalist at the University of Utah Hospital.

Clinical question: What is the best management approach for adults who are admitted to the hospital with a calcium channel blocker (CCB) overdose?

Background: There is significant morbidity and mortality from cardiac drug poisoning. Overall, the level of evidence in the literature on the treatment of CCB toxicity is very low. Prior to the current publication there were no guidelines for treating patients admitted to the hospital with a CCB overdose.

Further lower-strength suggestions were made: insulin therapy as monotherapy if cardiac dysfunction present, or in combination with other therapies if there is no cardiac dysfunction; atropine in the setting of symptomatic bradycardia; and dobutamine or epinephrine in the presence of cardiogenic shock.

For refractory CCB, toxicity suggestions included incremental doses of high-dose insulin (if myocardial dysfunction is present, or even if it is not present in periarrest situations), IV lipid emulsion therapy, and pacemaker for unstable bradycardia (if there is no evidence of cardiac dysfunction). If the patient is in refractory shock or periarrest, the panel suggests the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO).

Limitations included the limited availability of evidence.

Bottom line: Management of CCB toxicity should include IV calcium and high-dose IV insulin, with vasopressors for shock, and other additional therapies for refractory cases.

Citation: St-Onge M, Anseeuw K, Cantrell FL, et al. Experts’ consensus recommendations for the management of calcium channel blocker poisoning in adults [published online ahead of print, Oct. 3, 2016]. Crit Care Med. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002087.

Dr. Balch is a clinical instructor at the University of Utah School of Medicine and an academic hospitalist at the University of Utah Hospital.

Clinical question: What is the best management approach for adults who are admitted to the hospital with a calcium channel blocker (CCB) overdose?

Background: There is significant morbidity and mortality from cardiac drug poisoning. Overall, the level of evidence in the literature on the treatment of CCB toxicity is very low. Prior to the current publication there were no guidelines for treating patients admitted to the hospital with a CCB overdose.

Further lower-strength suggestions were made: insulin therapy as monotherapy if cardiac dysfunction present, or in combination with other therapies if there is no cardiac dysfunction; atropine in the setting of symptomatic bradycardia; and dobutamine or epinephrine in the presence of cardiogenic shock.

For refractory CCB, toxicity suggestions included incremental doses of high-dose insulin (if myocardial dysfunction is present, or even if it is not present in periarrest situations), IV lipid emulsion therapy, and pacemaker for unstable bradycardia (if there is no evidence of cardiac dysfunction). If the patient is in refractory shock or periarrest, the panel suggests the use of venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO).

Limitations included the limited availability of evidence.

Bottom line: Management of CCB toxicity should include IV calcium and high-dose IV insulin, with vasopressors for shock, and other additional therapies for refractory cases.

Citation: St-Onge M, Anseeuw K, Cantrell FL, et al. Experts’ consensus recommendations for the management of calcium channel blocker poisoning in adults [published online ahead of print, Oct. 3, 2016]. Crit Care Med. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002087.

Dr. Balch is a clinical instructor at the University of Utah School of Medicine and an academic hospitalist at the University of Utah Hospital.

Practice Gap

Early diagnosis of nail psoriasis is challenging because nail changes, including pitting, subungual hyperkeratosis, crumbling, oil spots, salmon patches, onycholysis, and splinter hemorrhages, may be subtle and nonspecific. Furthermore, 5% to 10% of psoriasis patients do not have skin findings, making the diagnosis of nail psoriasis even more difficult. Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is more common in patients with nail psoriasis than in those with cutaneous psoriasis, and early joint damage may be asymptomatic.¹ Both nail psoriasis and PsA may progress rapidly, leading to functional impairment with poor quality of life.²

Diagnostic Tool

A 36-year-old man presented with a 4-year history of abnormal fingernails. He denied nail pain but stated that the nails felt sensitive at times and it was difficult to pick up small objects. His medical history was notable for type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and attention deficit disorder. He denied joint pain or skin rash.

Physical examination revealed pitting and onycholysis of the fingernails (Figure, A) without involvement of the toenails. A nail clipping was negative for fungus but revealed an incompletely keratinized nail plate with subungual parakeratotic scale, consistent with nail psoriasis. A radiograph showed erosive changes of the third finger of the right hand that were compatible with PsA (Figure, B).

Practice Implications

A nail clipping may be performed to diagnose nail psoriasis. Imaging and/or referral to a rheumatologist should be performed in all patients with isolated nail psoriasis to evaluate for early arthritic changes. If present, appropriate therapy is initiated to prevent further joint damage. In patients with nail psoriasis with or without associated joint pain, dermatologists should consider using radiograph imaging to screen patients for PsA.

Practice Gap

Early diagnosis of nail psoriasis is challenging because nail changes, including pitting, subungual hyperkeratosis, crumbling, oil spots, salmon patches, onycholysis, and splinter hemorrhages, may be subtle and nonspecific. Furthermore, 5% to 10% of psoriasis patients do not have skin findings, making the diagnosis of nail psoriasis even more difficult. Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is more common in patients with nail psoriasis than in those with cutaneous psoriasis, and early joint damage may be asymptomatic.¹ Both nail psoriasis and PsA may progress rapidly, leading to functional impairment with poor quality of life.²

Diagnostic Tool

A 36-year-old man presented with a 4-year history of abnormal fingernails. He denied nail pain but stated that the nails felt sensitive at times and it was difficult to pick up small objects. His medical history was notable for type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and attention deficit disorder. He denied joint pain or skin rash.

Physical examination revealed pitting and onycholysis of the fingernails (Figure, A) without involvement of the toenails. A nail clipping was negative for fungus but revealed an incompletely keratinized nail plate with subungual parakeratotic scale, consistent with nail psoriasis. A radiograph showed erosive changes of the third finger of the right hand that were compatible with PsA (Figure, B).

Practice Implications

A nail clipping may be performed to diagnose nail psoriasis. Imaging and/or referral to a rheumatologist should be performed in all patients with isolated nail psoriasis to evaluate for early arthritic changes. If present, appropriate therapy is initiated to prevent further joint damage. In patients with nail psoriasis with or without associated joint pain, dermatologists should consider using radiograph imaging to screen patients for PsA.

Practice Gap

Early diagnosis of nail psoriasis is challenging because nail changes, including pitting, subungual hyperkeratosis, crumbling, oil spots, salmon patches, onycholysis, and splinter hemorrhages, may be subtle and nonspecific. Furthermore, 5% to 10% of psoriasis patients do not have skin findings, making the diagnosis of nail psoriasis even more difficult. Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is more common in patients with nail psoriasis than in those with cutaneous psoriasis, and early joint damage may be asymptomatic.¹ Both nail psoriasis and PsA may progress rapidly, leading to functional impairment with poor quality of life.²

Diagnostic Tool

A 36-year-old man presented with a 4-year history of abnormal fingernails. He denied nail pain but stated that the nails felt sensitive at times and it was difficult to pick up small objects. His medical history was notable for type 2 diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and attention deficit disorder. He denied joint pain or skin rash.

Physical examination revealed pitting and onycholysis of the fingernails (Figure, A) without involvement of the toenails. A nail clipping was negative for fungus but revealed an incompletely keratinized nail plate with subungual parakeratotic scale, consistent with nail psoriasis. A radiograph showed erosive changes of the third finger of the right hand that were compatible with PsA (Figure, B).

Practice Implications

A nail clipping may be performed to diagnose nail psoriasis. Imaging and/or referral to a rheumatologist should be performed in all patients with isolated nail psoriasis to evaluate for early arthritic changes. If present, appropriate therapy is initiated to prevent further joint damage. In patients with nail psoriasis with or without associated joint pain, dermatologists should consider using radiograph imaging to screen patients for PsA.

LAS VEGAS – Analysis of nearly 13 million U.S. deliveries during 2009-2013 identified two new, significant dangers posed to neonates delivered by planned home births: nulliparous pregnancies and deliveries at 41 weeks gestational age or older.

Both conditions linked with a substantially increased risk for neonatal mortality, compared with babies delivered at a hospital, either by a nurse midwife or a physician, said Amos Grünebaum, MD, at the annual Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

LAS VEGAS – Analysis of nearly 13 million U.S. deliveries during 2009-2013 identified two new, significant dangers posed to neonates delivered by planned home births: nulliparous pregnancies and deliveries at 41 weeks gestational age or older.

Both conditions linked with a substantially increased risk for neonatal mortality, compared with babies delivered at a hospital, either by a nurse midwife or a physician, said Amos Grünebaum, MD, at the annual Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

LAS VEGAS – Analysis of nearly 13 million U.S. deliveries during 2009-2013 identified two new, significant dangers posed to neonates delivered by planned home births: nulliparous pregnancies and deliveries at 41 weeks gestational age or older.

Both conditions linked with a substantially increased risk for neonatal mortality, compared with babies delivered at a hospital, either by a nurse midwife or a physician, said Amos Grünebaum, MD, at the annual Pregnancy Meeting sponsored by the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine.

Mitchel L. Zoler/Frontline Medical News

[email protected]

On Twitter @mitchelzoler

Growing incentives to control health care costs may cause accountable care organizations (ACOs) to reconsider how diseases are best managed. Few studies have examined the cost difference between primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists in managing the same disease. Limited data have suggested that management of some diseases by a PCP may be less costly compared to a specialist^1,2; however, it is not clear if this finding extends to skin disease. This study sought to assess the cost of seeing a dermatologist versus a PCP for diagnosis of the common skin diseases psoriasis and rosacea.

Methods

Patient data were obtained from the Humana database, a large commercial data set for claims and reimbursed costs encompassing 18,162,539 patients covered between January 2007 and December 2014. Our study population consisted of 3,944,465 patients with claims that included International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), codes for dermatological diagnoses (680.0–709.9). We searched by ICD-9 code for US patients with primary diagnoses of psoriasis (696.1) and rosacea (695.3). We narrowed the search to include patients aged 30 to 64 years, as the diagnoses for these diseases are most common in patients older than 30 years. Patients who were older than 64 years were not included in the study, as most are covered by Medicare and therefore costs covered by Humana in this age group would not be as representative as in younger age groups. Total and average diagnosis-related costs per patient were compared between dermatologists and PCPs. Diagnosis-related costs encompassed physician reimbursement; laboratory and imaging costs, including skin biopsies; inpatient hospitalization cost; and any other charge that could be coded or billed by providers and reimbursed by the insurance company. To be eligible for reimbursement from Humana, dermatologists and PCPs must be registered with the insurer according to specialty board certification and practice credentialing, and they are reimbursed differently based on specialty. Drug costs, which would possibly skew the data toward providers using more expensive systemic medications (ie, dermatologists), were not included in this study, as the discussion is better reserved for long-term management of disease rather than diagnosis-related costs. All diagnoses of psoriasis were included in the study, which likely includes all severities of psoriasis, though we did not have the ability to further break down these diagnoses by severity.

Results

We identified 30,217 psoriasis patients and 37,561 rosacea patients. Of those patients with a primary diagnosis of psoriasis, 26,112 (86%) were seen by a dermatologist and 4105 (14%) were seen by a PCP (Table). Of those patients with a primary diagnosis of rosacea, 34,694 (92%) were seen by a dermatologist and 2867 (8%) were seen by a PCP (Table). There was little difference in the average diagnosis-related cost per patient for psoriasis in males (dermatologists, $638; PCPs, $657) versus females (dermatologists, $592; PCPs, $586) or between specialties (Figure). Findings were similar for rosacea in males (dermatologists, $179; PCPs, $168) versus females (dermatologists, $157; PCPs, $161). For these skin diseases, it was concluded that it is not more cost-effective to be diagnosed by a PCP versus a dermatologist.

Comment

For the management of common skin disorders such as psoriasis and rosacea, there is little cost difference in seeing a dermatologist versus a PCP. Through extensive training and repeated exposure to many skin diseases, dermatologists are expected to be more comfortable in diagnosing and managing psoriasis and rosacea. Compared to PCPs, dermatologists have demonstrated increased diagnostic accuracy and efficiency when examining pigmented lesions and other dermatologic diseases in several studies.^3-6 Although the current study shows that diagnosis-related costs for psoriasis and rosacea are essentially equal between dermatologists and PCPs, it actually may be less expensive for patients to see a dermatologist, as unnecessary tests, biopsies, or medications are more likely to be ordered/prescribed when there is less clinical diagnostic certainty.^7,8 Additionally, seeing a PCP for diagnosis of a skin disease may be inefficient if subsequent referral to a dermatologist is needed, a common scenario that occurs when patients see a PCP for skin conditions.⁹

Our study had limitations, which is typical of a study using a claims database. We used ICD-9 codes recorded in patients’ medical claims to determine diagnosis of psoriasis and rosacea; therefore, our study and data are subject to coding errors. We could not assess the severity of disease, only the presence of disease. Further confirmation of diagnosis could have been made through searching for a second ICD-9 code in the patient’s history. Our data also are from a limited time period and may not represent costs from other time periods.

Conclusion

Given the lack of cost difference between both specialties, we conclude that ACOs should consider encouraging patients to seek care for dermatologic diseases by dermatologists who generally are more accurate and efficient skin diagnosticians, particularly if there is a shortage of PCPs within the ACO network.

Growing incentives to control health care costs may cause accountable care organizations (ACOs) to reconsider how diseases are best managed. Few studies have examined the cost difference between primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists in managing the same disease. Limited data have suggested that management of some diseases by a PCP may be less costly compared to a specialist^1,2; however, it is not clear if this finding extends to skin disease. This study sought to assess the cost of seeing a dermatologist versus a PCP for diagnosis of the common skin diseases psoriasis and rosacea.

Methods

Patient data were obtained from the Humana database, a large commercial data set for claims and reimbursed costs encompassing 18,162,539 patients covered between January 2007 and December 2014. Our study population consisted of 3,944,465 patients with claims that included International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), codes for dermatological diagnoses (680.0–709.9). We searched by ICD-9 code for US patients with primary diagnoses of psoriasis (696.1) and rosacea (695.3). We narrowed the search to include patients aged 30 to 64 years, as the diagnoses for these diseases are most common in patients older than 30 years. Patients who were older than 64 years were not included in the study, as most are covered by Medicare and therefore costs covered by Humana in this age group would not be as representative as in younger age groups. Total and average diagnosis-related costs per patient were compared between dermatologists and PCPs. Diagnosis-related costs encompassed physician reimbursement; laboratory and imaging costs, including skin biopsies; inpatient hospitalization cost; and any other charge that could be coded or billed by providers and reimbursed by the insurance company. To be eligible for reimbursement from Humana, dermatologists and PCPs must be registered with the insurer according to specialty board certification and practice credentialing, and they are reimbursed differently based on specialty. Drug costs, which would possibly skew the data toward providers using more expensive systemic medications (ie, dermatologists), were not included in this study, as the discussion is better reserved for long-term management of disease rather than diagnosis-related costs. All diagnoses of psoriasis were included in the study, which likely includes all severities of psoriasis, though we did not have the ability to further break down these diagnoses by severity.

Results

We identified 30,217 psoriasis patients and 37,561 rosacea patients. Of those patients with a primary diagnosis of psoriasis, 26,112 (86%) were seen by a dermatologist and 4105 (14%) were seen by a PCP (Table). Of those patients with a primary diagnosis of rosacea, 34,694 (92%) were seen by a dermatologist and 2867 (8%) were seen by a PCP (Table). There was little difference in the average diagnosis-related cost per patient for psoriasis in males (dermatologists, $638; PCPs, $657) versus females (dermatologists, $592; PCPs, $586) or between specialties (Figure). Findings were similar for rosacea in males (dermatologists, $179; PCPs, $168) versus females (dermatologists, $157; PCPs, $161). For these skin diseases, it was concluded that it is not more cost-effective to be diagnosed by a PCP versus a dermatologist.

Comment

For the management of common skin disorders such as psoriasis and rosacea, there is little cost difference in seeing a dermatologist versus a PCP. Through extensive training and repeated exposure to many skin diseases, dermatologists are expected to be more comfortable in diagnosing and managing psoriasis and rosacea. Compared to PCPs, dermatologists have demonstrated increased diagnostic accuracy and efficiency when examining pigmented lesions and other dermatologic diseases in several studies.^3-6 Although the current study shows that diagnosis-related costs for psoriasis and rosacea are essentially equal between dermatologists and PCPs, it actually may be less expensive for patients to see a dermatologist, as unnecessary tests, biopsies, or medications are more likely to be ordered/prescribed when there is less clinical diagnostic certainty.^7,8 Additionally, seeing a PCP for diagnosis of a skin disease may be inefficient if subsequent referral to a dermatologist is needed, a common scenario that occurs when patients see a PCP for skin conditions.⁹

Our study had limitations, which is typical of a study using a claims database. We used ICD-9 codes recorded in patients’ medical claims to determine diagnosis of psoriasis and rosacea; therefore, our study and data are subject to coding errors. We could not assess the severity of disease, only the presence of disease. Further confirmation of diagnosis could have been made through searching for a second ICD-9 code in the patient’s history. Our data also are from a limited time period and may not represent costs from other time periods.

Conclusion

Given the lack of cost difference between both specialties, we conclude that ACOs should consider encouraging patients to seek care for dermatologic diseases by dermatologists who generally are more accurate and efficient skin diagnosticians, particularly if there is a shortage of PCPs within the ACO network.

Growing incentives to control health care costs may cause accountable care organizations (ACOs) to reconsider how diseases are best managed. Few studies have examined the cost difference between primary care providers (PCPs) and specialists in managing the same disease. Limited data have suggested that management of some diseases by a PCP may be less costly compared to a specialist^1,2; however, it is not clear if this finding extends to skin disease. This study sought to assess the cost of seeing a dermatologist versus a PCP for diagnosis of the common skin diseases psoriasis and rosacea.

Methods

Patient data were obtained from the Humana database, a large commercial data set for claims and reimbursed costs encompassing 18,162,539 patients covered between January 2007 and December 2014. Our study population consisted of 3,944,465 patients with claims that included International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9), codes for dermatological diagnoses (680.0–709.9). We searched by ICD-9 code for US patients with primary diagnoses of psoriasis (696.1) and rosacea (695.3). We narrowed the search to include patients aged 30 to 64 years, as the diagnoses for these diseases are most common in patients older than 30 years. Patients who were older than 64 years were not included in the study, as most are covered by Medicare and therefore costs covered by Humana in this age group would not be as representative as in younger age groups. Total and average diagnosis-related costs per patient were compared between dermatologists and PCPs. Diagnosis-related costs encompassed physician reimbursement; laboratory and imaging costs, including skin biopsies; inpatient hospitalization cost; and any other charge that could be coded or billed by providers and reimbursed by the insurance company. To be eligible for reimbursement from Humana, dermatologists and PCPs must be registered with the insurer according to specialty board certification and practice credentialing, and they are reimbursed differently based on specialty. Drug costs, which would possibly skew the data toward providers using more expensive systemic medications (ie, dermatologists), were not included in this study, as the discussion is better reserved for long-term management of disease rather than diagnosis-related costs. All diagnoses of psoriasis were included in the study, which likely includes all severities of psoriasis, though we did not have the ability to further break down these diagnoses by severity.

Results

We identified 30,217 psoriasis patients and 37,561 rosacea patients. Of those patients with a primary diagnosis of psoriasis, 26,112 (86%) were seen by a dermatologist and 4105 (14%) were seen by a PCP (Table). Of those patients with a primary diagnosis of rosacea, 34,694 (92%) were seen by a dermatologist and 2867 (8%) were seen by a PCP (Table). There was little difference in the average diagnosis-related cost per patient for psoriasis in males (dermatologists, $638; PCPs, $657) versus females (dermatologists, $592; PCPs, $586) or between specialties (Figure). Findings were similar for rosacea in males (dermatologists, $179; PCPs, $168) versus females (dermatologists, $157; PCPs, $161). For these skin diseases, it was concluded that it is not more cost-effective to be diagnosed by a PCP versus a dermatologist.

Comment

For the management of common skin disorders such as psoriasis and rosacea, there is little cost difference in seeing a dermatologist versus a PCP. Through extensive training and repeated exposure to many skin diseases, dermatologists are expected to be more comfortable in diagnosing and managing psoriasis and rosacea. Compared to PCPs, dermatologists have demonstrated increased diagnostic accuracy and efficiency when examining pigmented lesions and other dermatologic diseases in several studies.^3-6 Although the current study shows that diagnosis-related costs for psoriasis and rosacea are essentially equal between dermatologists and PCPs, it actually may be less expensive for patients to see a dermatologist, as unnecessary tests, biopsies, or medications are more likely to be ordered/prescribed when there is less clinical diagnostic certainty.^7,8 Additionally, seeing a PCP for diagnosis of a skin disease may be inefficient if subsequent referral to a dermatologist is needed, a common scenario that occurs when patients see a PCP for skin conditions.⁹

Our study had limitations, which is typical of a study using a claims database. We used ICD-9 codes recorded in patients’ medical claims to determine diagnosis of psoriasis and rosacea; therefore, our study and data are subject to coding errors. We could not assess the severity of disease, only the presence of disease. Further confirmation of diagnosis could have been made through searching for a second ICD-9 code in the patient’s history. Our data also are from a limited time period and may not represent costs from other time periods.

Conclusion

Given the lack of cost difference between both specialties, we conclude that ACOs should consider encouraging patients to seek care for dermatologic diseases by dermatologists who generally are more accurate and efficient skin diagnosticians, particularly if there is a shortage of PCPs within the ACO network.

The role of current biologic therapies in psoriasis predicates on the pathogenic role of upregulated, immune-related mechanisms that result in the activation of myeloid dendritic cells, which release IL-17, IL-23, and other cytokines to activate T cells, including helper T cell T_H17. Along with other immune cells, T_H17 produces IL-17. This proinflammatory cascade results in keratinocyte proliferation, angiogenesis, and migration of immune cells toward psoriatic lesions.¹ Thus, the newest classes of biologics target IL-12, IL-23, and IL-17 to disrupt this inflammatory cascade.

We provide an updated review of the most recent clinical efficacy and safety data on the newest IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors in the pipeline or approved for psoriasis, including risankizumab, guselkumab, tildrakizumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab (Table). Ustekinumab and adalimumab, which have been previously approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), will be discussed here only as comparators.

IL-23 Inhibitors

Risankizumab

Risankizumab (formerly known as BI 655066)(Boehringer Ingelheim) is a selective human monoclonal antibody targeting the p19 subunit of IL-23 and currently is undergoing phase 3 trials for psoriasis. A proof-of-concept phase 1 study of 39 participants demonstrated efficacy after 12 weeks of treatment at varying subcutaneous and intravenous doses with placebo control.¹¹ At week 12, 87% (27/31)(P<.001) of all risankizumab-treated participants achieved 75% reduction in psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) score compared to 0% of 8 placebo-treated participants. Common adverse effects (AEs) occurred in 65% (20/31) of risankizumab-treated participants, including non–dose-dependent upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, and headache. Serious adverse events (SAEs) that occurred were considered unrelated to the study medication.¹¹

A phase 2 trial of 166 participants compared 3 dosing regimens of subcutaneous risankizumab (single 18-mg dose at week 0; single 90-mg dose at weeks 0, 4, and 16; or single 180-mg dose at weeks 0, 4, and 16) and ustekinumab (weight-based single 45- or 90-mg dose at weeks 0, 4, and 16), demonstrating noninferiority at higher doses of risankizumab.² Preliminary primary end point results at week 12 showed PASI 90 in 32.6% (P=.4667), 73.2% (P=.0013), 81.0% (P<.0001), and 40.0% of the treatment groups, respectively. Participants in the 180-mg risankizumab group achieved PASI 90 eight weeks faster than those on ustekinumab, lasting more than 2 months longer. Adverse effects were similar across all treatment groups and SAEs were unrelated to the study medications.²

Guselkumab

Guselkumab (Janssen Biotech, Inc) is a selective human monoclonal antibody against the p19 subunit of IL-23. The 52-week phase 2 X-PLORE trial compared dose-ranging subcutaneous guselkumab (5 mg at weeks 0 and 4, then every 12 weeks; 15 mg every 8 weeks; 50 mg at weeks 0 and 4, then every 12 weeks; 100 mg every 8 weeks; or 200 mg at weeks 0 and 4, then every 12 weeks), adalimumab (80-mg loading dose, followed by 40 mg at week 1, then every other week), and placebo in 293 randomized participants.⁴ At week 16, 34% (P=.002) of participants in the 5-mg guselkumab group, 61% (P<.001) in the 15-mg group, 79% (P<.001) in the 50-mg group, 86% (P<.001) in the 100-mg group, 83% (P<.001) in the 200-mg group, and 58% (P<.001) in the adalimumab group achieved physician global assessment (PGA) scores of 0 (clear) or 1 (minimal psoriasis) compared to 7% of the placebo group. Achievement of PASI 75 similarly favored the guselkumab (44% [P<.001]; 76% [no P value given]; 81% [P<.001]; 79% [P<.001]; and 81% [P<.001], respectively) and adalimumab treatment arms (70% [P<.001]) compared to 5% in the placebo group. In longer-term comparisons to week 40, participants in the 50-, 100-, and 200-mg guselkumab groups showed significantly greater remission of psoriatic lesions, measured by a PGA score of 0 or 1, than participants in the adalimumab group (71% [P=.05]; 77% [P=.005]; 81% [P=.01]; and 49%, respectively).⁴

Preliminary results from VOYAGE 1 (N=837), the first of several phase 3 trials, further demonstrate the superiority of guselkumab 100 mg at weeks 0 and 4 and then every 8 weeks over adalimumab (standard dosing) and placebo; at week 16, 73.3% (P<.001 for both comparisons) versus 49.7% and 2.9% of participants, respectively, achieved PASI 90, with sustained superiority of skin clearance in guselkumab-treated participants compared to adalimumab and placebo through week 48.³

Long-term safety data showed no dose dependence or trend from 0 to 16 weeks and 16 to 52 weeks of treatment regarding rates of AEs, SAEs, or serious infections.⁴ Between weeks 16 and 52, 48.9% of all guselkumab-treated participants exhibited AEs compared to 60.5% of adalimumab-treated participants and 51.3% of placebo participants. Overall infection rates also were lowest in the guselkumab group at 29.8% compared to 36.8% and 35.9%, respectively. Three participants treated with guselkumab had major cardiovascular events, including a fatal myocardial infarction. No cases of tuberculosis or serious opportunistic infections were reported.⁴

Tildrakizumab

Tildrakizumab (formerly known as MK-3222)(Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd) is a human monoclonal antibody also targeting the p19 subunit of IL-23. In a phase 2 study of 355 participants with chronic plaque psoriasis, participants received 5-, 25-, 100-, or 200-mg subcutaneous tildrakizumab or placebo at weeks 0 and 4 and then every 12 weeks for a total of 52 weeks.⁶ At week 16, PASI 75 results were 33.3%, 64.4%, 66.3%, 74.4%, and 4.4%, respectively (P<.001 for each comparison). Improvement began within the first month of treatment, with median times to PASI 75 of 57 days at 200-mg dosing and 84 days at 100-mg dosing. Of those participants achieving PASI 75 by drug discontinuation at week 52, 96% of the 100-mg group and 93% of the 200-mg group maintained PASI 75 through week 72, suggesting low relapse rates after treatment cessation.⁶

In October 2016, the efficacy results of 2 pivotal phase 3 trials (reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2) involving more than 1800 participants combined revealed PASI 90 achievement in an average of 54% of participants on tildrakizumab 100 mg and 59% of participants on tildrakizumab 200 mg at week 28.⁵ Achievement of PASI 100 occurred in 24% and 30% of participants at week 28, respectively. The second of these trials included an etanercept comparison group and demonstrated head-to-head superiority of 100 and 200 mg subcutaneous tildrakizumab at week 12 by end point measures.⁵

Treatment-related AEs occurred at rates of 25% in tildrakizumab-treated participants and 22% in placebo-treated participants, most frequently nasopharyngitis and headache.⁶ At least 1 AE occurred in 64% of tildrakizumab-treated participants without dose dependence compared to 69% of placebo-treated participants. Severe AEs thought to be drug treatment related were bacterial arthritis, lymphedema, melanoma, stroke, and epiglottitis.⁶

IL-17 Inhibitors

Ixekizumab

Ixekizumab (Eli Lilly and Company), a monoclonal inhibitor of IL-17A, is the most recently approved psoriasis biologic on the market and has been cleared for use in adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Recommended dosing is 160 mg (given in two 80-mg subcutaneous injections via an autoinjector or prefilled syringe) at week 0, followed by an 80-mg injection at weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12, and then 80 mg every 4 weeks thereafter. The FDA approved ixekizumab in March 2016 following favorable results of several phase 3 trials: UNCOVER-1, UNCOVER-2, and UNCOVER-3.^7,8

In UNCOVER-1, 1296 participants were randomized to 1 of 2 ixekizumab treatment arms—160 mg starting dose at week 0, 80 mg every 2 or 4 weeks thereafter—or placebo.⁷ At week 12, 89.1%, 82.6%, and 3.9% achieved PASI 75, respectively (P<.001 for both). Importantly, high numbers of participants also achieved PASI 90 (70.9% in the 2-week group and 64.6% in the 4-week group vs 0.5% in the placebo group [P<.001]) and PASI 100 (35.3% and 33.6% vs 0%, respectively [P<.001]), suggesting high rates of disease clearance.⁷

UNCOVER-2 (N=1224) and UNCOVER-3 (N=1346) investigated the same 2 dosing regimens of ixekizumab compared to etanercept 50 mg biweekly and placebo.⁸ At week 12, the percentage of participants achieving PASI 90 in UNCOVER-2 was 70.7%, 59.7%, 18.7%, and 0.6%, respectively, and 68.1%, 65.3%, 25.7%, and 3.1%, respectively, in UNCOVER-3 (P<.0001 for all comparisons to placebo and etanercept). At week 12, PASI 100 results also showed striking superiority, with 40.5%, 30.8%, 5.3%, and 0.6% of participants, respectively, in UNCOVER-2, and 37.7%, 35%, 7.3%, and 0%, respectively, in UNCOVER-3, achieving complete clearance of disease (P<.0001 for all comparisons to placebo and etanercept). Responses to ixekizumab were observed as early as weeks 1 and 2, while no participants in the etanercept and placebo treatment groups achieved comparative efficiency.⁸

In an extension of UNCOVER-3, efficacy increased from week 12 to week 60 according to PASI 90 (68%–73% in the 2-week group; 65%–72% in the 4-week group) and PASI 100 measures (38%–55% in the 2-week group; 35%–52% in the 4-week group).⁷

The most common AEs associated with ixekizumab treatment from weeks 0 to 12 occurred at higher rates in the 2-week and 4-week ixekizumab groups compared to placebo, including nasopharyngitis (9.5% and 9% vs 8.7%, respectively), upper respiratory tract infection (4.4% and 3.9% vs 3.5%, respectively), injection-site reaction (10% and 7.7% vs 1%, respectively), arthralgia (4.4% and 4.3% vs 2.9%, respectively), and headache (2.5% and 1.9% vs 2.1%, respectively). Infections, including candidal, oral, vulvovaginal, and cutaneous, occurred in 27% of the 2-week dosing group and 27.4% of the 4-week dosing group compared to 22.9% of the placebo group during weeks 0 to 12, with candidal infections in particular occurring more frequently in the active treatment groups and exhibiting dose dependence. Other AEs of special interest that occurred among all ixekizumab-treated participants (n=3736) from weeks 0 to 60 were cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (22 [0.6%]), inflammatory bowel disease (11 [0.3%]), non–skin cancer malignancy (14 [0.4%]), and nonmelanoma skin cancer (20 [0.5%]). Neutropenia occurred at higher rates in ixekizumab-treated participants (9.3% in the 2-week group and 8.6% in the 4-week group) compared to placebo (3.3%) and occurred in 11.5% of all ixekizumab participants over 60 weeks.⁷

Brodalumab

Brodalumab (Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc) is a human monoclonal antibody targeting the IL-17A receptor currently under review for FDA approval after undergoing phase 3 trials. The first of these trials, AMAGINE-1, showed efficacy of subcutaneous brodalumab (140 or 210 mg administered every 2 weeks with an extra dose at week 1) compared to placebo in 661 participants.⁹ At week 12, 60%, 83%, and 3%, respectively, achieved PASI 75; 43%, 70%, and 1%, respectively, achieved PASI 90; and 23%, 42%, and 1%, respectively, achieved PASI 100 (P<.001 for all respective comparisons to placebo). These effects were retained through 52 weeks of treatment. The median time to complete disease clearance in participants reaching PASI 100 was 12 weeks. Conversely, participants who were re-randomized to placebo after week 12 of brodalumab treatment relapsed within weeks to months.⁹

AMAGINE-2 and AMAGINE-3 further demonstrated the efficacy of brodalumab (140 or 210 mg every 2 weeks with extra dose at week 1) compared to ustekinumab (45 or 90 mg weight-based standard dosing) and placebo in 1831 participants, respectively.¹⁰ In AMAGINE-2, 49% of participants in the 140-mg group (P<.001 vs placebo), 70% in the 210-mg group (P<.001 vs placebo), 47% in the ustekinumab group, and 3% in the placebo group achieved PASI 90 at week 12. Similarly, in AMAGINE-3, 52% of participants in the 140-mg group (P<.001), 69% in the 210-mg group (P<.001), 48% in the ustekinumab group, and 2% in the placebo group achieved PASI 90. Impressively, complete clearance (PASI 100) at week 12 occurred in 26% of the 140-mg group (P<.001 vs placebo), 44% of the 210-mg group (P<.001 vs placebo), and 22% of the ustekinumab group compared to 2% of the placebo group in AMAGINE-2, with similar rates in AMAGINE-3. Brodalumab was significantly superior to ustekinumab at the 210-mg dose by PASI 90 measures (P<.001) in both studies and at the 140-mg dose by PASI 100 measures (P=.007) in AMAGINE-3 only.¹⁰

Common AEs were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, and arthralgia, all occurring at grossly similar rates (49%–60%) across all experimental groups in AMAGINE-1, AMAGINE-2, and AMAGINE-3 during the first 12-week treatment period.^9,10 Brodalumab treatment groups had high rates of specific interest AEs compared to ustekinumab and placebo groups, including neutropenia (0.8%, 1.1%, 0.3%, and 0%, respectively) and candidal infections (0.8%, 1.3%, 0.3%, and 0.3%, respectively). Induction phase (weeks 0–12) depression rates were concerning, with 6 cases each in AMAGINE-2 (4 [0.7%] in the 140-mg group, 2 [0.3%] in the 210-mg group) and AMAGINE-3 (4 [0.6%] in the 140-mg group, 2 [0.3%] in the 210-mg group). Cases of neutropenia were mild, were not associated with major infection, and were transient or reversible. Depression rates after 52 weeks of treatment were 1.7% (23/1567) of brodalumab participants in AMAGINE-2 and 1.8% (21/1613) in AMAGINE-3. Three participants, all on constant 210-mg dosing through week 52, attempted suicide with 1 completion¹⁰; however, because no other IL-17 inhibitors were associated with depression or suicide in other trials, it has been suggested that these cases were incidental and not treatment related.¹² An FDA advisory panel recommended approval of brodalumab in July 2016 despite ongoing concerns of depression and suicide.¹³

Conclusion

The robust investigation into IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors to treat plaque psoriasis has yielded promising results, including the unprecedented rates of PASI 100 achievement with these new biologics. Risankizumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab have demonstrated superior efficacy in trials compared to ustekinumab. Tildrakizumab has shown low disease relapse after drug cessation. Ixekizumab and brodalumab have shown high rates of total disease clearance. Thus far, safety findings for these pipeline biologics have been consistent with those of ustekinumab. With ixekizumab approved in 2016 and brodalumab under review, new options in biologic therapy will offer patients and clinicians greater choices in treating severe and recalcitrant psoriasis.

The role of current biologic therapies in psoriasis predicates on the pathogenic role of upregulated, immune-related mechanisms that result in the activation of myeloid dendritic cells, which release IL-17, IL-23, and other cytokines to activate T cells, including helper T cell T_H17. Along with other immune cells, T_H17 produces IL-17. This proinflammatory cascade results in keratinocyte proliferation, angiogenesis, and migration of immune cells toward psoriatic lesions.¹ Thus, the newest classes of biologics target IL-12, IL-23, and IL-17 to disrupt this inflammatory cascade.

We provide an updated review of the most recent clinical efficacy and safety data on the newest IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors in the pipeline or approved for psoriasis, including risankizumab, guselkumab, tildrakizumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab (Table). Ustekinumab and adalimumab, which have been previously approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), will be discussed here only as comparators.

IL-23 Inhibitors

Risankizumab

Risankizumab (formerly known as BI 655066)(Boehringer Ingelheim) is a selective human monoclonal antibody targeting the p19 subunit of IL-23 and currently is undergoing phase 3 trials for psoriasis. A proof-of-concept phase 1 study of 39 participants demonstrated efficacy after 12 weeks of treatment at varying subcutaneous and intravenous doses with placebo control.¹¹ At week 12, 87% (27/31)(P<.001) of all risankizumab-treated participants achieved 75% reduction in psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) score compared to 0% of 8 placebo-treated participants. Common adverse effects (AEs) occurred in 65% (20/31) of risankizumab-treated participants, including non–dose-dependent upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, and headache. Serious adverse events (SAEs) that occurred were considered unrelated to the study medication.¹¹

A phase 2 trial of 166 participants compared 3 dosing regimens of subcutaneous risankizumab (single 18-mg dose at week 0; single 90-mg dose at weeks 0, 4, and 16; or single 180-mg dose at weeks 0, 4, and 16) and ustekinumab (weight-based single 45- or 90-mg dose at weeks 0, 4, and 16), demonstrating noninferiority at higher doses of risankizumab.² Preliminary primary end point results at week 12 showed PASI 90 in 32.6% (P=.4667), 73.2% (P=.0013), 81.0% (P<.0001), and 40.0% of the treatment groups, respectively. Participants in the 180-mg risankizumab group achieved PASI 90 eight weeks faster than those on ustekinumab, lasting more than 2 months longer. Adverse effects were similar across all treatment groups and SAEs were unrelated to the study medications.²

Guselkumab

Guselkumab (Janssen Biotech, Inc) is a selective human monoclonal antibody against the p19 subunit of IL-23. The 52-week phase 2 X-PLORE trial compared dose-ranging subcutaneous guselkumab (5 mg at weeks 0 and 4, then every 12 weeks; 15 mg every 8 weeks; 50 mg at weeks 0 and 4, then every 12 weeks; 100 mg every 8 weeks; or 200 mg at weeks 0 and 4, then every 12 weeks), adalimumab (80-mg loading dose, followed by 40 mg at week 1, then every other week), and placebo in 293 randomized participants.⁴ At week 16, 34% (P=.002) of participants in the 5-mg guselkumab group, 61% (P<.001) in the 15-mg group, 79% (P<.001) in the 50-mg group, 86% (P<.001) in the 100-mg group, 83% (P<.001) in the 200-mg group, and 58% (P<.001) in the adalimumab group achieved physician global assessment (PGA) scores of 0 (clear) or 1 (minimal psoriasis) compared to 7% of the placebo group. Achievement of PASI 75 similarly favored the guselkumab (44% [P<.001]; 76% [no P value given]; 81% [P<.001]; 79% [P<.001]; and 81% [P<.001], respectively) and adalimumab treatment arms (70% [P<.001]) compared to 5% in the placebo group. In longer-term comparisons to week 40, participants in the 50-, 100-, and 200-mg guselkumab groups showed significantly greater remission of psoriatic lesions, measured by a PGA score of 0 or 1, than participants in the adalimumab group (71% [P=.05]; 77% [P=.005]; 81% [P=.01]; and 49%, respectively).⁴

Preliminary results from VOYAGE 1 (N=837), the first of several phase 3 trials, further demonstrate the superiority of guselkumab 100 mg at weeks 0 and 4 and then every 8 weeks over adalimumab (standard dosing) and placebo; at week 16, 73.3% (P<.001 for both comparisons) versus 49.7% and 2.9% of participants, respectively, achieved PASI 90, with sustained superiority of skin clearance in guselkumab-treated participants compared to adalimumab and placebo through week 48.³

Long-term safety data showed no dose dependence or trend from 0 to 16 weeks and 16 to 52 weeks of treatment regarding rates of AEs, SAEs, or serious infections.⁴ Between weeks 16 and 52, 48.9% of all guselkumab-treated participants exhibited AEs compared to 60.5% of adalimumab-treated participants and 51.3% of placebo participants. Overall infection rates also were lowest in the guselkumab group at 29.8% compared to 36.8% and 35.9%, respectively. Three participants treated with guselkumab had major cardiovascular events, including a fatal myocardial infarction. No cases of tuberculosis or serious opportunistic infections were reported.⁴

Tildrakizumab

Tildrakizumab (formerly known as MK-3222)(Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd) is a human monoclonal antibody also targeting the p19 subunit of IL-23. In a phase 2 study of 355 participants with chronic plaque psoriasis, participants received 5-, 25-, 100-, or 200-mg subcutaneous tildrakizumab or placebo at weeks 0 and 4 and then every 12 weeks for a total of 52 weeks.⁶ At week 16, PASI 75 results were 33.3%, 64.4%, 66.3%, 74.4%, and 4.4%, respectively (P<.001 for each comparison). Improvement began within the first month of treatment, with median times to PASI 75 of 57 days at 200-mg dosing and 84 days at 100-mg dosing. Of those participants achieving PASI 75 by drug discontinuation at week 52, 96% of the 100-mg group and 93% of the 200-mg group maintained PASI 75 through week 72, suggesting low relapse rates after treatment cessation.⁶

In October 2016, the efficacy results of 2 pivotal phase 3 trials (reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2) involving more than 1800 participants combined revealed PASI 90 achievement in an average of 54% of participants on tildrakizumab 100 mg and 59% of participants on tildrakizumab 200 mg at week 28.⁵ Achievement of PASI 100 occurred in 24% and 30% of participants at week 28, respectively. The second of these trials included an etanercept comparison group and demonstrated head-to-head superiority of 100 and 200 mg subcutaneous tildrakizumab at week 12 by end point measures.⁵

Treatment-related AEs occurred at rates of 25% in tildrakizumab-treated participants and 22% in placebo-treated participants, most frequently nasopharyngitis and headache.⁶ At least 1 AE occurred in 64% of tildrakizumab-treated participants without dose dependence compared to 69% of placebo-treated participants. Severe AEs thought to be drug treatment related were bacterial arthritis, lymphedema, melanoma, stroke, and epiglottitis.⁶

IL-17 Inhibitors

Ixekizumab

Ixekizumab (Eli Lilly and Company), a monoclonal inhibitor of IL-17A, is the most recently approved psoriasis biologic on the market and has been cleared for use in adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Recommended dosing is 160 mg (given in two 80-mg subcutaneous injections via an autoinjector or prefilled syringe) at week 0, followed by an 80-mg injection at weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12, and then 80 mg every 4 weeks thereafter. The FDA approved ixekizumab in March 2016 following favorable results of several phase 3 trials: UNCOVER-1, UNCOVER-2, and UNCOVER-3.^7,8

In UNCOVER-1, 1296 participants were randomized to 1 of 2 ixekizumab treatment arms—160 mg starting dose at week 0, 80 mg every 2 or 4 weeks thereafter—or placebo.⁷ At week 12, 89.1%, 82.6%, and 3.9% achieved PASI 75, respectively (P<.001 for both). Importantly, high numbers of participants also achieved PASI 90 (70.9% in the 2-week group and 64.6% in the 4-week group vs 0.5% in the placebo group [P<.001]) and PASI 100 (35.3% and 33.6% vs 0%, respectively [P<.001]), suggesting high rates of disease clearance.⁷

UNCOVER-2 (N=1224) and UNCOVER-3 (N=1346) investigated the same 2 dosing regimens of ixekizumab compared to etanercept 50 mg biweekly and placebo.⁸ At week 12, the percentage of participants achieving PASI 90 in UNCOVER-2 was 70.7%, 59.7%, 18.7%, and 0.6%, respectively, and 68.1%, 65.3%, 25.7%, and 3.1%, respectively, in UNCOVER-3 (P<.0001 for all comparisons to placebo and etanercept). At week 12, PASI 100 results also showed striking superiority, with 40.5%, 30.8%, 5.3%, and 0.6% of participants, respectively, in UNCOVER-2, and 37.7%, 35%, 7.3%, and 0%, respectively, in UNCOVER-3, achieving complete clearance of disease (P<.0001 for all comparisons to placebo and etanercept). Responses to ixekizumab were observed as early as weeks 1 and 2, while no participants in the etanercept and placebo treatment groups achieved comparative efficiency.⁸

In an extension of UNCOVER-3, efficacy increased from week 12 to week 60 according to PASI 90 (68%–73% in the 2-week group; 65%–72% in the 4-week group) and PASI 100 measures (38%–55% in the 2-week group; 35%–52% in the 4-week group).⁷

The most common AEs associated with ixekizumab treatment from weeks 0 to 12 occurred at higher rates in the 2-week and 4-week ixekizumab groups compared to placebo, including nasopharyngitis (9.5% and 9% vs 8.7%, respectively), upper respiratory tract infection (4.4% and 3.9% vs 3.5%, respectively), injection-site reaction (10% and 7.7% vs 1%, respectively), arthralgia (4.4% and 4.3% vs 2.9%, respectively), and headache (2.5% and 1.9% vs 2.1%, respectively). Infections, including candidal, oral, vulvovaginal, and cutaneous, occurred in 27% of the 2-week dosing group and 27.4% of the 4-week dosing group compared to 22.9% of the placebo group during weeks 0 to 12, with candidal infections in particular occurring more frequently in the active treatment groups and exhibiting dose dependence. Other AEs of special interest that occurred among all ixekizumab-treated participants (n=3736) from weeks 0 to 60 were cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (22 [0.6%]), inflammatory bowel disease (11 [0.3%]), non–skin cancer malignancy (14 [0.4%]), and nonmelanoma skin cancer (20 [0.5%]). Neutropenia occurred at higher rates in ixekizumab-treated participants (9.3% in the 2-week group and 8.6% in the 4-week group) compared to placebo (3.3%) and occurred in 11.5% of all ixekizumab participants over 60 weeks.⁷

Brodalumab

Brodalumab (Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc) is a human monoclonal antibody targeting the IL-17A receptor currently under review for FDA approval after undergoing phase 3 trials. The first of these trials, AMAGINE-1, showed efficacy of subcutaneous brodalumab (140 or 210 mg administered every 2 weeks with an extra dose at week 1) compared to placebo in 661 participants.⁹ At week 12, 60%, 83%, and 3%, respectively, achieved PASI 75; 43%, 70%, and 1%, respectively, achieved PASI 90; and 23%, 42%, and 1%, respectively, achieved PASI 100 (P<.001 for all respective comparisons to placebo). These effects were retained through 52 weeks of treatment. The median time to complete disease clearance in participants reaching PASI 100 was 12 weeks. Conversely, participants who were re-randomized to placebo after week 12 of brodalumab treatment relapsed within weeks to months.⁹

AMAGINE-2 and AMAGINE-3 further demonstrated the efficacy of brodalumab (140 or 210 mg every 2 weeks with extra dose at week 1) compared to ustekinumab (45 or 90 mg weight-based standard dosing) and placebo in 1831 participants, respectively.¹⁰ In AMAGINE-2, 49% of participants in the 140-mg group (P<.001 vs placebo), 70% in the 210-mg group (P<.001 vs placebo), 47% in the ustekinumab group, and 3% in the placebo group achieved PASI 90 at week 12. Similarly, in AMAGINE-3, 52% of participants in the 140-mg group (P<.001), 69% in the 210-mg group (P<.001), 48% in the ustekinumab group, and 2% in the placebo group achieved PASI 90. Impressively, complete clearance (PASI 100) at week 12 occurred in 26% of the 140-mg group (P<.001 vs placebo), 44% of the 210-mg group (P<.001 vs placebo), and 22% of the ustekinumab group compared to 2% of the placebo group in AMAGINE-2, with similar rates in AMAGINE-3. Brodalumab was significantly superior to ustekinumab at the 210-mg dose by PASI 90 measures (P<.001) in both studies and at the 140-mg dose by PASI 100 measures (P=.007) in AMAGINE-3 only.¹⁰

Common AEs were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, and arthralgia, all occurring at grossly similar rates (49%–60%) across all experimental groups in AMAGINE-1, AMAGINE-2, and AMAGINE-3 during the first 12-week treatment period.^9,10 Brodalumab treatment groups had high rates of specific interest AEs compared to ustekinumab and placebo groups, including neutropenia (0.8%, 1.1%, 0.3%, and 0%, respectively) and candidal infections (0.8%, 1.3%, 0.3%, and 0.3%, respectively). Induction phase (weeks 0–12) depression rates were concerning, with 6 cases each in AMAGINE-2 (4 [0.7%] in the 140-mg group, 2 [0.3%] in the 210-mg group) and AMAGINE-3 (4 [0.6%] in the 140-mg group, 2 [0.3%] in the 210-mg group). Cases of neutropenia were mild, were not associated with major infection, and were transient or reversible. Depression rates after 52 weeks of treatment were 1.7% (23/1567) of brodalumab participants in AMAGINE-2 and 1.8% (21/1613) in AMAGINE-3. Three participants, all on constant 210-mg dosing through week 52, attempted suicide with 1 completion¹⁰; however, because no other IL-17 inhibitors were associated with depression or suicide in other trials, it has been suggested that these cases were incidental and not treatment related.¹² An FDA advisory panel recommended approval of brodalumab in July 2016 despite ongoing concerns of depression and suicide.¹³

Conclusion

The robust investigation into IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors to treat plaque psoriasis has yielded promising results, including the unprecedented rates of PASI 100 achievement with these new biologics. Risankizumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab have demonstrated superior efficacy in trials compared to ustekinumab. Tildrakizumab has shown low disease relapse after drug cessation. Ixekizumab and brodalumab have shown high rates of total disease clearance. Thus far, safety findings for these pipeline biologics have been consistent with those of ustekinumab. With ixekizumab approved in 2016 and brodalumab under review, new options in biologic therapy will offer patients and clinicians greater choices in treating severe and recalcitrant psoriasis.

The role of current biologic therapies in psoriasis predicates on the pathogenic role of upregulated, immune-related mechanisms that result in the activation of myeloid dendritic cells, which release IL-17, IL-23, and other cytokines to activate T cells, including helper T cell T_H17. Along with other immune cells, T_H17 produces IL-17. This proinflammatory cascade results in keratinocyte proliferation, angiogenesis, and migration of immune cells toward psoriatic lesions.¹ Thus, the newest classes of biologics target IL-12, IL-23, and IL-17 to disrupt this inflammatory cascade.

We provide an updated review of the most recent clinical efficacy and safety data on the newest IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors in the pipeline or approved for psoriasis, including risankizumab, guselkumab, tildrakizumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab (Table). Ustekinumab and adalimumab, which have been previously approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), will be discussed here only as comparators.

IL-23 Inhibitors

Risankizumab

Risankizumab (formerly known as BI 655066)(Boehringer Ingelheim) is a selective human monoclonal antibody targeting the p19 subunit of IL-23 and currently is undergoing phase 3 trials for psoriasis. A proof-of-concept phase 1 study of 39 participants demonstrated efficacy after 12 weeks of treatment at varying subcutaneous and intravenous doses with placebo control.¹¹ At week 12, 87% (27/31)(P<.001) of all risankizumab-treated participants achieved 75% reduction in psoriasis area and severity index (PASI) score compared to 0% of 8 placebo-treated participants. Common adverse effects (AEs) occurred in 65% (20/31) of risankizumab-treated participants, including non–dose-dependent upper respiratory tract infections, nasopharyngitis, and headache. Serious adverse events (SAEs) that occurred were considered unrelated to the study medication.¹¹

A phase 2 trial of 166 participants compared 3 dosing regimens of subcutaneous risankizumab (single 18-mg dose at week 0; single 90-mg dose at weeks 0, 4, and 16; or single 180-mg dose at weeks 0, 4, and 16) and ustekinumab (weight-based single 45- or 90-mg dose at weeks 0, 4, and 16), demonstrating noninferiority at higher doses of risankizumab.² Preliminary primary end point results at week 12 showed PASI 90 in 32.6% (P=.4667), 73.2% (P=.0013), 81.0% (P<.0001), and 40.0% of the treatment groups, respectively. Participants in the 180-mg risankizumab group achieved PASI 90 eight weeks faster than those on ustekinumab, lasting more than 2 months longer. Adverse effects were similar across all treatment groups and SAEs were unrelated to the study medications.²

Guselkumab

Guselkumab (Janssen Biotech, Inc) is a selective human monoclonal antibody against the p19 subunit of IL-23. The 52-week phase 2 X-PLORE trial compared dose-ranging subcutaneous guselkumab (5 mg at weeks 0 and 4, then every 12 weeks; 15 mg every 8 weeks; 50 mg at weeks 0 and 4, then every 12 weeks; 100 mg every 8 weeks; or 200 mg at weeks 0 and 4, then every 12 weeks), adalimumab (80-mg loading dose, followed by 40 mg at week 1, then every other week), and placebo in 293 randomized participants.⁴ At week 16, 34% (P=.002) of participants in the 5-mg guselkumab group, 61% (P<.001) in the 15-mg group, 79% (P<.001) in the 50-mg group, 86% (P<.001) in the 100-mg group, 83% (P<.001) in the 200-mg group, and 58% (P<.001) in the adalimumab group achieved physician global assessment (PGA) scores of 0 (clear) or 1 (minimal psoriasis) compared to 7% of the placebo group. Achievement of PASI 75 similarly favored the guselkumab (44% [P<.001]; 76% [no P value given]; 81% [P<.001]; 79% [P<.001]; and 81% [P<.001], respectively) and adalimumab treatment arms (70% [P<.001]) compared to 5% in the placebo group. In longer-term comparisons to week 40, participants in the 50-, 100-, and 200-mg guselkumab groups showed significantly greater remission of psoriatic lesions, measured by a PGA score of 0 or 1, than participants in the adalimumab group (71% [P=.05]; 77% [P=.005]; 81% [P=.01]; and 49%, respectively).⁴

Preliminary results from VOYAGE 1 (N=837), the first of several phase 3 trials, further demonstrate the superiority of guselkumab 100 mg at weeks 0 and 4 and then every 8 weeks over adalimumab (standard dosing) and placebo; at week 16, 73.3% (P<.001 for both comparisons) versus 49.7% and 2.9% of participants, respectively, achieved PASI 90, with sustained superiority of skin clearance in guselkumab-treated participants compared to adalimumab and placebo through week 48.³

Long-term safety data showed no dose dependence or trend from 0 to 16 weeks and 16 to 52 weeks of treatment regarding rates of AEs, SAEs, or serious infections.⁴ Between weeks 16 and 52, 48.9% of all guselkumab-treated participants exhibited AEs compared to 60.5% of adalimumab-treated participants and 51.3% of placebo participants. Overall infection rates also were lowest in the guselkumab group at 29.8% compared to 36.8% and 35.9%, respectively. Three participants treated with guselkumab had major cardiovascular events, including a fatal myocardial infarction. No cases of tuberculosis or serious opportunistic infections were reported.⁴

Tildrakizumab

Tildrakizumab (formerly known as MK-3222)(Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd) is a human monoclonal antibody also targeting the p19 subunit of IL-23. In a phase 2 study of 355 participants with chronic plaque psoriasis, participants received 5-, 25-, 100-, or 200-mg subcutaneous tildrakizumab or placebo at weeks 0 and 4 and then every 12 weeks for a total of 52 weeks.⁶ At week 16, PASI 75 results were 33.3%, 64.4%, 66.3%, 74.4%, and 4.4%, respectively (P<.001 for each comparison). Improvement began within the first month of treatment, with median times to PASI 75 of 57 days at 200-mg dosing and 84 days at 100-mg dosing. Of those participants achieving PASI 75 by drug discontinuation at week 52, 96% of the 100-mg group and 93% of the 200-mg group maintained PASI 75 through week 72, suggesting low relapse rates after treatment cessation.⁶

In October 2016, the efficacy results of 2 pivotal phase 3 trials (reSURFACE 1 and reSURFACE 2) involving more than 1800 participants combined revealed PASI 90 achievement in an average of 54% of participants on tildrakizumab 100 mg and 59% of participants on tildrakizumab 200 mg at week 28.⁵ Achievement of PASI 100 occurred in 24% and 30% of participants at week 28, respectively. The second of these trials included an etanercept comparison group and demonstrated head-to-head superiority of 100 and 200 mg subcutaneous tildrakizumab at week 12 by end point measures.⁵

Treatment-related AEs occurred at rates of 25% in tildrakizumab-treated participants and 22% in placebo-treated participants, most frequently nasopharyngitis and headache.⁶ At least 1 AE occurred in 64% of tildrakizumab-treated participants without dose dependence compared to 69% of placebo-treated participants. Severe AEs thought to be drug treatment related were bacterial arthritis, lymphedema, melanoma, stroke, and epiglottitis.⁶

IL-17 Inhibitors

Ixekizumab

Ixekizumab (Eli Lilly and Company), a monoclonal inhibitor of IL-17A, is the most recently approved psoriasis biologic on the market and has been cleared for use in adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. Recommended dosing is 160 mg (given in two 80-mg subcutaneous injections via an autoinjector or prefilled syringe) at week 0, followed by an 80-mg injection at weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12, and then 80 mg every 4 weeks thereafter. The FDA approved ixekizumab in March 2016 following favorable results of several phase 3 trials: UNCOVER-1, UNCOVER-2, and UNCOVER-3.^7,8

In UNCOVER-1, 1296 participants were randomized to 1 of 2 ixekizumab treatment arms—160 mg starting dose at week 0, 80 mg every 2 or 4 weeks thereafter—or placebo.⁷ At week 12, 89.1%, 82.6%, and 3.9% achieved PASI 75, respectively (P<.001 for both). Importantly, high numbers of participants also achieved PASI 90 (70.9% in the 2-week group and 64.6% in the 4-week group vs 0.5% in the placebo group [P<.001]) and PASI 100 (35.3% and 33.6% vs 0%, respectively [P<.001]), suggesting high rates of disease clearance.⁷

UNCOVER-2 (N=1224) and UNCOVER-3 (N=1346) investigated the same 2 dosing regimens of ixekizumab compared to etanercept 50 mg biweekly and placebo.⁸ At week 12, the percentage of participants achieving PASI 90 in UNCOVER-2 was 70.7%, 59.7%, 18.7%, and 0.6%, respectively, and 68.1%, 65.3%, 25.7%, and 3.1%, respectively, in UNCOVER-3 (P<.0001 for all comparisons to placebo and etanercept). At week 12, PASI 100 results also showed striking superiority, with 40.5%, 30.8%, 5.3%, and 0.6% of participants, respectively, in UNCOVER-2, and 37.7%, 35%, 7.3%, and 0%, respectively, in UNCOVER-3, achieving complete clearance of disease (P<.0001 for all comparisons to placebo and etanercept). Responses to ixekizumab were observed as early as weeks 1 and 2, while no participants in the etanercept and placebo treatment groups achieved comparative efficiency.⁸

In an extension of UNCOVER-3, efficacy increased from week 12 to week 60 according to PASI 90 (68%–73% in the 2-week group; 65%–72% in the 4-week group) and PASI 100 measures (38%–55% in the 2-week group; 35%–52% in the 4-week group).⁷

The most common AEs associated with ixekizumab treatment from weeks 0 to 12 occurred at higher rates in the 2-week and 4-week ixekizumab groups compared to placebo, including nasopharyngitis (9.5% and 9% vs 8.7%, respectively), upper respiratory tract infection (4.4% and 3.9% vs 3.5%, respectively), injection-site reaction (10% and 7.7% vs 1%, respectively), arthralgia (4.4% and 4.3% vs 2.9%, respectively), and headache (2.5% and 1.9% vs 2.1%, respectively). Infections, including candidal, oral, vulvovaginal, and cutaneous, occurred in 27% of the 2-week dosing group and 27.4% of the 4-week dosing group compared to 22.9% of the placebo group during weeks 0 to 12, with candidal infections in particular occurring more frequently in the active treatment groups and exhibiting dose dependence. Other AEs of special interest that occurred among all ixekizumab-treated participants (n=3736) from weeks 0 to 60 were cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (22 [0.6%]), inflammatory bowel disease (11 [0.3%]), non–skin cancer malignancy (14 [0.4%]), and nonmelanoma skin cancer (20 [0.5%]). Neutropenia occurred at higher rates in ixekizumab-treated participants (9.3% in the 2-week group and 8.6% in the 4-week group) compared to placebo (3.3%) and occurred in 11.5% of all ixekizumab participants over 60 weeks.⁷

Brodalumab

Brodalumab (Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc) is a human monoclonal antibody targeting the IL-17A receptor currently under review for FDA approval after undergoing phase 3 trials. The first of these trials, AMAGINE-1, showed efficacy of subcutaneous brodalumab (140 or 210 mg administered every 2 weeks with an extra dose at week 1) compared to placebo in 661 participants.⁹ At week 12, 60%, 83%, and 3%, respectively, achieved PASI 75; 43%, 70%, and 1%, respectively, achieved PASI 90; and 23%, 42%, and 1%, respectively, achieved PASI 100 (P<.001 for all respective comparisons to placebo). These effects were retained through 52 weeks of treatment. The median time to complete disease clearance in participants reaching PASI 100 was 12 weeks. Conversely, participants who were re-randomized to placebo after week 12 of brodalumab treatment relapsed within weeks to months.⁹

AMAGINE-2 and AMAGINE-3 further demonstrated the efficacy of brodalumab (140 or 210 mg every 2 weeks with extra dose at week 1) compared to ustekinumab (45 or 90 mg weight-based standard dosing) and placebo in 1831 participants, respectively.¹⁰ In AMAGINE-2, 49% of participants in the 140-mg group (P<.001 vs placebo), 70% in the 210-mg group (P<.001 vs placebo), 47% in the ustekinumab group, and 3% in the placebo group achieved PASI 90 at week 12. Similarly, in AMAGINE-3, 52% of participants in the 140-mg group (P<.001), 69% in the 210-mg group (P<.001), 48% in the ustekinumab group, and 2% in the placebo group achieved PASI 90. Impressively, complete clearance (PASI 100) at week 12 occurred in 26% of the 140-mg group (P<.001 vs placebo), 44% of the 210-mg group (P<.001 vs placebo), and 22% of the ustekinumab group compared to 2% of the placebo group in AMAGINE-2, with similar rates in AMAGINE-3. Brodalumab was significantly superior to ustekinumab at the 210-mg dose by PASI 90 measures (P<.001) in both studies and at the 140-mg dose by PASI 100 measures (P=.007) in AMAGINE-3 only.¹⁰

Common AEs were nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, and arthralgia, all occurring at grossly similar rates (49%–60%) across all experimental groups in AMAGINE-1, AMAGINE-2, and AMAGINE-3 during the first 12-week treatment period.^9,10 Brodalumab treatment groups had high rates of specific interest AEs compared to ustekinumab and placebo groups, including neutropenia (0.8%, 1.1%, 0.3%, and 0%, respectively) and candidal infections (0.8%, 1.3%, 0.3%, and 0.3%, respectively). Induction phase (weeks 0–12) depression rates were concerning, with 6 cases each in AMAGINE-2 (4 [0.7%] in the 140-mg group, 2 [0.3%] in the 210-mg group) and AMAGINE-3 (4 [0.6%] in the 140-mg group, 2 [0.3%] in the 210-mg group). Cases of neutropenia were mild, were not associated with major infection, and were transient or reversible. Depression rates after 52 weeks of treatment were 1.7% (23/1567) of brodalumab participants in AMAGINE-2 and 1.8% (21/1613) in AMAGINE-3. Three participants, all on constant 210-mg dosing through week 52, attempted suicide with 1 completion¹⁰; however, because no other IL-17 inhibitors were associated with depression or suicide in other trials, it has been suggested that these cases were incidental and not treatment related.¹² An FDA advisory panel recommended approval of brodalumab in July 2016 despite ongoing concerns of depression and suicide.¹³

Conclusion

The robust investigation into IL-23 and IL-17 inhibitors to treat plaque psoriasis has yielded promising results, including the unprecedented rates of PASI 100 achievement with these new biologics. Risankizumab, ixekizumab, and brodalumab have demonstrated superior efficacy in trials compared to ustekinumab. Tildrakizumab has shown low disease relapse after drug cessation. Ixekizumab and brodalumab have shown high rates of total disease clearance. Thus far, safety findings for these pipeline biologics have been consistent with those of ustekinumab. With ixekizumab approved in 2016 and brodalumab under review, new options in biologic therapy will offer patients and clinicians greater choices in treating severe and recalcitrant psoriasis.

Nonthermal atmospheric pressure plasma (NTAP) may serve as an effective, well-tolerated treatment for actinic keratoses, according to findings of a small study published in the February issue of Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. Peter C. Friedman and his associates at the Skin Center Dermatology Group, New York, wrote that prior studies suggest that NTAP – applied with a hand-held electrode – could selectively induce apoptosis in cancer cells in vitro, and may also up-regulate local and tumor-specific systemic immune response.

In this study, five patients with 5 biopsy-proven and 12 clinically diagnosed actinic keratoses (AKs) were treated with a single dose of NTAP on the target lesion. The procedure involved nanosecond pulses that were applied to the treatment area for 1-2 minutes, an approach designed to provide sufficient dose while avoiding tissue damage (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017 Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2016.09.004).

At the 1-month follow-up – in which photographs were used to compare before and after treatment – 9 of the 17 AK lesions showed full clinical resolution, with no visible or palpable lesions and only minimal site erythema. Three lesions showed significant improvement, with at least a 50% improvement, and five lesions should minor or no improvement.

Dr. Friedman and his associates noted that current treatment options for AKs all have significant downsides including side effects such as pain and inflammation, and frequent recurrences. There were no adverse effects, such as pain, inflammation, or site reaction, reported during treatment with NTAP or 1 month after treatment.

“Given its very impressive tolerability, NTAP may be an excellent alternative for our current treatment options for AKs, especially if its efficacy and treatment procedure time can be improved and if further, long-term studies demonstrate lasting effects,” the authors wrote. “Further studies are needed to optimize treatment parameters, provide histologic confirmation of treatment effect, and evaluate the long-term benefits of this modality.”

No conflicts of interest were declared.

[email protected]

Nonthermal atmospheric pressure plasma (NTAP) may serve as an effective, well-tolerated treatment for actinic keratoses, according to findings of a small study published in the February issue of Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. Peter C. Friedman and his associates at the Skin Center Dermatology Group, New York, wrote that prior studies suggest that NTAP – applied with a hand-held electrode – could selectively induce apoptosis in cancer cells in vitro, and may also up-regulate local and tumor-specific systemic immune response.

In this study, five patients with 5 biopsy-proven and 12 clinically diagnosed actinic keratoses (AKs) were treated with a single dose of NTAP on the target lesion. The procedure involved nanosecond pulses that were applied to the treatment area for 1-2 minutes, an approach designed to provide sufficient dose while avoiding tissue damage (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017 Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2016.09.004).

At the 1-month follow-up – in which photographs were used to compare before and after treatment – 9 of the 17 AK lesions showed full clinical resolution, with no visible or palpable lesions and only minimal site erythema. Three lesions showed significant improvement, with at least a 50% improvement, and five lesions should minor or no improvement.

Dr. Friedman and his associates noted that current treatment options for AKs all have significant downsides including side effects such as pain and inflammation, and frequent recurrences. There were no adverse effects, such as pain, inflammation, or site reaction, reported during treatment with NTAP or 1 month after treatment.

“Given its very impressive tolerability, NTAP may be an excellent alternative for our current treatment options for AKs, especially if its efficacy and treatment procedure time can be improved and if further, long-term studies demonstrate lasting effects,” the authors wrote. “Further studies are needed to optimize treatment parameters, provide histologic confirmation of treatment effect, and evaluate the long-term benefits of this modality.”

No conflicts of interest were declared.

[email protected]

Nonthermal atmospheric pressure plasma (NTAP) may serve as an effective, well-tolerated treatment for actinic keratoses, according to findings of a small study published in the February issue of Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. Peter C. Friedman and his associates at the Skin Center Dermatology Group, New York, wrote that prior studies suggest that NTAP – applied with a hand-held electrode – could selectively induce apoptosis in cancer cells in vitro, and may also up-regulate local and tumor-specific systemic immune response.

In this study, five patients with 5 biopsy-proven and 12 clinically diagnosed actinic keratoses (AKs) were treated with a single dose of NTAP on the target lesion. The procedure involved nanosecond pulses that were applied to the treatment area for 1-2 minutes, an approach designed to provide sufficient dose while avoiding tissue damage (J Am Acad Dermatol. 2017 Feb. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2016.09.004).

At the 1-month follow-up – in which photographs were used to compare before and after treatment – 9 of the 17 AK lesions showed full clinical resolution, with no visible or palpable lesions and only minimal site erythema. Three lesions showed significant improvement, with at least a 50% improvement, and five lesions should minor or no improvement.

Dr. Friedman and his associates noted that current treatment options for AKs all have significant downsides including side effects such as pain and inflammation, and frequent recurrences. There were no adverse effects, such as pain, inflammation, or site reaction, reported during treatment with NTAP or 1 month after treatment.

“Given its very impressive tolerability, NTAP may be an excellent alternative for our current treatment options for AKs, especially if its efficacy and treatment procedure time can be improved and if further, long-term studies demonstrate lasting effects,” the authors wrote. “Further studies are needed to optimize treatment parameters, provide histologic confirmation of treatment effect, and evaluate the long-term benefits of this modality.”

No conflicts of interest were declared.

[email protected]

New cases of Zika infection in pregnant women were down again for the 50 states over the 2-week reporting period ending Jan. 24, but U.S. territories saw a big increase, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

It is important to note, however, that Puerto Rico, where most U.S. Zika cases are occurring, has been retroactively reporting cases for months, which can result in larger-than-normal increases.

So far for 2016-2017, there have been 4,465 pregnant women reported to have Zika virus infection in the United States: 3,071 in the territories and 1,394 in the 50 states and D.C., according to the U.S. Zika Pregnancy Registry (states, territories, and the District of Columbia) and the U.S. Zika Active Pregnancy Surveillance System (Puerto Rico).

Of the nearly 1,400 state/D.C. Zika-infected pregnancies, 999 have been completed, with 38 infants born with birth defects and 5 defect-related pregnancy losses, the CDC said. There have been no Zika-related pregnancy losses reported in the states/D.C. since late June. The CDC is no longer reporting adverse pregnancy outcomes for the territories because Puerto Rico is not using the same inclusion criteria.

Among all Americans in 2015-2017, there have been 41,387 cases of Zika infection as of Feb. 1. Of that total, 35,334 cases, which is more than 85%, have occurred in Puerto Rico, according to data from the CDC’s Arboviral Disease Branch.

Zika-related birth defects reported by the CDC could include microcephaly, calcium deposits in the brain indicating possible brain damage, excess fluid in the brain cavities and surrounding the brain, absent or poorly formed brain structures, abnormal eye development, or other problems resulting from brain damage that affect nerves, muscles, and bones. The pregnancy losses encompass any miscarriage, stillbirth, and termination with evidence of birth defects.

[email protected]

New cases of Zika infection in pregnant women were down again for the 50 states over the 2-week reporting period ending Jan. 24, but U.S. territories saw a big increase, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

It is important to note, however, that Puerto Rico, where most U.S. Zika cases are occurring, has been retroactively reporting cases for months, which can result in larger-than-normal increases.

So far for 2016-2017, there have been 4,465 pregnant women reported to have Zika virus infection in the United States: 3,071 in the territories and 1,394 in the 50 states and D.C., according to the U.S. Zika Pregnancy Registry (states, territories, and the District of Columbia) and the U.S. Zika Active Pregnancy Surveillance System (Puerto Rico).

Of the nearly 1,400 state/D.C. Zika-infected pregnancies, 999 have been completed, with 38 infants born with birth defects and 5 defect-related pregnancy losses, the CDC said. There have been no Zika-related pregnancy losses reported in the states/D.C. since late June. The CDC is no longer reporting adverse pregnancy outcomes for the territories because Puerto Rico is not using the same inclusion criteria.

Among all Americans in 2015-2017, there have been 41,387 cases of Zika infection as of Feb. 1. Of that total, 35,334 cases, which is more than 85%, have occurred in Puerto Rico, according to data from the CDC’s Arboviral Disease Branch.

Zika-related birth defects reported by the CDC could include microcephaly, calcium deposits in the brain indicating possible brain damage, excess fluid in the brain cavities and surrounding the brain, absent or poorly formed brain structures, abnormal eye development, or other problems resulting from brain damage that affect nerves, muscles, and bones. The pregnancy losses encompass any miscarriage, stillbirth, and termination with evidence of birth defects.

[email protected]

New cases of Zika infection in pregnant women were down again for the 50 states over the 2-week reporting period ending Jan. 24, but U.S. territories saw a big increase, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

It is important to note, however, that Puerto Rico, where most U.S. Zika cases are occurring, has been retroactively reporting cases for months, which can result in larger-than-normal increases.

So far for 2016-2017, there have been 4,465 pregnant women reported to have Zika virus infection in the United States: 3,071 in the territories and 1,394 in the 50 states and D.C., according to the U.S. Zika Pregnancy Registry (states, territories, and the District of Columbia) and the U.S. Zika Active Pregnancy Surveillance System (Puerto Rico).

Of the nearly 1,400 state/D.C. Zika-infected pregnancies, 999 have been completed, with 38 infants born with birth defects and 5 defect-related pregnancy losses, the CDC said. There have been no Zika-related pregnancy losses reported in the states/D.C. since late June. The CDC is no longer reporting adverse pregnancy outcomes for the territories because Puerto Rico is not using the same inclusion criteria.

Among all Americans in 2015-2017, there have been 41,387 cases of Zika infection as of Feb. 1. Of that total, 35,334 cases, which is more than 85%, have occurred in Puerto Rico, according to data from the CDC’s Arboviral Disease Branch.

Zika-related birth defects reported by the CDC could include microcephaly, calcium deposits in the brain indicating possible brain damage, excess fluid in the brain cavities and surrounding the brain, absent or poorly formed brain structures, abnormal eye development, or other problems resulting from brain damage that affect nerves, muscles, and bones. The pregnancy losses encompass any miscarriage, stillbirth, and termination with evidence of birth defects.

[email protected]

WAILEA, Hawaii – The first approval of a biologic for pediatric psoriasis, and ongoing clinical trials of other biologics in children with psoriasis, are among the encouraging therapeutic developments for this patient population, Wynnis Tom, MD, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

“We are incredibly excited ... as pediatric dermatologists that we’re finally seeing breakthroughs” in terms of Food and Drug Administration activity regarding the use of biologics for treating psoriasis in children, Dr. Tom said in a video interview at the seminar.

Etanercept (Enbrel) is now approved for children with psoriasis, the first biologic indicated for pediatric psoriasis, and clinical trials of other biologics that have been available for adults and nonbiologic products for pediatric psoriasis are underway, she said.

However, getting insurance coverage can still be a challenge, although having long-term efficacy and safety data helps, noted Dr. Tom of the department of dermatology and pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Also helpful is sending letters to insurers on behalf of the patient, describing the patient’s quality of life, descriptions of treatments that have been unsuccessful, and even photos documenting the disease in the child, she added.

Dr. Tom disclosed ties with Promius, Celgene, and Janssen.

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

WAILEA, Hawaii – The first approval of a biologic for pediatric psoriasis, and ongoing clinical trials of other biologics in children with psoriasis, are among the encouraging therapeutic developments for this patient population, Wynnis Tom, MD, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

“We are incredibly excited ... as pediatric dermatologists that we’re finally seeing breakthroughs” in terms of Food and Drug Administration activity regarding the use of biologics for treating psoriasis in children, Dr. Tom said in a video interview at the seminar.

Etanercept (Enbrel) is now approved for children with psoriasis, the first biologic indicated for pediatric psoriasis, and clinical trials of other biologics that have been available for adults and nonbiologic products for pediatric psoriasis are underway, she said.

However, getting insurance coverage can still be a challenge, although having long-term efficacy and safety data helps, noted Dr. Tom of the department of dermatology and pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Also helpful is sending letters to insurers on behalf of the patient, describing the patient’s quality of life, descriptions of treatments that have been unsuccessful, and even photos documenting the disease in the child, she added.

Dr. Tom disclosed ties with Promius, Celgene, and Janssen.

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

WAILEA, Hawaii – The first approval of a biologic for pediatric psoriasis, and ongoing clinical trials of other biologics in children with psoriasis, are among the encouraging therapeutic developments for this patient population, Wynnis Tom, MD, said at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

“We are incredibly excited ... as pediatric dermatologists that we’re finally seeing breakthroughs” in terms of Food and Drug Administration activity regarding the use of biologics for treating psoriasis in children, Dr. Tom said in a video interview at the seminar.

Etanercept (Enbrel) is now approved for children with psoriasis, the first biologic indicated for pediatric psoriasis, and clinical trials of other biologics that have been available for adults and nonbiologic products for pediatric psoriasis are underway, she said.

However, getting insurance coverage can still be a challenge, although having long-term efficacy and safety data helps, noted Dr. Tom of the department of dermatology and pediatrics, University of California, San Diego, and Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego. Also helpful is sending letters to insurers on behalf of the patient, describing the patient’s quality of life, descriptions of treatments that have been unsuccessful, and even photos documenting the disease in the child, she added.

Dr. Tom disclosed ties with Promius, Celgene, and Janssen.

SDEF and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

All physicians will see changes in reimbursement in 2017. A new president with a new agenda makes for an interesting time ahead for health care in the United States. However, in this time of flux, there is one constant: the Final Rule, an informal term for the annual update on how the Medicare system will function and how much you will get paid for what you do.¹ The document is 393 pages and outlines what is new in the Medicare system, with lots of supplements giving granular details about physician work, overhead, and supply and labor costs. In this column, I have taken the liberty of dissecting the Final Rule for you and to bring attention to its high and low points for dermatologists.

Changes in Relative Value Units

The conversion factor has gone up, meaning you will be paid a bit more this year for what you do; it is not enough to account for inflation or the increasing cost of unfunded mandates, but it is better than nothing. Although the conversion factor was $35.8043 in 2016, it increased by more than 0.2% on January 1, 2017, to $35.8887.¹ How is this conversion factor calculated? We go up 0.5% due to MACRA (Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act), down 0.013% due to budget neutrality, down 0.07% due to multiple procedure payment reduction changes, and down another 0.18% due to the misvalued code target.¹ The misvalued code target is related to targets established by statute for 2016 to 2018 and payment rates are reduced across the board if they are not met.

If payments suffer from reductions in work value, they may not happen all at once. If the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reduce total relative value units (RVUs) by more than 20%, reductions will take place over at least 2 years with a single year drop maximum of 19%.¹ Unfortunately, such limits do not apply to revised codes, which can take as big a hit as the CMS cares to make.

Changes to Global Periods

In 2015, we learned that 10- and 90-day global periods would be eliminated in 2017 and 2018, respectively, with great concern on the part of the government about the number and level of evaluation and management services embedded in these codes. The implementation of global policy elimination was prohibited by MACRA and the CMS was required to develop and implement a process to gather data on services furnished in the global period from a representative sample of physicians, which they will use to value surgical services beginningin 2019.¹ The CMS decided to capture this data with a new set of time-based G codes (which would be onerous for all practicing physicians), not just the unlucky folks who were to be the sample mandated under MACRA.² During the comment period, it became obvious to the CMS that this concept was flawed for many reasons and it decided to hold a town hall meeting at the CMS headquarters on August 25, 2016, on data collection on resources used in furnishing global services in which 90 minutes of live testimony in the morning was followed by another 90 minutes by telephone in the afternoon.³ This meeting, which I attended, resulted in the CMS changing the all-practitioner reporting program to a specified sample with others allowed to opt in. Practitioners in groups of less than 10 are exempt, and only physicians in Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, and Rhode Island must capture data beginning in July 2017.¹ These data only have to be captured on codes that are used by more than 100 practitioners and are furnished at least 10,000 times or have allowed charges of greater than $10,000,000 annually. If you are lucky enough to live in one of the testing states, you must start on July 1 but can start before July 1 if you wish. Practitioners in smaller practices or in other geographic areas are encouraged to report data if feasible but are not required to do so. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 99024 will be used for reporting postoperative services rather than the proposed onerous set of G codes, and reporting will not be required for preoperative visits included in the global package or for services not related to the patient’s visit.

Changes to Chronic Care Management

There are new and modified chronic care management codes that are not of use to you unless you are the primary provider for the patient and you and the patient meet multiple stringent requirements.⁴ The patient must have multiple illnesses, use multiple medications, be unable to perform activities of daily living, require a caregiver, and/or have repeat admissions or emergency department visits. Typical adult patients who receive complex chronic care management services are treated with 3 or more prescription medications and may be receiving other types of therapeutic interventions (eg, physical therapy, occupational therapy). Typical pediatric patients receive 3 or more therapeutic interventions (eg, medications, nutritional support, respiratory therapy). All patients have 2 or more chronic continuous or episodic health conditions that are expected to last at least 12 months or until the death of the patient and place the patient at serious risk for death, acute exacerbation/decompensation, or functional decline.⁴

Changes to Moderate Sedation Codes

The economic value of providing moderate sedation (eg, drug-induced depression of consciousness during which patients respond purposefully to verbal commands, either alone or accompanied by light tactile stimulation) used to be embedded in a variety of CPT codes, which is no longer the case in 2017. Diazepam or similar drugs swallowed or dissolved under the tongue are not included. The new CPT codes 99151, 99152, 99153, 99155, 99156, and 99157 are not to be used to report administration of medications for pain control or minimal sedation (anxiolysis). An independent trained observer, an individual who is qualified to monitor the patient during the procedure and who has no other duties (eg, assisting at surgery) during the procedure, must be present. If you are thinking of using these codes, read the entire section in the CPT manual,⁴ check your state laws, and consult your malpractice carrier and perhaps even your health care attorney.

Changes to Nail Procedure Codes

Current Procedural Terminology code 11752 (excision of nail and nail matrix, partial or complete [eg, ingrown or deformed nail], for permanent removal; with amputation of tuft of distal phalanx) is now gone, while base code 11750 remains. If you are doing nail surgery and removing underlying bone, instead use code 26236 (partial excision [craterization, saucerization, or diaphysectomy] bone [eg, osteomyelitis]; distal phalanx of finger), 28124 (partial excision [craterization, saucerization, sequestrectomy, or diaphysectomy] bone [eg, osteomyelitis or bossing]; phalanx of toe), or other codes in the same section of the CPT manual if they more precisely describe the procedure performed.

Changes to Slide Consultation Codes

The slide consultation codes 88321 (consultation and report on referred slides prepared elsewhere), 88323 (consultation and report on referred material requiring preparation of slides), and 88325 (consultation, comprehensive, with review of records and specimens, with report on referred material) were revalued this year, with the first 2 showing no change but the latter showing an increase in value from 2.50 to 2.85 RVUs.¹ None are meant to be routine. If you have every slide looked at by someone else for “quality assurance reasons,” the consultation is not reportable. If you use these consultation codes too often, the CMS might have concerns about fraud and abuse. Visit http://data.cms.gov to see how you compare to your peers.

Changes to Reflectance Confocal Microscopy Codes

Reflectance confocal microscopy had new codes for 2016, which were carrier priced, and in 2017 they have real RVUs per the CMS. The payments for these codes have a national average reimbursement of $161.85 for 96931 (reflectance confocal microscopy for cellular and subcellular imaging of skin; image acquisition and interpretation and report, first lesion), $104.80 for 96932 (image acquisition only, first lesion), and $45.94 for 96933 (interpretation and report only, first lesion).⁵ The respective add-on codes have values of $83.26 for 96934 (image acquisition and interpretation and report, each additional lesion [list separately in addition to code for primary procedure]), $35.17 for 96935 (image acquisition only, each additional lesion [list separately in addition to code for primary procedure]), and $43.78 for 96936 (interpretation and report only, each additional lesion [list separately in addition to code for primary procedure]).

Other Coding Changes

There are a whole bunch of new codes in the “Genomic Sequencing Procedures and Other Molecular Multianalyte Assays” (MMAAs) section of CPT. The important thing for you to remember is these codes are for the laboratory performing the assay to report, not the physician ordering it. There is a new Appendix O for proprietary laboratory analysis MMAAs, including those that do not have a Category I code. These MMAAs are identified in Appendix O by a 4-digit number followed by the letter M.⁴

There are some revisions to psychotherapy codes 90832 to 90847. These codes are outside our scope of practice and should only be used by psychiatrists, social workers, psychologists, or other appropriate mental health workers.

Final Thoughts

It has not been a breakout year for telehealth and we still do not have payment for store-and-forward teledermatology, except in a few designated rural areas. With the advent of the rhetoric we have heard after the presidential election, any speculation on what will happen to the brave new world of the merit-based incentive payment system, alternative payment models, and other regulations are anyone’s guess.

All physicians will see changes in reimbursement in 2017. A new president with a new agenda makes for an interesting time ahead for health care in the United States. However, in this time of flux, there is one constant: the Final Rule, an informal term for the annual update on how the Medicare system will function and how much you will get paid for what you do.¹ The document is 393 pages and outlines what is new in the Medicare system, with lots of supplements giving granular details about physician work, overhead, and supply and labor costs. In this column, I have taken the liberty of dissecting the Final Rule for you and to bring attention to its high and low points for dermatologists.

Changes in Relative Value Units

The conversion factor has gone up, meaning you will be paid a bit more this year for what you do; it is not enough to account for inflation or the increasing cost of unfunded mandates, but it is better than nothing. Although the conversion factor was $35.8043 in 2016, it increased by more than 0.2% on January 1, 2017, to $35.8887.¹ How is this conversion factor calculated? We go up 0.5% due to MACRA (Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act), down 0.013% due to budget neutrality, down 0.07% due to multiple procedure payment reduction changes, and down another 0.18% due to the misvalued code target.¹ The misvalued code target is related to targets established by statute for 2016 to 2018 and payment rates are reduced across the board if they are not met.

If payments suffer from reductions in work value, they may not happen all at once. If the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reduce total relative value units (RVUs) by more than 20%, reductions will take place over at least 2 years with a single year drop maximum of 19%.¹ Unfortunately, such limits do not apply to revised codes, which can take as big a hit as the CMS cares to make.

Changes to Global Periods

In 2015, we learned that 10- and 90-day global periods would be eliminated in 2017 and 2018, respectively, with great concern on the part of the government about the number and level of evaluation and management services embedded in these codes. The implementation of global policy elimination was prohibited by MACRA and the CMS was required to develop and implement a process to gather data on services furnished in the global period from a representative sample of physicians, which they will use to value surgical services beginningin 2019.¹ The CMS decided to capture this data with a new set of time-based G codes (which would be onerous for all practicing physicians), not just the unlucky folks who were to be the sample mandated under MACRA.² During the comment period, it became obvious to the CMS that this concept was flawed for many reasons and it decided to hold a town hall meeting at the CMS headquarters on August 25, 2016, on data collection on resources used in furnishing global services in which 90 minutes of live testimony in the morning was followed by another 90 minutes by telephone in the afternoon.³ This meeting, which I attended, resulted in the CMS changing the all-practitioner reporting program to a specified sample with others allowed to opt in. Practitioners in groups of less than 10 are exempt, and only physicians in Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, and Rhode Island must capture data beginning in July 2017.¹ These data only have to be captured on codes that are used by more than 100 practitioners and are furnished at least 10,000 times or have allowed charges of greater than $10,000,000 annually. If you are lucky enough to live in one of the testing states, you must start on July 1 but can start before July 1 if you wish. Practitioners in smaller practices or in other geographic areas are encouraged to report data if feasible but are not required to do so. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 99024 will be used for reporting postoperative services rather than the proposed onerous set of G codes, and reporting will not be required for preoperative visits included in the global package or for services not related to the patient’s visit.

Changes to Chronic Care Management

There are new and modified chronic care management codes that are not of use to you unless you are the primary provider for the patient and you and the patient meet multiple stringent requirements.⁴ The patient must have multiple illnesses, use multiple medications, be unable to perform activities of daily living, require a caregiver, and/or have repeat admissions or emergency department visits. Typical adult patients who receive complex chronic care management services are treated with 3 or more prescription medications and may be receiving other types of therapeutic interventions (eg, physical therapy, occupational therapy). Typical pediatric patients receive 3 or more therapeutic interventions (eg, medications, nutritional support, respiratory therapy). All patients have 2 or more chronic continuous or episodic health conditions that are expected to last at least 12 months or until the death of the patient and place the patient at serious risk for death, acute exacerbation/decompensation, or functional decline.⁴

Changes to Moderate Sedation Codes

The economic value of providing moderate sedation (eg, drug-induced depression of consciousness during which patients respond purposefully to verbal commands, either alone or accompanied by light tactile stimulation) used to be embedded in a variety of CPT codes, which is no longer the case in 2017. Diazepam or similar drugs swallowed or dissolved under the tongue are not included. The new CPT codes 99151, 99152, 99153, 99155, 99156, and 99157 are not to be used to report administration of medications for pain control or minimal sedation (anxiolysis). An independent trained observer, an individual who is qualified to monitor the patient during the procedure and who has no other duties (eg, assisting at surgery) during the procedure, must be present. If you are thinking of using these codes, read the entire section in the CPT manual,⁴ check your state laws, and consult your malpractice carrier and perhaps even your health care attorney.

Changes to Nail Procedure Codes

Current Procedural Terminology code 11752 (excision of nail and nail matrix, partial or complete [eg, ingrown or deformed nail], for permanent removal; with amputation of tuft of distal phalanx) is now gone, while base code 11750 remains. If you are doing nail surgery and removing underlying bone, instead use code 26236 (partial excision [craterization, saucerization, or diaphysectomy] bone [eg, osteomyelitis]; distal phalanx of finger), 28124 (partial excision [craterization, saucerization, sequestrectomy, or diaphysectomy] bone [eg, osteomyelitis or bossing]; phalanx of toe), or other codes in the same section of the CPT manual if they more precisely describe the procedure performed.

Changes to Slide Consultation Codes

The slide consultation codes 88321 (consultation and report on referred slides prepared elsewhere), 88323 (consultation and report on referred material requiring preparation of slides), and 88325 (consultation, comprehensive, with review of records and specimens, with report on referred material) were revalued this year, with the first 2 showing no change but the latter showing an increase in value from 2.50 to 2.85 RVUs.¹ None are meant to be routine. If you have every slide looked at by someone else for “quality assurance reasons,” the consultation is not reportable. If you use these consultation codes too often, the CMS might have concerns about fraud and abuse. Visit http://data.cms.gov to see how you compare to your peers.

Changes to Reflectance Confocal Microscopy Codes

Reflectance confocal microscopy had new codes for 2016, which were carrier priced, and in 2017 they have real RVUs per the CMS. The payments for these codes have a national average reimbursement of $161.85 for 96931 (reflectance confocal microscopy for cellular and subcellular imaging of skin; image acquisition and interpretation and report, first lesion), $104.80 for 96932 (image acquisition only, first lesion), and $45.94 for 96933 (interpretation and report only, first lesion).⁵ The respective add-on codes have values of $83.26 for 96934 (image acquisition and interpretation and report, each additional lesion [list separately in addition to code for primary procedure]), $35.17 for 96935 (image acquisition only, each additional lesion [list separately in addition to code for primary procedure]), and $43.78 for 96936 (interpretation and report only, each additional lesion [list separately in addition to code for primary procedure]).

Other Coding Changes

There are a whole bunch of new codes in the “Genomic Sequencing Procedures and Other Molecular Multianalyte Assays” (MMAAs) section of CPT. The important thing for you to remember is these codes are for the laboratory performing the assay to report, not the physician ordering it. There is a new Appendix O for proprietary laboratory analysis MMAAs, including those that do not have a Category I code. These MMAAs are identified in Appendix O by a 4-digit number followed by the letter M.⁴

There are some revisions to psychotherapy codes 90832 to 90847. These codes are outside our scope of practice and should only be used by psychiatrists, social workers, psychologists, or other appropriate mental health workers.

Final Thoughts

It has not been a breakout year for telehealth and we still do not have payment for store-and-forward teledermatology, except in a few designated rural areas. With the advent of the rhetoric we have heard after the presidential election, any speculation on what will happen to the brave new world of the merit-based incentive payment system, alternative payment models, and other regulations are anyone’s guess.

All physicians will see changes in reimbursement in 2017. A new president with a new agenda makes for an interesting time ahead for health care in the United States. However, in this time of flux, there is one constant: the Final Rule, an informal term for the annual update on how the Medicare system will function and how much you will get paid for what you do.¹ The document is 393 pages and outlines what is new in the Medicare system, with lots of supplements giving granular details about physician work, overhead, and supply and labor costs. In this column, I have taken the liberty of dissecting the Final Rule for you and to bring attention to its high and low points for dermatologists.

Changes in Relative Value Units

The conversion factor has gone up, meaning you will be paid a bit more this year for what you do; it is not enough to account for inflation or the increasing cost of unfunded mandates, but it is better than nothing. Although the conversion factor was $35.8043 in 2016, it increased by more than 0.2% on January 1, 2017, to $35.8887.¹ How is this conversion factor calculated? We go up 0.5% due to MACRA (Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act), down 0.013% due to budget neutrality, down 0.07% due to multiple procedure payment reduction changes, and down another 0.18% due to the misvalued code target.¹ The misvalued code target is related to targets established by statute for 2016 to 2018 and payment rates are reduced across the board if they are not met.

If payments suffer from reductions in work value, they may not happen all at once. If the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reduce total relative value units (RVUs) by more than 20%, reductions will take place over at least 2 years with a single year drop maximum of 19%.¹ Unfortunately, such limits do not apply to revised codes, which can take as big a hit as the CMS cares to make.

Changes to Global Periods

In 2015, we learned that 10- and 90-day global periods would be eliminated in 2017 and 2018, respectively, with great concern on the part of the government about the number and level of evaluation and management services embedded in these codes. The implementation of global policy elimination was prohibited by MACRA and the CMS was required to develop and implement a process to gather data on services furnished in the global period from a representative sample of physicians, which they will use to value surgical services beginningin 2019.¹ The CMS decided to capture this data with a new set of time-based G codes (which would be onerous for all practicing physicians), not just the unlucky folks who were to be the sample mandated under MACRA.² During the comment period, it became obvious to the CMS that this concept was flawed for many reasons and it decided to hold a town hall meeting at the CMS headquarters on August 25, 2016, on data collection on resources used in furnishing global services in which 90 minutes of live testimony in the morning was followed by another 90 minutes by telephone in the afternoon.³ This meeting, which I attended, resulted in the CMS changing the all-practitioner reporting program to a specified sample with others allowed to opt in. Practitioners in groups of less than 10 are exempt, and only physicians in Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, and Rhode Island must capture data beginning in July 2017.¹ These data only have to be captured on codes that are used by more than 100 practitioners and are furnished at least 10,000 times or have allowed charges of greater than $10,000,000 annually. If you are lucky enough to live in one of the testing states, you must start on July 1 but can start before July 1 if you wish. Practitioners in smaller practices or in other geographic areas are encouraged to report data if feasible but are not required to do so. Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 99024 will be used for reporting postoperative services rather than the proposed onerous set of G codes, and reporting will not be required for preoperative visits included in the global package or for services not related to the patient’s visit.

Changes to Chronic Care Management

There are new and modified chronic care management codes that are not of use to you unless you are the primary provider for the patient and you and the patient meet multiple stringent requirements.⁴ The patient must have multiple illnesses, use multiple medications, be unable to perform activities of daily living, require a caregiver, and/or have repeat admissions or emergency department visits. Typical adult patients who receive complex chronic care management services are treated with 3 or more prescription medications and may be receiving other types of therapeutic interventions (eg, physical therapy, occupational therapy). Typical pediatric patients receive 3 or more therapeutic interventions (eg, medications, nutritional support, respiratory therapy). All patients have 2 or more chronic continuous or episodic health conditions that are expected to last at least 12 months or until the death of the patient and place the patient at serious risk for death, acute exacerbation/decompensation, or functional decline.⁴

Changes to Moderate Sedation Codes

The economic value of providing moderate sedation (eg, drug-induced depression of consciousness during which patients respond purposefully to verbal commands, either alone or accompanied by light tactile stimulation) used to be embedded in a variety of CPT codes, which is no longer the case in 2017. Diazepam or similar drugs swallowed or dissolved under the tongue are not included. The new CPT codes 99151, 99152, 99153, 99155, 99156, and 99157 are not to be used to report administration of medications for pain control or minimal sedation (anxiolysis). An independent trained observer, an individual who is qualified to monitor the patient during the procedure and who has no other duties (eg, assisting at surgery) during the procedure, must be present. If you are thinking of using these codes, read the entire section in the CPT manual,⁴ check your state laws, and consult your malpractice carrier and perhaps even your health care attorney.

Changes to Nail Procedure Codes

Current Procedural Terminology code 11752 (excision of nail and nail matrix, partial or complete [eg, ingrown or deformed nail], for permanent removal; with amputation of tuft of distal phalanx) is now gone, while base code 11750 remains. If you are doing nail surgery and removing underlying bone, instead use code 26236 (partial excision [craterization, saucerization, or diaphysectomy] bone [eg, osteomyelitis]; distal phalanx of finger), 28124 (partial excision [craterization, saucerization, sequestrectomy, or diaphysectomy] bone [eg, osteomyelitis or bossing]; phalanx of toe), or other codes in the same section of the CPT manual if they more precisely describe the procedure performed.

Changes to Slide Consultation Codes

The slide consultation codes 88321 (consultation and report on referred slides prepared elsewhere), 88323 (consultation and report on referred material requiring preparation of slides), and 88325 (consultation, comprehensive, with review of records and specimens, with report on referred material) were revalued this year, with the first 2 showing no change but the latter showing an increase in value from 2.50 to 2.85 RVUs.¹ None are meant to be routine. If you have every slide looked at by someone else for “quality assurance reasons,” the consultation is not reportable. If you use these consultation codes too often, the CMS might have concerns about fraud and abuse. Visit http://data.cms.gov to see how you compare to your peers.

Changes to Reflectance Confocal Microscopy Codes

Reflectance confocal microscopy had new codes for 2016, which were carrier priced, and in 2017 they have real RVUs per the CMS. The payments for these codes have a national average reimbursement of $161.85 for 96931 (reflectance confocal microscopy for cellular and subcellular imaging of skin; image acquisition and interpretation and report, first lesion), $104.80 for 96932 (image acquisition only, first lesion), and $45.94 for 96933 (interpretation and report only, first lesion).⁵ The respective add-on codes have values of $83.26 for 96934 (image acquisition and interpretation and report, each additional lesion [list separately in addition to code for primary procedure]), $35.17 for 96935 (image acquisition only, each additional lesion [list separately in addition to code for primary procedure]), and $43.78 for 96936 (interpretation and report only, each additional lesion [list separately in addition to code for primary procedure]).

Other Coding Changes

There are a whole bunch of new codes in the “Genomic Sequencing Procedures and Other Molecular Multianalyte Assays” (MMAAs) section of CPT. The important thing for you to remember is these codes are for the laboratory performing the assay to report, not the physician ordering it. There is a new Appendix O for proprietary laboratory analysis MMAAs, including those that do not have a Category I code. These MMAAs are identified in Appendix O by a 4-digit number followed by the letter M.⁴

There are some revisions to psychotherapy codes 90832 to 90847. These codes are outside our scope of practice and should only be used by psychiatrists, social workers, psychologists, or other appropriate mental health workers.

Final Thoughts

It has not been a breakout year for telehealth and we still do not have payment for store-and-forward teledermatology, except in a few designated rural areas. With the advent of the rhetoric we have heard after the presidential election, any speculation on what will happen to the brave new world of the merit-based incentive payment system, alternative payment models, and other regulations are anyone’s guess.

Photoprotection is the foundation of all skin cancer prevention, as UV radiation (UVR) exposure is the only known modifiable risk factor for skin cancer. With the majority of UVR exposure–induced skin cancers found on the scalp, ears, face, and neck, public health initiatives call for wise choices in personal fashion that emphasize the importance of covering these areas.^1-3 From a science of fashion perspective, research has shown that wide-brimmed hats provide better means of ensuring the largest area of coverage compared to standard baseball-style hats.⁴ Thus, for maximum protection, wide-brimmed hats should be favored. However, in academic and military settings, individual style is not optional and is instead influenced or directed by policy, which may not be aligned with the goal of providing photoprotection and raises additional concern for individuals working in environments with longer periods of peak daylight UVR exposure.

In all military branches, service members don uniforms that include head coverage when operating outdoors; however, the choice of headgear is not always aimed at reducing UVR exposure. Similarly, in our counterpart civilian populations, wearing hats that provide the best photoprotection may be influenced by school policies, which frequently mandate clothing choices for children, or by the press or fashion industry in the general public, which might portray sun-protective garments as unfashionable or in some cases threatening if perceived as demonstrating gang affiliation.⁵ This article serves to encourage health care providers to not only discuss the use of sunscreen when educating patients on sun protection but also to emphasize the benefits of wearing photoprotective garments, particularly wide-brimmed hats given their simplicity, reusability, and affordability. Hat use is particularly important for men with comorbid androgenetic alopecia.⁶

Skin Cancer Risk

Unfortunately, the incidence of most common types of skin cancer, specifically nonmelanoma skin cancers such basal cell carcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas (ie, keratinocyte carcinomas [KCs]), is difficult to estimate properly, as these cases are not required to be reported to worldwide cancer registries. However, more than 5.4 million cases of skin cancers were diagnosed among 3.3 million Americans in 2016, with an estimated 13,650 deaths associated with skin cancers (not including KCs).³ Tracking and data analyses of cases diagnosed in the active and reserve component populations of the US Armed Forces reflect parallel findings.⁷ Keratinocyte carcinomas could be considered largely preventable, as most are the result of UVR exposure.¹ Additionally, it has been suggested that the vast majority of mutations in melanoma skin cancers (up to 86%) are caused by UVR exposure.⁸

Prevention

United States–based national public health services such as the American Cancer Society, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Dermatology embrace photoprotection as the central practice in reducing risk factors for skin cancers. Guidelines put forth by these and other national preventive medical institutions specifically recommend the use of wide-brimmed hats as the best option for protection of the face, head, ears, and neck, in addition to more common recommendations such as seeking shade, avoiding sunlight during peak hours of the day, and using sunscreen.^1-3 At state and local levels, policies should be adapted from these recommendations to support protective practices and skin cancer education that begins early for school-aged children. Unfortunately, in some school districts, wearing hats of any kind may be perceived as disruptive or in some cases baseball hats may be a sign of gang affiliation and are therefore banned in the schoolyard.⁵ The opposite is true in certain parts of the world where sun protection is embraced by the population as a whole, such as Australia where the widely accepted “slip, slop and slap, seek and slide” campaign has extended to some school policymakers who have considered adopting a “no hat, no play” policy.^9,10

Sunscreen use as a primary component of photoprotection has its disadvantages in comparison to wearing protective clothing, as sunscreen cannot be reused and proper usage requires reapplication after swimming, when sweating, and following 2 hours of application.^1-3 The need for reapplication of sunscreen can lead to considerable expense as well as time spent in application and reapplication. Additionally, for individuals who are physically active (eg, operationally engaged service members, outdoor athletes), sunscreen applied to the face may become a hindrance to function, as it may drip or enter the eyes with excessive sweating, possibly impairing vision. Some individuals may be averse to applying lotions or creams to the skin in general, as they do not prefer the textural changes or appearance of the skin after application. The application of sunscreen also could impair use of lifesaving military gear (eg, gas masks, helmets) from fitting or securing appropriately.

Patient Education

From a military perspective, a review of a recent targeted pilot study in which skin cancer patients at a US Veterans Administration hospital were surveyed on personal knowledge of UVR protection showed that respondents who had a history of skin cancer diagnosis did not feel that they had ever been at an increased risk for skin cancers and did not receive skin cancer prevention education during their tours of service. The overwhelming majority of all participants in this study agreed that the military should issue sun-protective clothing and sunscreen to active-duty personnel.¹¹ Another 2015 survey of 356 current US Air Force flight line personnel noted that active-duty service members tend not to use sunscreen when at work or while at home, and 43% of participants reported using no sun-protective methods while working outdoors.¹² Although these studies focused on military personal, the data mirror findings within the general public, as it was shown in a survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that Americans do not fully take advantage of the benefits of UVR protection, specifically with regard to sunscreen use. Little to no usage was correlated with low socioeconomic status, suggesting that a reusable form of protection could be preferred.¹³

Public health initiatives typically promote education on the use of sunscreen in populations that spend a considerable amount of time working outdoors (eg, construction workers, farmers, military personnel); however, we feel emphasis should be placed on the benefits of wearing hats, as the UVR exposure protection they provide does not wear off, is cost effective, does not require reapplication, and has the advantage of being a recyclable and affordable form of photoprotection.

History of the Military-Grade Wide-Brimmed Hat

One military-specific example of a sun-protective hat is the boonie hat, known at the time of its inception as the tropical or hot-weather hat, which first became popular during the Vietnam War. This hat option was initially proposed on April 7, 1966, when it was realized that a full-brimmed field hat was needed to protect soldiers’ faces and necks from rain and sun in harsh tropical climates.¹⁴ Unfortunately, despite the protective advantages of this style of head covering and favorable support from service members themselves, the boonie hat was not widely accepted, as commanders disliked its “unmilitary appearance.” Fervent protests by units throughout Vietnam eventually led to a compromise in policy that allowed unit-level commanders to authorize the use of boonie hats for units in combat or combat support field operations.¹⁴ Today, the boonie hat continues to garnish mixed emotions from unit commanders, as wearing this garment often is interpreted as not being in line with an appropriate military appearance, which is similar to the public fashion zeitgeist that also does not openly endorse the use of sun-protective garments. A change in fashion culture and policy (both military and civilian) that promotes sun-protective measures is needed.

Wide-Brimmed Hats Are Superior to Baseball Hats

The distribution of skin cancers across anatomic sites is consistent and proportional with the level and frequency of chronic UVR exposure, with the occurrence of most skin cancers being greatest on the nose, forehead/temples, cheeks/perioral areas, and ears.¹⁵ Additionally, higher incidences of skin cancers have been noted in chronically sun-exposed areas of the head and neck in men versus women. It is thought that hair distribution in these areas may be the causal factor.⁶

Baseball-style hats are worn by all branches of the US military as part of standard training and work duty uniform requirements, primarily for the sake of tradition by maintaining a standard appearance and uniform dress code but also to provide photoprotection to these vulnerable areas of the body. Standard, nonmilitary, baseball-style hats have been shown to provide UV protection factor (UPF) equivalents ranging from 2 to 10 on sites known for the highest levels of exposure.¹⁶ Military “patrol caps,” fashioned similar to the baseball-style hat but constructed from military-grade textiles, provide greater levels of photoprotection with UPF ratings from 35 to 50 and higher depending on the fabric color.¹⁷ Although patrol caps have a favorable UPF rating and are advantageous compared to former military headgear styles (eg, berets), wide-brimmed hats would provide greater overall coverage.^4,6 Studies in school environments also revealed that wide-brimmed hats come out ahead in side-by-side testing against baseball hats and are shown to provide greater photoprotection for the cheeks, chin, ears, and neck.¹⁶

Final Thoughts

The battle to educate the public about adequate photoprotection to prevent skin cancers caused by UVR exposure applies to all providers, both military and civilian. Our ongoing initiatives should not only sustain current practices but should further stress the importance of wearing wide-brimmed hats as a vital part of coverage of the skin and protection from UVR. We must combat the public perception that wearing wide-brimmed hats is a detractor of personal fashion and that instead it is desirable to reduce the risk for skin cancer. The wide-brimmed hat is a simple, reusable, and easily executed recommendation that should be made to all patients, both military and civilian, young and old. In conclusion, by improving patients’ perceptions and acknowledgment of the importance of photoprotection as well as making a concerted effort to integrate our knowledge in the fashion industry, in policies at schools, in the military, and in popular culture, we will undoubtedly come to agree that it is not unfashionable to wear a wide-brimmed hat, but it is unfashionable to risk developing skin cancer.

Photoprotection is the foundation of all skin cancer prevention, as UV radiation (UVR) exposure is the only known modifiable risk factor for skin cancer. With the majority of UVR exposure–induced skin cancers found on the scalp, ears, face, and neck, public health initiatives call for wise choices in personal fashion that emphasize the importance of covering these areas.^1-3 From a science of fashion perspective, research has shown that wide-brimmed hats provide better means of ensuring the largest area of coverage compared to standard baseball-style hats.⁴ Thus, for maximum protection, wide-brimmed hats should be favored. However, in academic and military settings, individual style is not optional and is instead influenced or directed by policy, which may not be aligned with the goal of providing photoprotection and raises additional concern for individuals working in environments with longer periods of peak daylight UVR exposure.

In all military branches, service members don uniforms that include head coverage when operating outdoors; however, the choice of headgear is not always aimed at reducing UVR exposure. Similarly, in our counterpart civilian populations, wearing hats that provide the best photoprotection may be influenced by school policies, which frequently mandate clothing choices for children, or by the press or fashion industry in the general public, which might portray sun-protective garments as unfashionable or in some cases threatening if perceived as demonstrating gang affiliation.⁵ This article serves to encourage health care providers to not only discuss the use of sunscreen when educating patients on sun protection but also to emphasize the benefits of wearing photoprotective garments, particularly wide-brimmed hats given their simplicity, reusability, and affordability. Hat use is particularly important for men with comorbid androgenetic alopecia.⁶

Skin Cancer Risk

Unfortunately, the incidence of most common types of skin cancer, specifically nonmelanoma skin cancers such basal cell carcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas (ie, keratinocyte carcinomas [KCs]), is difficult to estimate properly, as these cases are not required to be reported to worldwide cancer registries. However, more than 5.4 million cases of skin cancers were diagnosed among 3.3 million Americans in 2016, with an estimated 13,650 deaths associated with skin cancers (not including KCs).³ Tracking and data analyses of cases diagnosed in the active and reserve component populations of the US Armed Forces reflect parallel findings.⁷ Keratinocyte carcinomas could be considered largely preventable, as most are the result of UVR exposure.¹ Additionally, it has been suggested that the vast majority of mutations in melanoma skin cancers (up to 86%) are caused by UVR exposure.⁸

Prevention

United States–based national public health services such as the American Cancer Society, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Dermatology embrace photoprotection as the central practice in reducing risk factors for skin cancers. Guidelines put forth by these and other national preventive medical institutions specifically recommend the use of wide-brimmed hats as the best option for protection of the face, head, ears, and neck, in addition to more common recommendations such as seeking shade, avoiding sunlight during peak hours of the day, and using sunscreen.^1-3 At state and local levels, policies should be adapted from these recommendations to support protective practices and skin cancer education that begins early for school-aged children. Unfortunately, in some school districts, wearing hats of any kind may be perceived as disruptive or in some cases baseball hats may be a sign of gang affiliation and are therefore banned in the schoolyard.⁵ The opposite is true in certain parts of the world where sun protection is embraced by the population as a whole, such as Australia where the widely accepted “slip, slop and slap, seek and slide” campaign has extended to some school policymakers who have considered adopting a “no hat, no play” policy.^9,10

Sunscreen use as a primary component of photoprotection has its disadvantages in comparison to wearing protective clothing, as sunscreen cannot be reused and proper usage requires reapplication after swimming, when sweating, and following 2 hours of application.^1-3 The need for reapplication of sunscreen can lead to considerable expense as well as time spent in application and reapplication. Additionally, for individuals who are physically active (eg, operationally engaged service members, outdoor athletes), sunscreen applied to the face may become a hindrance to function, as it may drip or enter the eyes with excessive sweating, possibly impairing vision. Some individuals may be averse to applying lotions or creams to the skin in general, as they do not prefer the textural changes or appearance of the skin after application. The application of sunscreen also could impair use of lifesaving military gear (eg, gas masks, helmets) from fitting or securing appropriately.

Patient Education

From a military perspective, a review of a recent targeted pilot study in which skin cancer patients at a US Veterans Administration hospital were surveyed on personal knowledge of UVR protection showed that respondents who had a history of skin cancer diagnosis did not feel that they had ever been at an increased risk for skin cancers and did not receive skin cancer prevention education during their tours of service. The overwhelming majority of all participants in this study agreed that the military should issue sun-protective clothing and sunscreen to active-duty personnel.¹¹ Another 2015 survey of 356 current US Air Force flight line personnel noted that active-duty service members tend not to use sunscreen when at work or while at home, and 43% of participants reported using no sun-protective methods while working outdoors.¹² Although these studies focused on military personal, the data mirror findings within the general public, as it was shown in a survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that Americans do not fully take advantage of the benefits of UVR protection, specifically with regard to sunscreen use. Little to no usage was correlated with low socioeconomic status, suggesting that a reusable form of protection could be preferred.¹³

Public health initiatives typically promote education on the use of sunscreen in populations that spend a considerable amount of time working outdoors (eg, construction workers, farmers, military personnel); however, we feel emphasis should be placed on the benefits of wearing hats, as the UVR exposure protection they provide does not wear off, is cost effective, does not require reapplication, and has the advantage of being a recyclable and affordable form of photoprotection.

History of the Military-Grade Wide-Brimmed Hat

One military-specific example of a sun-protective hat is the boonie hat, known at the time of its inception as the tropical or hot-weather hat, which first became popular during the Vietnam War. This hat option was initially proposed on April 7, 1966, when it was realized that a full-brimmed field hat was needed to protect soldiers’ faces and necks from rain and sun in harsh tropical climates.¹⁴ Unfortunately, despite the protective advantages of this style of head covering and favorable support from service members themselves, the boonie hat was not widely accepted, as commanders disliked its “unmilitary appearance.” Fervent protests by units throughout Vietnam eventually led to a compromise in policy that allowed unit-level commanders to authorize the use of boonie hats for units in combat or combat support field operations.¹⁴ Today, the boonie hat continues to garnish mixed emotions from unit commanders, as wearing this garment often is interpreted as not being in line with an appropriate military appearance, which is similar to the public fashion zeitgeist that also does not openly endorse the use of sun-protective garments. A change in fashion culture and policy (both military and civilian) that promotes sun-protective measures is needed.

Wide-Brimmed Hats Are Superior to Baseball Hats

The distribution of skin cancers across anatomic sites is consistent and proportional with the level and frequency of chronic UVR exposure, with the occurrence of most skin cancers being greatest on the nose, forehead/temples, cheeks/perioral areas, and ears.¹⁵ Additionally, higher incidences of skin cancers have been noted in chronically sun-exposed areas of the head and neck in men versus women. It is thought that hair distribution in these areas may be the causal factor.⁶

Baseball-style hats are worn by all branches of the US military as part of standard training and work duty uniform requirements, primarily for the sake of tradition by maintaining a standard appearance and uniform dress code but also to provide photoprotection to these vulnerable areas of the body. Standard, nonmilitary, baseball-style hats have been shown to provide UV protection factor (UPF) equivalents ranging from 2 to 10 on sites known for the highest levels of exposure.¹⁶ Military “patrol caps,” fashioned similar to the baseball-style hat but constructed from military-grade textiles, provide greater levels of photoprotection with UPF ratings from 35 to 50 and higher depending on the fabric color.¹⁷ Although patrol caps have a favorable UPF rating and are advantageous compared to former military headgear styles (eg, berets), wide-brimmed hats would provide greater overall coverage.^4,6 Studies in school environments also revealed that wide-brimmed hats come out ahead in side-by-side testing against baseball hats and are shown to provide greater photoprotection for the cheeks, chin, ears, and neck.¹⁶

Final Thoughts

The battle to educate the public about adequate photoprotection to prevent skin cancers caused by UVR exposure applies to all providers, both military and civilian. Our ongoing initiatives should not only sustain current practices but should further stress the importance of wearing wide-brimmed hats as a vital part of coverage of the skin and protection from UVR. We must combat the public perception that wearing wide-brimmed hats is a detractor of personal fashion and that instead it is desirable to reduce the risk for skin cancer. The wide-brimmed hat is a simple, reusable, and easily executed recommendation that should be made to all patients, both military and civilian, young and old. In conclusion, by improving patients’ perceptions and acknowledgment of the importance of photoprotection as well as making a concerted effort to integrate our knowledge in the fashion industry, in policies at schools, in the military, and in popular culture, we will undoubtedly come to agree that it is not unfashionable to wear a wide-brimmed hat, but it is unfashionable to risk developing skin cancer.

Photoprotection is the foundation of all skin cancer prevention, as UV radiation (UVR) exposure is the only known modifiable risk factor for skin cancer. With the majority of UVR exposure–induced skin cancers found on the scalp, ears, face, and neck, public health initiatives call for wise choices in personal fashion that emphasize the importance of covering these areas.^1-3 From a science of fashion perspective, research has shown that wide-brimmed hats provide better means of ensuring the largest area of coverage compared to standard baseball-style hats.⁴ Thus, for maximum protection, wide-brimmed hats should be favored. However, in academic and military settings, individual style is not optional and is instead influenced or directed by policy, which may not be aligned with the goal of providing photoprotection and raises additional concern for individuals working in environments with longer periods of peak daylight UVR exposure.

In all military branches, service members don uniforms that include head coverage when operating outdoors; however, the choice of headgear is not always aimed at reducing UVR exposure. Similarly, in our counterpart civilian populations, wearing hats that provide the best photoprotection may be influenced by school policies, which frequently mandate clothing choices for children, or by the press or fashion industry in the general public, which might portray sun-protective garments as unfashionable or in some cases threatening if perceived as demonstrating gang affiliation.⁵ This article serves to encourage health care providers to not only discuss the use of sunscreen when educating patients on sun protection but also to emphasize the benefits of wearing photoprotective garments, particularly wide-brimmed hats given their simplicity, reusability, and affordability. Hat use is particularly important for men with comorbid androgenetic alopecia.⁶

Skin Cancer Risk

Unfortunately, the incidence of most common types of skin cancer, specifically nonmelanoma skin cancers such basal cell carcinomas and squamous cell carcinomas (ie, keratinocyte carcinomas [KCs]), is difficult to estimate properly, as these cases are not required to be reported to worldwide cancer registries. However, more than 5.4 million cases of skin cancers were diagnosed among 3.3 million Americans in 2016, with an estimated 13,650 deaths associated with skin cancers (not including KCs).³ Tracking and data analyses of cases diagnosed in the active and reserve component populations of the US Armed Forces reflect parallel findings.⁷ Keratinocyte carcinomas could be considered largely preventable, as most are the result of UVR exposure.¹ Additionally, it has been suggested that the vast majority of mutations in melanoma skin cancers (up to 86%) are caused by UVR exposure.⁸

Prevention

United States–based national public health services such as the American Cancer Society, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Academy of Dermatology embrace photoprotection as the central practice in reducing risk factors for skin cancers. Guidelines put forth by these and other national preventive medical institutions specifically recommend the use of wide-brimmed hats as the best option for protection of the face, head, ears, and neck, in addition to more common recommendations such as seeking shade, avoiding sunlight during peak hours of the day, and using sunscreen.^1-3 At state and local levels, policies should be adapted from these recommendations to support protective practices and skin cancer education that begins early for school-aged children. Unfortunately, in some school districts, wearing hats of any kind may be perceived as disruptive or in some cases baseball hats may be a sign of gang affiliation and are therefore banned in the schoolyard.⁵ The opposite is true in certain parts of the world where sun protection is embraced by the population as a whole, such as Australia where the widely accepted “slip, slop and slap, seek and slide” campaign has extended to some school policymakers who have considered adopting a “no hat, no play” policy.^9,10

Sunscreen use as a primary component of photoprotection has its disadvantages in comparison to wearing protective clothing, as sunscreen cannot be reused and proper usage requires reapplication after swimming, when sweating, and following 2 hours of application.^1-3 The need for reapplication of sunscreen can lead to considerable expense as well as time spent in application and reapplication. Additionally, for individuals who are physically active (eg, operationally engaged service members, outdoor athletes), sunscreen applied to the face may become a hindrance to function, as it may drip or enter the eyes with excessive sweating, possibly impairing vision. Some individuals may be averse to applying lotions or creams to the skin in general, as they do not prefer the textural changes or appearance of the skin after application. The application of sunscreen also could impair use of lifesaving military gear (eg, gas masks, helmets) from fitting or securing appropriately.

Patient Education

From a military perspective, a review of a recent targeted pilot study in which skin cancer patients at a US Veterans Administration hospital were surveyed on personal knowledge of UVR protection showed that respondents who had a history of skin cancer diagnosis did not feel that they had ever been at an increased risk for skin cancers and did not receive skin cancer prevention education during their tours of service. The overwhelming majority of all participants in this study agreed that the military should issue sun-protective clothing and sunscreen to active-duty personnel.¹¹ Another 2015 survey of 356 current US Air Force flight line personnel noted that active-duty service members tend not to use sunscreen when at work or while at home, and 43% of participants reported using no sun-protective methods while working outdoors.¹² Although these studies focused on military personal, the data mirror findings within the general public, as it was shown in a survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that Americans do not fully take advantage of the benefits of UVR protection, specifically with regard to sunscreen use. Little to no usage was correlated with low socioeconomic status, suggesting that a reusable form of protection could be preferred.¹³

Public health initiatives typically promote education on the use of sunscreen in populations that spend a considerable amount of time working outdoors (eg, construction workers, farmers, military personnel); however, we feel emphasis should be placed on the benefits of wearing hats, as the UVR exposure protection they provide does not wear off, is cost effective, does not require reapplication, and has the advantage of being a recyclable and affordable form of photoprotection.

History of the Military-Grade Wide-Brimmed Hat

One military-specific example of a sun-protective hat is the boonie hat, known at the time of its inception as the tropical or hot-weather hat, which first became popular during the Vietnam War. This hat option was initially proposed on April 7, 1966, when it was realized that a full-brimmed field hat was needed to protect soldiers’ faces and necks from rain and sun in harsh tropical climates.¹⁴ Unfortunately, despite the protective advantages of this style of head covering and favorable support from service members themselves, the boonie hat was not widely accepted, as commanders disliked its “unmilitary appearance.” Fervent protests by units throughout Vietnam eventually led to a compromise in policy that allowed unit-level commanders to authorize the use of boonie hats for units in combat or combat support field operations.¹⁴ Today, the boonie hat continues to garnish mixed emotions from unit commanders, as wearing this garment often is interpreted as not being in line with an appropriate military appearance, which is similar to the public fashion zeitgeist that also does not openly endorse the use of sun-protective garments. A change in fashion culture and policy (both military and civilian) that promotes sun-protective measures is needed.

Wide-Brimmed Hats Are Superior to Baseball Hats

The distribution of skin cancers across anatomic sites is consistent and proportional with the level and frequency of chronic UVR exposure, with the occurrence of most skin cancers being greatest on the nose, forehead/temples, cheeks/perioral areas, and ears.¹⁵ Additionally, higher incidences of skin cancers have been noted in chronically sun-exposed areas of the head and neck in men versus women. It is thought that hair distribution in these areas may be the causal factor.⁶

Baseball-style hats are worn by all branches of the US military as part of standard training and work duty uniform requirements, primarily for the sake of tradition by maintaining a standard appearance and uniform dress code but also to provide photoprotection to these vulnerable areas of the body. Standard, nonmilitary, baseball-style hats have been shown to provide UV protection factor (UPF) equivalents ranging from 2 to 10 on sites known for the highest levels of exposure.¹⁶ Military “patrol caps,” fashioned similar to the baseball-style hat but constructed from military-grade textiles, provide greater levels of photoprotection with UPF ratings from 35 to 50 and higher depending on the fabric color.¹⁷ Although patrol caps have a favorable UPF rating and are advantageous compared to former military headgear styles (eg, berets), wide-brimmed hats would provide greater overall coverage.^4,6 Studies in school environments also revealed that wide-brimmed hats come out ahead in side-by-side testing against baseball hats and are shown to provide greater photoprotection for the cheeks, chin, ears, and neck.¹⁶

Final Thoughts

The battle to educate the public about adequate photoprotection to prevent skin cancers caused by UVR exposure applies to all providers, both military and civilian. Our ongoing initiatives should not only sustain current practices but should further stress the importance of wearing wide-brimmed hats as a vital part of coverage of the skin and protection from UVR. We must combat the public perception that wearing wide-brimmed hats is a detractor of personal fashion and that instead it is desirable to reduce the risk for skin cancer. The wide-brimmed hat is a simple, reusable, and easily executed recommendation that should be made to all patients, both military and civilian, young and old. In conclusion, by improving patients’ perceptions and acknowledgment of the importance of photoprotection as well as making a concerted effort to integrate our knowledge in the fashion industry, in policies at schools, in the military, and in popular culture, we will undoubtedly come to agree that it is not unfashionable to wear a wide-brimmed hat, but it is unfashionable to risk developing skin cancer.