Commentary

More on climate change and mental health

Your recent editorial (“A toxic and fractured political system can breed angst and PTSD” Current Psychiatry, September 2023, p. 11-12,28-28b, doi:10.12788/cp.0393) warned of a toxic and fractured political system and suggested a potential healing role for our psychiatric profession. However, I believe this critically important message was then summarily undermined in the article “Climate change and mental illness: What psychiatrists can do” (Current Psychiatry, September 2023, p. 32-39, doi:10.12788/cp.0389), which was published in the same issue. The latter article addressed the psychiatric concerns associated with climate change and suggested how psychiatrists can contribute to addressing these issues. While I appreciate the authors’ efforts to shed light on this critical topic, I believe it is essential to offer an alternative perspective that may foster a more balanced discussion.

The article suggested that psychiatrists are unequivocally tasked with managing the psychological aftermath of climate-related disasters. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that this is an assumption and lacks empirical evidence. I concur with the authors’ recognition of the grave environmental concerns posed by pollution, but it is valid to question the extent to which these concerns are fueled by mass hysteria, exacerbated by articles such as this one. Climate change undoubtedly is a multifaceted issue at times exploited for political purposes. As a result, terms such as “climate change denialism” are warped expressions that polarize the public even further, hindering constructive dialogue. Rather than denying the issue at hand, I am advocating for environmentally friendly solutions that do not come at the cost of manipulating public sentiment for political gain.

Additionally, I would argue trauma often does not arise from climate change itself, but instead from the actions of misguided radical environmentalist policy that unwittingly can cause more harm than good. The devastating destruction in Maui is a case in point. The article focuses on climate change as a cause of nihilism in this country; however, there is serious need to explore broader sociological issues that underlie this sense of nihilism and lack of life meaning, especially in the young.

It is essential to engage in a balanced and evidence-based discussion regarding climate change and its potential mental health implications. While some concerns the authors raised are valid, it is equally important to avoid fomenting hysteria and consider alternative perspectives that may help bridge gaps in understanding and unite us in effectively addressing this global challenge.

Robert Barris, MD
Flushing, New York

I want to send my appreciation for publishing in the same issue your editorial “A toxic and fractured political system can breed angst and PTSD” and the article “Climate change and mental illness: What psychiatrists can do.” I believe the issues addressed are important and belong in the mainstream of current psychiatric discussion.

Regarding the differing views of optimists and pessimists, I agree that narrative is bound for destruction. Because of that, several months ago I decided to deliberately cultivate and maintain a sense of optimism while knowing the facts! I believe that stance is the only one that strategically can lead towards progress.

I also want to comment on the “religification” of politics. While I believe secular religions exist, I also believe what we are currently seeing in the United States is not the rise of secular religions, but instead an attempt to insert extreme religious beliefs into politics while using language to create the illusion that the Constitution’s barrier against the merging of church and state is not being breached. I don’t think we are seeing secular religion, but God-based religion masking as secular religion.

Michael A. Kalm, MD
Salt Lake City, Utah

I am writing in reference to “Burnout among surgeons: Lessons for psychiatrists” (Current Psychiatry, August 2023, p. 23-27,34-35,35a-35c, doi:10.12788/cp.0383). I have spent the last 8 years caring primarily for medical students and residents from osteopathic and allopathic medical schools. While I have collected data on rates of depression, anxiety, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and stress, this article hit upon a more nuanced set of observations. I ask every new person at the time of intake about which specialty interests them. Most new patients I see are not interested in the surgical specialties. I recognize that this is anecdotal evidence, but it is pertinent. How and why is the burnout rate so high among surgeons? We know physicians have high rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide. But I wonder if this is even more of a problem among surgeons (beginning when these individuals enter medical school). The path to seeking mental health care is unfortunately ridden with barriers, including stigma, cost, and confidentiality concerns. Are these barriers even more problematic in those who self-select into the surgical subspecialities? In other words: Do medical students interested in surgery struggle to attend to their mental health even more so than the average medical student? If so, why?

It would behoove institutions to teach methods to mitigate burnout starting with first-year medical students instead of waiting until the increased stress, workload, and responsibility of their intern year. Knowing there is a potential negative downstream effect on patient care, in addition to the negative personal and professional impact on surgeons, is significant. By taking the time to engage all medical students in confidential, affordable, accessible mental health care, institutions would not only decrease burnout in this population of physicians but decrease the likelihood of negative outcomes in patient care.

Elina Maymind, MD
Mt. Laurel, New Jersey

More on climate change and mental health

Your recent editorial (“A toxic and fractured political system can breed angst and PTSD” Current Psychiatry, September 2023, p. 11-12,28-28b, doi:10.12788/cp.0393) warned of a toxic and fractured political system and suggested a potential healing role for our psychiatric profession. However, I believe this critically important message was then summarily undermined in the article “Climate change and mental illness: What psychiatrists can do” (Current Psychiatry, September 2023, p. 32-39, doi:10.12788/cp.0389), which was published in the same issue. The latter article addressed the psychiatric concerns associated with climate change and suggested how psychiatrists can contribute to addressing these issues. While I appreciate the authors’ efforts to shed light on this critical topic, I believe it is essential to offer an alternative perspective that may foster a more balanced discussion.

The article suggested that psychiatrists are unequivocally tasked with managing the psychological aftermath of climate-related disasters. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that this is an assumption and lacks empirical evidence. I concur with the authors’ recognition of the grave environmental concerns posed by pollution, but it is valid to question the extent to which these concerns are fueled by mass hysteria, exacerbated by articles such as this one. Climate change undoubtedly is a multifaceted issue at times exploited for political purposes. As a result, terms such as “climate change denialism” are warped expressions that polarize the public even further, hindering constructive dialogue. Rather than denying the issue at hand, I am advocating for environmentally friendly solutions that do not come at the cost of manipulating public sentiment for political gain.

Additionally, I would argue trauma often does not arise from climate change itself, but instead from the actions of misguided radical environmentalist policy that unwittingly can cause more harm than good. The devastating destruction in Maui is a case in point. The article focuses on climate change as a cause of nihilism in this country; however, there is serious need to explore broader sociological issues that underlie this sense of nihilism and lack of life meaning, especially in the young.

It is essential to engage in a balanced and evidence-based discussion regarding climate change and its potential mental health implications. While some concerns the authors raised are valid, it is equally important to avoid fomenting hysteria and consider alternative perspectives that may help bridge gaps in understanding and unite us in effectively addressing this global challenge.

Robert Barris, MD
Flushing, New York

I want to send my appreciation for publishing in the same issue your editorial “A toxic and fractured political system can breed angst and PTSD” and the article “Climate change and mental illness: What psychiatrists can do.” I believe the issues addressed are important and belong in the mainstream of current psychiatric discussion.

Regarding the differing views of optimists and pessimists, I agree that narrative is bound for destruction. Because of that, several months ago I decided to deliberately cultivate and maintain a sense of optimism while knowing the facts! I believe that stance is the only one that strategically can lead towards progress.

I also want to comment on the “religification” of politics. While I believe secular religions exist, I also believe what we are currently seeing in the United States is not the rise of secular religions, but instead an attempt to insert extreme religious beliefs into politics while using language to create the illusion that the Constitution’s barrier against the merging of church and state is not being breached. I don’t think we are seeing secular religion, but God-based religion masking as secular religion.

Michael A. Kalm, MD
Salt Lake City, Utah

I am writing in reference to “Burnout among surgeons: Lessons for psychiatrists” (Current Psychiatry, August 2023, p. 23-27,34-35,35a-35c, doi:10.12788/cp.0383). I have spent the last 8 years caring primarily for medical students and residents from osteopathic and allopathic medical schools. While I have collected data on rates of depression, anxiety, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and stress, this article hit upon a more nuanced set of observations. I ask every new person at the time of intake about which specialty interests them. Most new patients I see are not interested in the surgical specialties. I recognize that this is anecdotal evidence, but it is pertinent. How and why is the burnout rate so high among surgeons? We know physicians have high rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide. But I wonder if this is even more of a problem among surgeons (beginning when these individuals enter medical school). The path to seeking mental health care is unfortunately ridden with barriers, including stigma, cost, and confidentiality concerns. Are these barriers even more problematic in those who self-select into the surgical subspecialities? In other words: Do medical students interested in surgery struggle to attend to their mental health even more so than the average medical student? If so, why?

It would behoove institutions to teach methods to mitigate burnout starting with first-year medical students instead of waiting until the increased stress, workload, and responsibility of their intern year. Knowing there is a potential negative downstream effect on patient care, in addition to the negative personal and professional impact on surgeons, is significant. By taking the time to engage all medical students in confidential, affordable, accessible mental health care, institutions would not only decrease burnout in this population of physicians but decrease the likelihood of negative outcomes in patient care.

Elina Maymind, MD
Mt. Laurel, New Jersey

More on climate change and mental health

Your recent editorial (“A toxic and fractured political system can breed angst and PTSD” Current Psychiatry, September 2023, p. 11-12,28-28b, doi:10.12788/cp.0393) warned of a toxic and fractured political system and suggested a potential healing role for our psychiatric profession. However, I believe this critically important message was then summarily undermined in the article “Climate change and mental illness: What psychiatrists can do” (Current Psychiatry, September 2023, p. 32-39, doi:10.12788/cp.0389), which was published in the same issue. The latter article addressed the psychiatric concerns associated with climate change and suggested how psychiatrists can contribute to addressing these issues. While I appreciate the authors’ efforts to shed light on this critical topic, I believe it is essential to offer an alternative perspective that may foster a more balanced discussion.

The article suggested that psychiatrists are unequivocally tasked with managing the psychological aftermath of climate-related disasters. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that this is an assumption and lacks empirical evidence. I concur with the authors’ recognition of the grave environmental concerns posed by pollution, but it is valid to question the extent to which these concerns are fueled by mass hysteria, exacerbated by articles such as this one. Climate change undoubtedly is a multifaceted issue at times exploited for political purposes. As a result, terms such as “climate change denialism” are warped expressions that polarize the public even further, hindering constructive dialogue. Rather than denying the issue at hand, I am advocating for environmentally friendly solutions that do not come at the cost of manipulating public sentiment for political gain.

Additionally, I would argue trauma often does not arise from climate change itself, but instead from the actions of misguided radical environmentalist policy that unwittingly can cause more harm than good. The devastating destruction in Maui is a case in point. The article focuses on climate change as a cause of nihilism in this country; however, there is serious need to explore broader sociological issues that underlie this sense of nihilism and lack of life meaning, especially in the young.

It is essential to engage in a balanced and evidence-based discussion regarding climate change and its potential mental health implications. While some concerns the authors raised are valid, it is equally important to avoid fomenting hysteria and consider alternative perspectives that may help bridge gaps in understanding and unite us in effectively addressing this global challenge.

Robert Barris, MD
Flushing, New York

I want to send my appreciation for publishing in the same issue your editorial “A toxic and fractured political system can breed angst and PTSD” and the article “Climate change and mental illness: What psychiatrists can do.” I believe the issues addressed are important and belong in the mainstream of current psychiatric discussion.

Regarding the differing views of optimists and pessimists, I agree that narrative is bound for destruction. Because of that, several months ago I decided to deliberately cultivate and maintain a sense of optimism while knowing the facts! I believe that stance is the only one that strategically can lead towards progress.

I also want to comment on the “religification” of politics. While I believe secular religions exist, I also believe what we are currently seeing in the United States is not the rise of secular religions, but instead an attempt to insert extreme religious beliefs into politics while using language to create the illusion that the Constitution’s barrier against the merging of church and state is not being breached. I don’t think we are seeing secular religion, but God-based religion masking as secular religion.

Michael A. Kalm, MD
Salt Lake City, Utah

I am writing in reference to “Burnout among surgeons: Lessons for psychiatrists” (Current Psychiatry, August 2023, p. 23-27,34-35,35a-35c, doi:10.12788/cp.0383). I have spent the last 8 years caring primarily for medical students and residents from osteopathic and allopathic medical schools. While I have collected data on rates of depression, anxiety, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and stress, this article hit upon a more nuanced set of observations. I ask every new person at the time of intake about which specialty interests them. Most new patients I see are not interested in the surgical specialties. I recognize that this is anecdotal evidence, but it is pertinent. How and why is the burnout rate so high among surgeons? We know physicians have high rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide. But I wonder if this is even more of a problem among surgeons (beginning when these individuals enter medical school). The path to seeking mental health care is unfortunately ridden with barriers, including stigma, cost, and confidentiality concerns. Are these barriers even more problematic in those who self-select into the surgical subspecialities? In other words: Do medical students interested in surgery struggle to attend to their mental health even more so than the average medical student? If so, why?

It would behoove institutions to teach methods to mitigate burnout starting with first-year medical students instead of waiting until the increased stress, workload, and responsibility of their intern year. Knowing there is a potential negative downstream effect on patient care, in addition to the negative personal and professional impact on surgeons, is significant. By taking the time to engage all medical students in confidential, affordable, accessible mental health care, institutions would not only decrease burnout in this population of physicians but decrease the likelihood of negative outcomes in patient care.

Elina Maymind, MD
Mt. Laurel, New Jersey

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry . All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style. For more information, contact [email protected].

We appreciated Dr. Nasrallah’s recent editorial¹ that implicated smartphones, social media, and video game addiction, combined with the pandemic, in causing default mode network (DMN) dysfunction. The United States Surgeon General’s May 2023 report echoed these concerns and recommended limiting the use of these platforms.² While devices are accelerants on a raging fire of mental illness, we observe a more insidious etiology that kindled the flame long before the proliferation of social media use during the pandemic. I (MZP) call this the “borderlinization” of society.

Imagine living somewhere in America that time had forgotten, where youth did not use smartphones and social media or play video games, and throughout the pandemic, people continued to congregate and socialize. These are the religious enclaves throughout New York and New Jersey that we (MZP and RLP) serve. Yet if devices were predominantly to blame for the contemporary mental health crisis, we would not expect the growing mental health problems we encounter. So, what is going on?

Over the past decade, mental health awareness has permeated all institutions of education, media, business, and government, which has increased compassion for marginalized groups. Consequently, people who may have previously silently suffered have become encouraged and supported in seeking help. That is good news. The bad news is that we have also come to pathologize, label, and attempt to treat nearly all of life’s struggles, and have been exporting mental disease around the world.³ We are losing the sense of “normal” when more than one-half of all Americans will receive a DSM diagnosis in their lifetime.⁴

Traits of borderline personality disorder (BPD)—such as abandonment fears, unstable relationships, identity disturbance, affective instability, emptiness, anger, mistrust, and dissociation⁵—that previously were seen less often are now more commonplace among our patients. These patients’ therapists have “validated” their “victimization” of “microaggressions” such that they now require “trigger warnings,” “safe spaces,” and psychiatric “diagnosis and treatment” to be able to function “normally.” These developments have also positioned parents, educators, employers, and psychiatrists, who may share “power and privilege,” to “walk on eggshells” so as not to offend newfound hypersensitivities. Interestingly, the DMN may be a major, reversible driver in BPD,⁶ a possible final common pathway that is further impaired by devices starting to creep into our communities and amplify the dysfunction.

Beyond treating individual patients, we must consider mandating time away from devices to nourish our DMN. During a 25-hour period each week, we (MZP and RLP) unplug from all forms of work and electronics, remember the past, consider the future, reflect on self and others, connect with nature, meditate, and eat mindfully—all of which are DMN functions. We call it Shabbat, which people have observed for thousands of years to process the week before and rejuvenate for the week ahead. Excluding smartphones from school premises has also been helpful⁷ and could be implemented as a nationwide commitment to the developing brains of our youth. Finally, we need to look to our profession to promote resilience over dependence, distress tolerance over avoidance, and empathic communication over “cancellation” to help heal a divisive society.

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry . All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style. For more information, contact [email protected].

We appreciated Dr. Nasrallah’s recent editorial¹ that implicated smartphones, social media, and video game addiction, combined with the pandemic, in causing default mode network (DMN) dysfunction. The United States Surgeon General’s May 2023 report echoed these concerns and recommended limiting the use of these platforms.² While devices are accelerants on a raging fire of mental illness, we observe a more insidious etiology that kindled the flame long before the proliferation of social media use during the pandemic. I (MZP) call this the “borderlinization” of society.

Imagine living somewhere in America that time had forgotten, where youth did not use smartphones and social media or play video games, and throughout the pandemic, people continued to congregate and socialize. These are the religious enclaves throughout New York and New Jersey that we (MZP and RLP) serve. Yet if devices were predominantly to blame for the contemporary mental health crisis, we would not expect the growing mental health problems we encounter. So, what is going on?

Over the past decade, mental health awareness has permeated all institutions of education, media, business, and government, which has increased compassion for marginalized groups. Consequently, people who may have previously silently suffered have become encouraged and supported in seeking help. That is good news. The bad news is that we have also come to pathologize, label, and attempt to treat nearly all of life’s struggles, and have been exporting mental disease around the world.³ We are losing the sense of “normal” when more than one-half of all Americans will receive a DSM diagnosis in their lifetime.⁴

Traits of borderline personality disorder (BPD)—such as abandonment fears, unstable relationships, identity disturbance, affective instability, emptiness, anger, mistrust, and dissociation⁵—that previously were seen less often are now more commonplace among our patients. These patients’ therapists have “validated” their “victimization” of “microaggressions” such that they now require “trigger warnings,” “safe spaces,” and psychiatric “diagnosis and treatment” to be able to function “normally.” These developments have also positioned parents, educators, employers, and psychiatrists, who may share “power and privilege,” to “walk on eggshells” so as not to offend newfound hypersensitivities. Interestingly, the DMN may be a major, reversible driver in BPD,⁶ a possible final common pathway that is further impaired by devices starting to creep into our communities and amplify the dysfunction.

Beyond treating individual patients, we must consider mandating time away from devices to nourish our DMN. During a 25-hour period each week, we (MZP and RLP) unplug from all forms of work and electronics, remember the past, consider the future, reflect on self and others, connect with nature, meditate, and eat mindfully—all of which are DMN functions. We call it Shabbat, which people have observed for thousands of years to process the week before and rejuvenate for the week ahead. Excluding smartphones from school premises has also been helpful⁷ and could be implemented as a nationwide commitment to the developing brains of our youth. Finally, we need to look to our profession to promote resilience over dependence, distress tolerance over avoidance, and empathic communication over “cancellation” to help heal a divisive society.

Editor’s note: Readers’ Forum is a department for correspondence from readers that is not in response to articles published in Current Psychiatry . All submissions to Readers’ Forum undergo peer review and are subject to editing for length and style. For more information, contact [email protected].

We appreciated Dr. Nasrallah’s recent editorial¹ that implicated smartphones, social media, and video game addiction, combined with the pandemic, in causing default mode network (DMN) dysfunction. The United States Surgeon General’s May 2023 report echoed these concerns and recommended limiting the use of these platforms.² While devices are accelerants on a raging fire of mental illness, we observe a more insidious etiology that kindled the flame long before the proliferation of social media use during the pandemic. I (MZP) call this the “borderlinization” of society.

Imagine living somewhere in America that time had forgotten, where youth did not use smartphones and social media or play video games, and throughout the pandemic, people continued to congregate and socialize. These are the religious enclaves throughout New York and New Jersey that we (MZP and RLP) serve. Yet if devices were predominantly to blame for the contemporary mental health crisis, we would not expect the growing mental health problems we encounter. So, what is going on?

Over the past decade, mental health awareness has permeated all institutions of education, media, business, and government, which has increased compassion for marginalized groups. Consequently, people who may have previously silently suffered have become encouraged and supported in seeking help. That is good news. The bad news is that we have also come to pathologize, label, and attempt to treat nearly all of life’s struggles, and have been exporting mental disease around the world.³ We are losing the sense of “normal” when more than one-half of all Americans will receive a DSM diagnosis in their lifetime.⁴

Traits of borderline personality disorder (BPD)—such as abandonment fears, unstable relationships, identity disturbance, affective instability, emptiness, anger, mistrust, and dissociation⁵—that previously were seen less often are now more commonplace among our patients. These patients’ therapists have “validated” their “victimization” of “microaggressions” such that they now require “trigger warnings,” “safe spaces,” and psychiatric “diagnosis and treatment” to be able to function “normally.” These developments have also positioned parents, educators, employers, and psychiatrists, who may share “power and privilege,” to “walk on eggshells” so as not to offend newfound hypersensitivities. Interestingly, the DMN may be a major, reversible driver in BPD,⁶ a possible final common pathway that is further impaired by devices starting to creep into our communities and amplify the dysfunction.

Beyond treating individual patients, we must consider mandating time away from devices to nourish our DMN. During a 25-hour period each week, we (MZP and RLP) unplug from all forms of work and electronics, remember the past, consider the future, reflect on self and others, connect with nature, meditate, and eat mindfully—all of which are DMN functions. We call it Shabbat, which people have observed for thousands of years to process the week before and rejuvenate for the week ahead. Excluding smartphones from school premises has also been helpful⁷ and could be implemented as a nationwide commitment to the developing brains of our youth. Finally, we need to look to our profession to promote resilience over dependence, distress tolerance over avoidance, and empathic communication over “cancellation” to help heal a divisive society.

Most subjects covered in this column are botanical ingredients used for multiple conditions in topical skin care. The focus this month, though, is a natural agent garnering attention primarily for one indication. Present in many mammals and in various cells in the human body (and particularly highly concentrated in human milk), cysteamine is a stable aminothiol that acts as an antioxidant as a result of the degradation of coenzyme A and is known to play a protective function.¹ Melasma, an acquired recurrent, chronic hyperpigmentary disorder, continues to be a treatment challenge and is often psychologically troublesome for those affected, approximately 90% of whom are women.² Individuals with Fitzpatrick skin types IV and V who reside in regions where UV exposure is likely are particularly prominent among those with melasma.² While triple combination therapy (also known as Kligman’s formula) continues to be the modern gold standard of care for melasma (over the last 30 years),³ cysteamine, a nonmelanocytotoxic molecule, is considered viable for long-term use and safer than the long-time skin-lightening gold standard over several decades, hydroquinone (HQ), which is associated with safety concerns.⁴This month’s column is a review of recent findings on the efficacy and safety of cysteamine for the treatment of melasma.

Toa55/iStock/Getty Images

Recent history and the 2015 study

Prior to 2015, the quick oxidation and malodorous nature of cysteamine rendered it unsuitable for use as a topical agent. However, stabilization efforts resulted in a product that first began to show efficacy that year.⁵

Mansouri et al. conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy of topical cysteamine 5% to treat epidermal melasma in 2015. Over 4 months, 50 volunteers (25 in each group) applied either cysteamine cream or placebo on lesions once nightly. The mean differences at baseline between pigmented and normal skin were 75.2 ± 37 in the cysteamine group and 68.9 ± 31 in the placebo group. Statistically significant differences between the groups were identified at the 2- and 4-month points. At 2 months, the mean differences were 39.7 ± 16.6 in the cysteamine group and 63.8 ± 28.6 in the placebo group; at 4 months, the respective differences were 26.2 ± 16 and 60.7 ± 27.3. Melasma area severity index (MASI) scores were significantly lower in the cysteamine group compared with the placebo group at the end of the study, and investigator global assessment scores and patient questionnaire results revealed substantial comparative efficacy of cysteamine cream.⁶ Topical cysteamine has also demonstrated notable efficacy in treating senile lentigines, which typically do not respond to topical depigmenting products.⁵

Farshi et al. used Dermacatch as a novel measurement tool to ascertain the efficacy of cysteamine cream for treating epidermal melasma in a 2018 report of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with 40 patients. During the 4-month trial, cysteamine cream or placebo was applied nightly before sleep. Investigators measured treatment efficacy through Dermacatch, and Mexameter skin colorimetry, MASI scores, investigator global assessments, and patient questionnaires at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months. Through all measurement methods, cysteamine was found to reduce melanin content of melasma lesions, with Dermacatch performing reliably and comparably to Mexameter.⁷ Since then, cysteamine has been compared to several first-line melasma therapies.
 

Reviews

A 2019 systematic review by Austin et al. of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on topical treatments for melasma identified 35 original RCTs evaluating a wide range of approximately 20 agents. They identified cysteamine, triple combination therapy, and tranexamic acid as the products netting the most robust recommendations. The researchers characterized cysteamine as conferring strong efficacy and reported anticancer activity while triple combination therapy poses the potential risk of ochronosis and tranexamic acid may present the risk for thrombosis. They concluded that more research is necessary, though, to establish the proper concentration and optimal formulation of cysteamine as a frontline therapy.⁸

More reviews have since been published to further clarify where cysteamine stands among the optimal treatments for melasma. In a May 2022 systematic PubMed review of topical agents used to treat melasma, González-Molina et al. identified 80 papers meeting inclusion criteria (double or single blinded, prospective, controlled or RCTs, reviews of literature, and meta-analysis studies), with tranexamic acid and cysteamine among the novel well-tolerated agents. Cysteamine was not associated with any severe adverse effects and is recommended as an adjuvant and maintenance therapy.³

A September 2022 review by Niazi et al. found that while the signaling mechanisms through which cysteamine suppresses melasma are not well understood, the topical application of cysteamine cream is seen as safe and effective alone or in combination with other products to treat melasma.²

A systematic review and meta-analysis reported by Gomes dos Santos-Neto et al. at the end of 2022 considered the efficacy of depigmenting formulations containing 5% cysteamine for treating melasma. The meta-analysis covered six studies, with 120 melasma patients treated. The conclusion was that 5% cysteamine was effective with adverse effects unlikely.⁹

Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute

Cysteamine vs. hydroquinone

In 2020, Lima et al. reported the results of a quasi-randomized, multicenter, evaluator-blinded comparative study of topical 0.56% cysteamine and 4% HQ in 40 women with facial melasma. (Note that this study originally claimed a 5% cysteamine concentration, but a letter to the editor of the International Journal of Dermatology in 2020 disputed this and proved it was 0.56%) For 120 days, volunteers applied either 0.56% cysteamine or 4% HQ nightly. Tinted sunscreen (SPF 50; PPD 19) use was required for all participants. There were no differences in colorimetric evaluations between the groups, both of which showed progressive depigmenting, or in photographic assessments. The HQ group demonstrated greater mean decreases in modified melasma area severity index (mMASI) scores (41% for HQ and 24% for cysteamine at 60 days; 53% for HQ and 38% for cysteamine at 120 days). The investigators observed that while cysteamine was safe, well tolerated, and effective, it was outperformed by HQ in terms of mMASI and melasma quality of life (MELASQoL) scores.¹⁰

Early the next year, results of a randomized, double-blind, single-center study in 20 women, conducted by Nguyen et al. comparing the efficacy of cysteamine cream with HQ for melasma treatment were published. Participants were given either treatment over 16 weeks. Ultimately, five volunteers in the cysteamine group and nine in the HQ group completed the study. There was no statistically significant difference in mMASI scores between the groups. In this notably small study, HQ was tolerated better. The researchers concluded that their findings supported the argument of comparable efficacy between cysteamine and HQ, with further studies needed to establish whether cysteamine would be an appropriate alternative to HQ.¹¹ Notably, HQ was banned by the Food and Drug Administration in 2020 in over-the-counter products.
 

Cysteamine vs. Kligman’s formula

Early in 2021, Karrabi et al. published the results of a randomized, double-blind clinical trial of 50 subjects with epidermal melasma to compare cysteamine 5% with Modified Kligman’s formula. Over 4 months, participants applied once daily either cysteamine cream 5% (15 minutes exposure) or the Modified Kligman’s formula (4% hydroquinone, 0.05% retinoic acid and 0.1% betamethasone) for whole night exposure. At 2 and 4 months, a statistically significant difference in mMASI score was noted, with the percentage decline in mMASI score nearly 9% higher in the cysteamine group. The investigators concluded that cysteamine 5% demonstrated greater efficacy than the Modified Kligman’s formula and was also better tolerated.¹²

Cysteamine vs. tranexamic acid

Later that year, Karrabi et al. published the results of a single-blind, randomized clinical trial assessing the efficacy of tranexamic acid mesotherapy compared with cysteamine 5% cream in 54 melasma patients. For 4 consecutive months, the cysteamine 5% cream group applied the cream on lesions 30 minutes before going to sleep. Every 4 weeks until 2 months, a physician performed tranexamic acid mesotherapy (0.05 mL; 4 mg/mL) on individuals in the tranexamic acid group. The researchers concluded, after measurements using both a Dermacatch device and the mMASI, that neither treatment was significantly better than the other but fewer complications were observed in the cysteamine group.¹³

Safety

In 2022, Sepaskhah et al. assessed the effects of a cysteamine 5% cream and compared it with HQ 4%/ascorbic acid 3% cream for epidermal melasma in a single-blind, randomized controlled trial. Sixty-five of 80 patients completed the study. The difference in mMASI scores after 4 months was not significant between the groups nor was the improvement in quality of life, but the melanin index was significantly lower in the HQ/ascorbic acid group compared with the less substantial reduction for the cysteamine group. Nevertheless, the researchers concluded that cysteamine is a safe and suitable substitute for HQ/ascorbic acid.⁴

Conclusion

In the last decade, cysteamine has been established as a potent depigmenting agent. Its suitability and desirability as a top consideration for melasma treatment also appears to be compelling. More RCTs comparing cysteamine and other topline therapies are warranted, but current evidence shows that cysteamine is an effective and safe therapy for melasma.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as an ecommerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Konar MC et al. J Trop Pediatr. 2020 Apr 1;66(2):129-35.

2. Niazi S et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022 Sep;21(9):3867-75.

3. González-Molina V et al. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2022 May;15(5):19-28.

4. Sepaskhah M et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022 Jul;21(7):2871-8.

5. Desai S et al. J Drugs Dermatol. 2021 Dec 1;20(12):1276-9.

6. Mansouri P et al. Br J Dermatol. 2015 Jul;173(1):209-17.

7. Farshi S et al. J Dermatolog Treat. 2018 Mar;29(2):182-9.

8. Austin E et al. J Drugs Dermatol. 2019 Nov 1;18(11):S1545961619P1156X.

9. Gomes dos Santos-Neto A et al. Dermatol Ther. 2022 Dec;35(12):e15961.

10. Lima PB et al. Int J Dermatol. 2020 Dec;59(12):1531-6.

11. Nguyen J et al. Australas J Dermatol. 2021 Feb;62(1):e41-e46.

12. Karrabi M et al. Skin Res Technol. 2021 Jan;27(1):24-31.

13. Karrabi M et al. Arch Dermatol Res. 2021 Sep;313(7):539-47.

Most subjects covered in this column are botanical ingredients used for multiple conditions in topical skin care. The focus this month, though, is a natural agent garnering attention primarily for one indication. Present in many mammals and in various cells in the human body (and particularly highly concentrated in human milk), cysteamine is a stable aminothiol that acts as an antioxidant as a result of the degradation of coenzyme A and is known to play a protective function.¹ Melasma, an acquired recurrent, chronic hyperpigmentary disorder, continues to be a treatment challenge and is often psychologically troublesome for those affected, approximately 90% of whom are women.² Individuals with Fitzpatrick skin types IV and V who reside in regions where UV exposure is likely are particularly prominent among those with melasma.² While triple combination therapy (also known as Kligman’s formula) continues to be the modern gold standard of care for melasma (over the last 30 years),³ cysteamine, a nonmelanocytotoxic molecule, is considered viable for long-term use and safer than the long-time skin-lightening gold standard over several decades, hydroquinone (HQ), which is associated with safety concerns.⁴This month’s column is a review of recent findings on the efficacy and safety of cysteamine for the treatment of melasma.

Toa55/iStock/Getty Images

Recent history and the 2015 study

Prior to 2015, the quick oxidation and malodorous nature of cysteamine rendered it unsuitable for use as a topical agent. However, stabilization efforts resulted in a product that first began to show efficacy that year.⁵

Mansouri et al. conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy of topical cysteamine 5% to treat epidermal melasma in 2015. Over 4 months, 50 volunteers (25 in each group) applied either cysteamine cream or placebo on lesions once nightly. The mean differences at baseline between pigmented and normal skin were 75.2 ± 37 in the cysteamine group and 68.9 ± 31 in the placebo group. Statistically significant differences between the groups were identified at the 2- and 4-month points. At 2 months, the mean differences were 39.7 ± 16.6 in the cysteamine group and 63.8 ± 28.6 in the placebo group; at 4 months, the respective differences were 26.2 ± 16 and 60.7 ± 27.3. Melasma area severity index (MASI) scores were significantly lower in the cysteamine group compared with the placebo group at the end of the study, and investigator global assessment scores and patient questionnaire results revealed substantial comparative efficacy of cysteamine cream.⁶ Topical cysteamine has also demonstrated notable efficacy in treating senile lentigines, which typically do not respond to topical depigmenting products.⁵

Farshi et al. used Dermacatch as a novel measurement tool to ascertain the efficacy of cysteamine cream for treating epidermal melasma in a 2018 report of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with 40 patients. During the 4-month trial, cysteamine cream or placebo was applied nightly before sleep. Investigators measured treatment efficacy through Dermacatch, and Mexameter skin colorimetry, MASI scores, investigator global assessments, and patient questionnaires at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months. Through all measurement methods, cysteamine was found to reduce melanin content of melasma lesions, with Dermacatch performing reliably and comparably to Mexameter.⁷ Since then, cysteamine has been compared to several first-line melasma therapies.
 

Reviews

A 2019 systematic review by Austin et al. of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on topical treatments for melasma identified 35 original RCTs evaluating a wide range of approximately 20 agents. They identified cysteamine, triple combination therapy, and tranexamic acid as the products netting the most robust recommendations. The researchers characterized cysteamine as conferring strong efficacy and reported anticancer activity while triple combination therapy poses the potential risk of ochronosis and tranexamic acid may present the risk for thrombosis. They concluded that more research is necessary, though, to establish the proper concentration and optimal formulation of cysteamine as a frontline therapy.⁸

More reviews have since been published to further clarify where cysteamine stands among the optimal treatments for melasma. In a May 2022 systematic PubMed review of topical agents used to treat melasma, González-Molina et al. identified 80 papers meeting inclusion criteria (double or single blinded, prospective, controlled or RCTs, reviews of literature, and meta-analysis studies), with tranexamic acid and cysteamine among the novel well-tolerated agents. Cysteamine was not associated with any severe adverse effects and is recommended as an adjuvant and maintenance therapy.³

A September 2022 review by Niazi et al. found that while the signaling mechanisms through which cysteamine suppresses melasma are not well understood, the topical application of cysteamine cream is seen as safe and effective alone or in combination with other products to treat melasma.²

A systematic review and meta-analysis reported by Gomes dos Santos-Neto et al. at the end of 2022 considered the efficacy of depigmenting formulations containing 5% cysteamine for treating melasma. The meta-analysis covered six studies, with 120 melasma patients treated. The conclusion was that 5% cysteamine was effective with adverse effects unlikely.⁹

Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute

Cysteamine vs. hydroquinone

In 2020, Lima et al. reported the results of a quasi-randomized, multicenter, evaluator-blinded comparative study of topical 0.56% cysteamine and 4% HQ in 40 women with facial melasma. (Note that this study originally claimed a 5% cysteamine concentration, but a letter to the editor of the International Journal of Dermatology in 2020 disputed this and proved it was 0.56%) For 120 days, volunteers applied either 0.56% cysteamine or 4% HQ nightly. Tinted sunscreen (SPF 50; PPD 19) use was required for all participants. There were no differences in colorimetric evaluations between the groups, both of which showed progressive depigmenting, or in photographic assessments. The HQ group demonstrated greater mean decreases in modified melasma area severity index (mMASI) scores (41% for HQ and 24% for cysteamine at 60 days; 53% for HQ and 38% for cysteamine at 120 days). The investigators observed that while cysteamine was safe, well tolerated, and effective, it was outperformed by HQ in terms of mMASI and melasma quality of life (MELASQoL) scores.¹⁰

Early the next year, results of a randomized, double-blind, single-center study in 20 women, conducted by Nguyen et al. comparing the efficacy of cysteamine cream with HQ for melasma treatment were published. Participants were given either treatment over 16 weeks. Ultimately, five volunteers in the cysteamine group and nine in the HQ group completed the study. There was no statistically significant difference in mMASI scores between the groups. In this notably small study, HQ was tolerated better. The researchers concluded that their findings supported the argument of comparable efficacy between cysteamine and HQ, with further studies needed to establish whether cysteamine would be an appropriate alternative to HQ.¹¹ Notably, HQ was banned by the Food and Drug Administration in 2020 in over-the-counter products.
 

Cysteamine vs. Kligman’s formula

Early in 2021, Karrabi et al. published the results of a randomized, double-blind clinical trial of 50 subjects with epidermal melasma to compare cysteamine 5% with Modified Kligman’s formula. Over 4 months, participants applied once daily either cysteamine cream 5% (15 minutes exposure) or the Modified Kligman’s formula (4% hydroquinone, 0.05% retinoic acid and 0.1% betamethasone) for whole night exposure. At 2 and 4 months, a statistically significant difference in mMASI score was noted, with the percentage decline in mMASI score nearly 9% higher in the cysteamine group. The investigators concluded that cysteamine 5% demonstrated greater efficacy than the Modified Kligman’s formula and was also better tolerated.¹²

Cysteamine vs. tranexamic acid

Later that year, Karrabi et al. published the results of a single-blind, randomized clinical trial assessing the efficacy of tranexamic acid mesotherapy compared with cysteamine 5% cream in 54 melasma patients. For 4 consecutive months, the cysteamine 5% cream group applied the cream on lesions 30 minutes before going to sleep. Every 4 weeks until 2 months, a physician performed tranexamic acid mesotherapy (0.05 mL; 4 mg/mL) on individuals in the tranexamic acid group. The researchers concluded, after measurements using both a Dermacatch device and the mMASI, that neither treatment was significantly better than the other but fewer complications were observed in the cysteamine group.¹³

Safety

In 2022, Sepaskhah et al. assessed the effects of a cysteamine 5% cream and compared it with HQ 4%/ascorbic acid 3% cream for epidermal melasma in a single-blind, randomized controlled trial. Sixty-five of 80 patients completed the study. The difference in mMASI scores after 4 months was not significant between the groups nor was the improvement in quality of life, but the melanin index was significantly lower in the HQ/ascorbic acid group compared with the less substantial reduction for the cysteamine group. Nevertheless, the researchers concluded that cysteamine is a safe and suitable substitute for HQ/ascorbic acid.⁴

Conclusion

In the last decade, cysteamine has been established as a potent depigmenting agent. Its suitability and desirability as a top consideration for melasma treatment also appears to be compelling. More RCTs comparing cysteamine and other topline therapies are warranted, but current evidence shows that cysteamine is an effective and safe therapy for melasma.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as an ecommerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Konar MC et al. J Trop Pediatr. 2020 Apr 1;66(2):129-35.

2. Niazi S et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022 Sep;21(9):3867-75.

3. González-Molina V et al. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2022 May;15(5):19-28.

4. Sepaskhah M et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022 Jul;21(7):2871-8.

5. Desai S et al. J Drugs Dermatol. 2021 Dec 1;20(12):1276-9.

6. Mansouri P et al. Br J Dermatol. 2015 Jul;173(1):209-17.

7. Farshi S et al. J Dermatolog Treat. 2018 Mar;29(2):182-9.

8. Austin E et al. J Drugs Dermatol. 2019 Nov 1;18(11):S1545961619P1156X.

9. Gomes dos Santos-Neto A et al. Dermatol Ther. 2022 Dec;35(12):e15961.

10. Lima PB et al. Int J Dermatol. 2020 Dec;59(12):1531-6.

11. Nguyen J et al. Australas J Dermatol. 2021 Feb;62(1):e41-e46.

12. Karrabi M et al. Skin Res Technol. 2021 Jan;27(1):24-31.

13. Karrabi M et al. Arch Dermatol Res. 2021 Sep;313(7):539-47.

Most subjects covered in this column are botanical ingredients used for multiple conditions in topical skin care. The focus this month, though, is a natural agent garnering attention primarily for one indication. Present in many mammals and in various cells in the human body (and particularly highly concentrated in human milk), cysteamine is a stable aminothiol that acts as an antioxidant as a result of the degradation of coenzyme A and is known to play a protective function.¹ Melasma, an acquired recurrent, chronic hyperpigmentary disorder, continues to be a treatment challenge and is often psychologically troublesome for those affected, approximately 90% of whom are women.² Individuals with Fitzpatrick skin types IV and V who reside in regions where UV exposure is likely are particularly prominent among those with melasma.² While triple combination therapy (also known as Kligman’s formula) continues to be the modern gold standard of care for melasma (over the last 30 years),³ cysteamine, a nonmelanocytotoxic molecule, is considered viable for long-term use and safer than the long-time skin-lightening gold standard over several decades, hydroquinone (HQ), which is associated with safety concerns.⁴This month’s column is a review of recent findings on the efficacy and safety of cysteamine for the treatment of melasma.

Toa55/iStock/Getty Images

Recent history and the 2015 study

Prior to 2015, the quick oxidation and malodorous nature of cysteamine rendered it unsuitable for use as a topical agent. However, stabilization efforts resulted in a product that first began to show efficacy that year.⁵

Mansouri et al. conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to assess the efficacy of topical cysteamine 5% to treat epidermal melasma in 2015. Over 4 months, 50 volunteers (25 in each group) applied either cysteamine cream or placebo on lesions once nightly. The mean differences at baseline between pigmented and normal skin were 75.2 ± 37 in the cysteamine group and 68.9 ± 31 in the placebo group. Statistically significant differences between the groups were identified at the 2- and 4-month points. At 2 months, the mean differences were 39.7 ± 16.6 in the cysteamine group and 63.8 ± 28.6 in the placebo group; at 4 months, the respective differences were 26.2 ± 16 and 60.7 ± 27.3. Melasma area severity index (MASI) scores were significantly lower in the cysteamine group compared with the placebo group at the end of the study, and investigator global assessment scores and patient questionnaire results revealed substantial comparative efficacy of cysteamine cream.⁶ Topical cysteamine has also demonstrated notable efficacy in treating senile lentigines, which typically do not respond to topical depigmenting products.⁵

Farshi et al. used Dermacatch as a novel measurement tool to ascertain the efficacy of cysteamine cream for treating epidermal melasma in a 2018 report of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with 40 patients. During the 4-month trial, cysteamine cream or placebo was applied nightly before sleep. Investigators measured treatment efficacy through Dermacatch, and Mexameter skin colorimetry, MASI scores, investigator global assessments, and patient questionnaires at baseline, 2 months, and 4 months. Through all measurement methods, cysteamine was found to reduce melanin content of melasma lesions, with Dermacatch performing reliably and comparably to Mexameter.⁷ Since then, cysteamine has been compared to several first-line melasma therapies.
 

Reviews

A 2019 systematic review by Austin et al. of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on topical treatments for melasma identified 35 original RCTs evaluating a wide range of approximately 20 agents. They identified cysteamine, triple combination therapy, and tranexamic acid as the products netting the most robust recommendations. The researchers characterized cysteamine as conferring strong efficacy and reported anticancer activity while triple combination therapy poses the potential risk of ochronosis and tranexamic acid may present the risk for thrombosis. They concluded that more research is necessary, though, to establish the proper concentration and optimal formulation of cysteamine as a frontline therapy.⁸

More reviews have since been published to further clarify where cysteamine stands among the optimal treatments for melasma. In a May 2022 systematic PubMed review of topical agents used to treat melasma, González-Molina et al. identified 80 papers meeting inclusion criteria (double or single blinded, prospective, controlled or RCTs, reviews of literature, and meta-analysis studies), with tranexamic acid and cysteamine among the novel well-tolerated agents. Cysteamine was not associated with any severe adverse effects and is recommended as an adjuvant and maintenance therapy.³

A September 2022 review by Niazi et al. found that while the signaling mechanisms through which cysteamine suppresses melasma are not well understood, the topical application of cysteamine cream is seen as safe and effective alone or in combination with other products to treat melasma.²

A systematic review and meta-analysis reported by Gomes dos Santos-Neto et al. at the end of 2022 considered the efficacy of depigmenting formulations containing 5% cysteamine for treating melasma. The meta-analysis covered six studies, with 120 melasma patients treated. The conclusion was that 5% cysteamine was effective with adverse effects unlikely.⁹

Baumann Cosmetic & Research Institute

Cysteamine vs. hydroquinone

In 2020, Lima et al. reported the results of a quasi-randomized, multicenter, evaluator-blinded comparative study of topical 0.56% cysteamine and 4% HQ in 40 women with facial melasma. (Note that this study originally claimed a 5% cysteamine concentration, but a letter to the editor of the International Journal of Dermatology in 2020 disputed this and proved it was 0.56%) For 120 days, volunteers applied either 0.56% cysteamine or 4% HQ nightly. Tinted sunscreen (SPF 50; PPD 19) use was required for all participants. There were no differences in colorimetric evaluations between the groups, both of which showed progressive depigmenting, or in photographic assessments. The HQ group demonstrated greater mean decreases in modified melasma area severity index (mMASI) scores (41% for HQ and 24% for cysteamine at 60 days; 53% for HQ and 38% for cysteamine at 120 days). The investigators observed that while cysteamine was safe, well tolerated, and effective, it was outperformed by HQ in terms of mMASI and melasma quality of life (MELASQoL) scores.¹⁰

Early the next year, results of a randomized, double-blind, single-center study in 20 women, conducted by Nguyen et al. comparing the efficacy of cysteamine cream with HQ for melasma treatment were published. Participants were given either treatment over 16 weeks. Ultimately, five volunteers in the cysteamine group and nine in the HQ group completed the study. There was no statistically significant difference in mMASI scores between the groups. In this notably small study, HQ was tolerated better. The researchers concluded that their findings supported the argument of comparable efficacy between cysteamine and HQ, with further studies needed to establish whether cysteamine would be an appropriate alternative to HQ.¹¹ Notably, HQ was banned by the Food and Drug Administration in 2020 in over-the-counter products.
 

Cysteamine vs. Kligman’s formula

Early in 2021, Karrabi et al. published the results of a randomized, double-blind clinical trial of 50 subjects with epidermal melasma to compare cysteamine 5% with Modified Kligman’s formula. Over 4 months, participants applied once daily either cysteamine cream 5% (15 minutes exposure) or the Modified Kligman’s formula (4% hydroquinone, 0.05% retinoic acid and 0.1% betamethasone) for whole night exposure. At 2 and 4 months, a statistically significant difference in mMASI score was noted, with the percentage decline in mMASI score nearly 9% higher in the cysteamine group. The investigators concluded that cysteamine 5% demonstrated greater efficacy than the Modified Kligman’s formula and was also better tolerated.¹²

Cysteamine vs. tranexamic acid

Later that year, Karrabi et al. published the results of a single-blind, randomized clinical trial assessing the efficacy of tranexamic acid mesotherapy compared with cysteamine 5% cream in 54 melasma patients. For 4 consecutive months, the cysteamine 5% cream group applied the cream on lesions 30 minutes before going to sleep. Every 4 weeks until 2 months, a physician performed tranexamic acid mesotherapy (0.05 mL; 4 mg/mL) on individuals in the tranexamic acid group. The researchers concluded, after measurements using both a Dermacatch device and the mMASI, that neither treatment was significantly better than the other but fewer complications were observed in the cysteamine group.¹³

Safety

In 2022, Sepaskhah et al. assessed the effects of a cysteamine 5% cream and compared it with HQ 4%/ascorbic acid 3% cream for epidermal melasma in a single-blind, randomized controlled trial. Sixty-five of 80 patients completed the study. The difference in mMASI scores after 4 months was not significant between the groups nor was the improvement in quality of life, but the melanin index was significantly lower in the HQ/ascorbic acid group compared with the less substantial reduction for the cysteamine group. Nevertheless, the researchers concluded that cysteamine is a safe and suitable substitute for HQ/ascorbic acid.⁴

Conclusion

In the last decade, cysteamine has been established as a potent depigmenting agent. Its suitability and desirability as a top consideration for melasma treatment also appears to be compelling. More RCTs comparing cysteamine and other topline therapies are warranted, but current evidence shows that cysteamine is an effective and safe therapy for melasma.

Dr. Baumann is a private practice dermatologist, researcher, author, and entrepreneur in Miami. She founded the division of cosmetic dermatology at the University of Miami in 1997. The third edition of her bestselling textbook, “Cosmetic Dermatology,” was published in 2022. Dr. Baumann has received funding for advisory boards and/or clinical research trials from Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, and Burt’s Bees. She is the CEO of Skin Type Solutions Inc., a SaaS company used to generate skin care routines in office and as an ecommerce solution. Write to her at [email protected].

References

1. Konar MC et al. J Trop Pediatr. 2020 Apr 1;66(2):129-35.

2. Niazi S et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022 Sep;21(9):3867-75.

3. González-Molina V et al. J Clin Aesthet Dermatol. 2022 May;15(5):19-28.

4. Sepaskhah M et al. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2022 Jul;21(7):2871-8.

5. Desai S et al. J Drugs Dermatol. 2021 Dec 1;20(12):1276-9.

6. Mansouri P et al. Br J Dermatol. 2015 Jul;173(1):209-17.

7. Farshi S et al. J Dermatolog Treat. 2018 Mar;29(2):182-9.

8. Austin E et al. J Drugs Dermatol. 2019 Nov 1;18(11):S1545961619P1156X.

9. Gomes dos Santos-Neto A et al. Dermatol Ther. 2022 Dec;35(12):e15961.

10. Lima PB et al. Int J Dermatol. 2020 Dec;59(12):1531-6.

11. Nguyen J et al. Australas J Dermatol. 2021 Feb;62(1):e41-e46.

12. Karrabi M et al. Skin Res Technol. 2021 Jan;27(1):24-31.

13. Karrabi M et al. Arch Dermatol Res. 2021 Sep;313(7):539-47.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome back to another GI Common Concerns.

Today, I want to highlight some information about menopause.

Approximately 1.5 million women in the United States per year enter into menopause. Hysterectomy is also one of the most common surgeries for women worldwide, with an estimated 20%-40% undergoing this procedure by the age of 60.

Therefore, whether it’s because of biologic onset with age or surgical induction, menopause is a very common condition, and it’s important that we understand its symptoms and the latest information around it.
 

Impact on GI motility

One of the clearest functional symptoms to be aware of with menopause relates to alterations in hormonal balance. This has an impact on gastrointestinal (GI) motility by increasing abdominal muscle stimulation related to different patterns of secretion and can result in a number of symptomatic changes.

One such change that can occur is food intolerance. It is believed that menopause-associated food intolerance has multiple possible causes and may be related more to alterations to the microbiome, which can be contributed to by diet, activity, sleep cycle, and other factors.

When food intolerances are triggered in the perimenopausal or menopausal patient, it may lead you to recommend the well-established FODMAP diet, which is known to reduce symptoms. But the answer for every patient is not simply placing them on a FODMAP diet and telling them they have irritable bowel syndrome.

Other approaches can be considered for addressing food intolerance in these patients. The data are quite strong that adjunctive use of a dietitian is tremendously helpful in this particular population.

When it comes to menopausal patients, however, we need to consider other changes in their activity or adverse contributors to their mental health, such as stress or anxiety. These all contribute to more of a multifactorial composite in this population, for which irritable bowel syndrome serves as a similar example.

This means that we may need to expand our horizons rather than to focus on solely on antispasmodic or diet-related interventions.

Instead, we can start to consider more of a multidimensional treatment approach consisting of education, relaxation, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and physical activity. Certainly, there are now behavioral interventions using Internet-based digital formats to increase the acceptability and sustainability among patients.

Choosing such a multidisciplinary approach can be quite helpful.
 

The metabolic consequences of altering hormonal balance

Recent data from a rat model study investigated the metabolic impact of changing hormonal balance.

Investigators looked at ovariectomized rats and found that there was a biologic change in the diversity of the general GI biome. There were also noteworthy associations with weight fluctuations and dramatic changes in the spatial memory and cognitive performance characteristics of these rats, which was subsequently improved by supplemental estrogen.

This indicates that we may be able to remediate these effects with the similar use of supplemental hormone replacement treatments.

Another recent study looked at nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which is very common in the general population and has a > 20% worldwide prevalence in postmenopausal women. Albeit small in numbers, this was a very interesting study.

Investigators looked at the delivery method for menopausal hormone therapy, which was transdermal for 75 patients and oral for 293 patients. Then, they looked at ultrasound definition of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease after 1 year as the endpoint. They found an approximate 7% reduction in the patients who received the transdermal administration compared with a 4% increase in the patients who received it orally.

Again, we have to remember this is a relatively small study, but the results indicate that the route of estrogen administration may be an important consideration in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
 

Sleep disturbances: fragmentation, duration, and quality

Sleep is something that’s near and dear to my heart and is the focus of a lot of our research.

Sleep disturbances are really part and parcel of menopause and are observed with hormonal imbalances and temperature intolerances. Disturbances such as sleep fragmentation, shorter sleep duration, and poorer sleep quality have a dramatic effect not only on the biome but also on sensory thresholds.

Therefore, as we start to look at mitigating strategies here, we need to focus on sleep and ask the right questions.

In my own practice, I try not to just ask, “How did you sleep last night?” That’s because sleep can be somewhat amnestic. You may have a cognitive awakening or a noncognitive awakening but still have experienced fragmentation.

As a result, my focus is on next-day function. I ask my patients, “When you get up in the morning, are you refreshed? Do you have the ability to perform daytime activities? Do you experience early fatigue or cognitive changes that occur?”

These questions can provide good insights into the sleep efficiency of the previous night.
 

The effect of the microbiome on osteoporosis

One final topic I found very interesting pertains to the effects of menopause on osteoporosis.

We certainly know that postmenopausal women have a very high prevalence of osteopenia, and that osteoporosis is a progression of that, as well as that increased bone-related disease affects fractures and related morbidity and mortality.

However, there’s accumulating evidence on the osteoporotic effects of biomarker changes in menopause, which shows that the biome regulates the pathophysiologic process of at least a large degree of osteoporosis.

This starts to make sense when you look at the pro-inflammatory factors that increase with changes in biome diversity, in particular tumor necrosis factor alpha (which is something we also see in inflammatory bowel disease), interleukin-1, and increased activated osteoclasts.

Therefore, when it comes to decreasing bone loss among patients who are perimenopausal or postmenopausal, we don’t yet have a clear answer. Hormone therapy, diet, activity, vitamin D supplementation, and other things may positively change the biome. They are worthy topics for patients to bring up with their ob.gyns. or primary care doctors.

Although it may be a little bit outside the scope of gastroenterology, in my opinion there are a number of new findings relating to menopause that we as a field need to be more proactive in addressing.

Ask the right questions when these people come in to you, irrespective of why they’re there. Start to ask about the quality of their sleep. What are their other functional symptoms? What are their other potential osteoporosis-related risks?

We must do a better job about individualizing care. Rather than treating patients as disease states, we must start to do specific patient-focused care.

I hope this gives you some provocative thoughts when you have your next session with a patient in the perimenopausal or menopausal state. There are lots of things that we continue to learn.
 

Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Va., and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He serves as an adviser to ISOThrive and Johnson & Johnson.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome back to another GI Common Concerns.

Today, I want to highlight some information about menopause.

Approximately 1.5 million women in the United States per year enter into menopause. Hysterectomy is also one of the most common surgeries for women worldwide, with an estimated 20%-40% undergoing this procedure by the age of 60.

Therefore, whether it’s because of biologic onset with age or surgical induction, menopause is a very common condition, and it’s important that we understand its symptoms and the latest information around it.
 

Impact on GI motility

One of the clearest functional symptoms to be aware of with menopause relates to alterations in hormonal balance. This has an impact on gastrointestinal (GI) motility by increasing abdominal muscle stimulation related to different patterns of secretion and can result in a number of symptomatic changes.

One such change that can occur is food intolerance. It is believed that menopause-associated food intolerance has multiple possible causes and may be related more to alterations to the microbiome, which can be contributed to by diet, activity, sleep cycle, and other factors.

When food intolerances are triggered in the perimenopausal or menopausal patient, it may lead you to recommend the well-established FODMAP diet, which is known to reduce symptoms. But the answer for every patient is not simply placing them on a FODMAP diet and telling them they have irritable bowel syndrome.

Other approaches can be considered for addressing food intolerance in these patients. The data are quite strong that adjunctive use of a dietitian is tremendously helpful in this particular population.

When it comes to menopausal patients, however, we need to consider other changes in their activity or adverse contributors to their mental health, such as stress or anxiety. These all contribute to more of a multifactorial composite in this population, for which irritable bowel syndrome serves as a similar example.

This means that we may need to expand our horizons rather than to focus on solely on antispasmodic or diet-related interventions.

Instead, we can start to consider more of a multidimensional treatment approach consisting of education, relaxation, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and physical activity. Certainly, there are now behavioral interventions using Internet-based digital formats to increase the acceptability and sustainability among patients.

Choosing such a multidisciplinary approach can be quite helpful.
 

The metabolic consequences of altering hormonal balance

Recent data from a rat model study investigated the metabolic impact of changing hormonal balance.

Investigators looked at ovariectomized rats and found that there was a biologic change in the diversity of the general GI biome. There were also noteworthy associations with weight fluctuations and dramatic changes in the spatial memory and cognitive performance characteristics of these rats, which was subsequently improved by supplemental estrogen.

This indicates that we may be able to remediate these effects with the similar use of supplemental hormone replacement treatments.

Another recent study looked at nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which is very common in the general population and has a > 20% worldwide prevalence in postmenopausal women. Albeit small in numbers, this was a very interesting study.

Investigators looked at the delivery method for menopausal hormone therapy, which was transdermal for 75 patients and oral for 293 patients. Then, they looked at ultrasound definition of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease after 1 year as the endpoint. They found an approximate 7% reduction in the patients who received the transdermal administration compared with a 4% increase in the patients who received it orally.

Again, we have to remember this is a relatively small study, but the results indicate that the route of estrogen administration may be an important consideration in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
 

Sleep disturbances: fragmentation, duration, and quality

Sleep is something that’s near and dear to my heart and is the focus of a lot of our research.

Sleep disturbances are really part and parcel of menopause and are observed with hormonal imbalances and temperature intolerances. Disturbances such as sleep fragmentation, shorter sleep duration, and poorer sleep quality have a dramatic effect not only on the biome but also on sensory thresholds.

Therefore, as we start to look at mitigating strategies here, we need to focus on sleep and ask the right questions.

In my own practice, I try not to just ask, “How did you sleep last night?” That’s because sleep can be somewhat amnestic. You may have a cognitive awakening or a noncognitive awakening but still have experienced fragmentation.

As a result, my focus is on next-day function. I ask my patients, “When you get up in the morning, are you refreshed? Do you have the ability to perform daytime activities? Do you experience early fatigue or cognitive changes that occur?”

These questions can provide good insights into the sleep efficiency of the previous night.
 

The effect of the microbiome on osteoporosis

One final topic I found very interesting pertains to the effects of menopause on osteoporosis.

We certainly know that postmenopausal women have a very high prevalence of osteopenia, and that osteoporosis is a progression of that, as well as that increased bone-related disease affects fractures and related morbidity and mortality.

However, there’s accumulating evidence on the osteoporotic effects of biomarker changes in menopause, which shows that the biome regulates the pathophysiologic process of at least a large degree of osteoporosis.

This starts to make sense when you look at the pro-inflammatory factors that increase with changes in biome diversity, in particular tumor necrosis factor alpha (which is something we also see in inflammatory bowel disease), interleukin-1, and increased activated osteoclasts.

Therefore, when it comes to decreasing bone loss among patients who are perimenopausal or postmenopausal, we don’t yet have a clear answer. Hormone therapy, diet, activity, vitamin D supplementation, and other things may positively change the biome. They are worthy topics for patients to bring up with their ob.gyns. or primary care doctors.

Although it may be a little bit outside the scope of gastroenterology, in my opinion there are a number of new findings relating to menopause that we as a field need to be more proactive in addressing.

Ask the right questions when these people come in to you, irrespective of why they’re there. Start to ask about the quality of their sleep. What are their other functional symptoms? What are their other potential osteoporosis-related risks?

We must do a better job about individualizing care. Rather than treating patients as disease states, we must start to do specific patient-focused care.

I hope this gives you some provocative thoughts when you have your next session with a patient in the perimenopausal or menopausal state. There are lots of things that we continue to learn.
 

Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Va., and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He serves as an adviser to ISOThrive and Johnson & Johnson.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

Welcome back to another GI Common Concerns.

Today, I want to highlight some information about menopause.

Approximately 1.5 million women in the United States per year enter into menopause. Hysterectomy is also one of the most common surgeries for women worldwide, with an estimated 20%-40% undergoing this procedure by the age of 60.

Therefore, whether it’s because of biologic onset with age or surgical induction, menopause is a very common condition, and it’s important that we understand its symptoms and the latest information around it.
 

Impact on GI motility

One of the clearest functional symptoms to be aware of with menopause relates to alterations in hormonal balance. This has an impact on gastrointestinal (GI) motility by increasing abdominal muscle stimulation related to different patterns of secretion and can result in a number of symptomatic changes.

One such change that can occur is food intolerance. It is believed that menopause-associated food intolerance has multiple possible causes and may be related more to alterations to the microbiome, which can be contributed to by diet, activity, sleep cycle, and other factors.

When food intolerances are triggered in the perimenopausal or menopausal patient, it may lead you to recommend the well-established FODMAP diet, which is known to reduce symptoms. But the answer for every patient is not simply placing them on a FODMAP diet and telling them they have irritable bowel syndrome.

Other approaches can be considered for addressing food intolerance in these patients. The data are quite strong that adjunctive use of a dietitian is tremendously helpful in this particular population.

When it comes to menopausal patients, however, we need to consider other changes in their activity or adverse contributors to their mental health, such as stress or anxiety. These all contribute to more of a multifactorial composite in this population, for which irritable bowel syndrome serves as a similar example.

This means that we may need to expand our horizons rather than to focus on solely on antispasmodic or diet-related interventions.

Instead, we can start to consider more of a multidimensional treatment approach consisting of education, relaxation, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and physical activity. Certainly, there are now behavioral interventions using Internet-based digital formats to increase the acceptability and sustainability among patients.

Choosing such a multidisciplinary approach can be quite helpful.
 

The metabolic consequences of altering hormonal balance

Recent data from a rat model study investigated the metabolic impact of changing hormonal balance.

Investigators looked at ovariectomized rats and found that there was a biologic change in the diversity of the general GI biome. There were also noteworthy associations with weight fluctuations and dramatic changes in the spatial memory and cognitive performance characteristics of these rats, which was subsequently improved by supplemental estrogen.

This indicates that we may be able to remediate these effects with the similar use of supplemental hormone replacement treatments.

Another recent study looked at nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, which is very common in the general population and has a > 20% worldwide prevalence in postmenopausal women. Albeit small in numbers, this was a very interesting study.

Investigators looked at the delivery method for menopausal hormone therapy, which was transdermal for 75 patients and oral for 293 patients. Then, they looked at ultrasound definition of nonalcoholic fatty liver disease after 1 year as the endpoint. They found an approximate 7% reduction in the patients who received the transdermal administration compared with a 4% increase in the patients who received it orally.

Again, we have to remember this is a relatively small study, but the results indicate that the route of estrogen administration may be an important consideration in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease.
 

Sleep disturbances: fragmentation, duration, and quality

Sleep is something that’s near and dear to my heart and is the focus of a lot of our research.

Sleep disturbances are really part and parcel of menopause and are observed with hormonal imbalances and temperature intolerances. Disturbances such as sleep fragmentation, shorter sleep duration, and poorer sleep quality have a dramatic effect not only on the biome but also on sensory thresholds.

Therefore, as we start to look at mitigating strategies here, we need to focus on sleep and ask the right questions.

In my own practice, I try not to just ask, “How did you sleep last night?” That’s because sleep can be somewhat amnestic. You may have a cognitive awakening or a noncognitive awakening but still have experienced fragmentation.

As a result, my focus is on next-day function. I ask my patients, “When you get up in the morning, are you refreshed? Do you have the ability to perform daytime activities? Do you experience early fatigue or cognitive changes that occur?”

These questions can provide good insights into the sleep efficiency of the previous night.
 

The effect of the microbiome on osteoporosis

One final topic I found very interesting pertains to the effects of menopause on osteoporosis.

We certainly know that postmenopausal women have a very high prevalence of osteopenia, and that osteoporosis is a progression of that, as well as that increased bone-related disease affects fractures and related morbidity and mortality.

However, there’s accumulating evidence on the osteoporotic effects of biomarker changes in menopause, which shows that the biome regulates the pathophysiologic process of at least a large degree of osteoporosis.

This starts to make sense when you look at the pro-inflammatory factors that increase with changes in biome diversity, in particular tumor necrosis factor alpha (which is something we also see in inflammatory bowel disease), interleukin-1, and increased activated osteoclasts.

Therefore, when it comes to decreasing bone loss among patients who are perimenopausal or postmenopausal, we don’t yet have a clear answer. Hormone therapy, diet, activity, vitamin D supplementation, and other things may positively change the biome. They are worthy topics for patients to bring up with their ob.gyns. or primary care doctors.

Although it may be a little bit outside the scope of gastroenterology, in my opinion there are a number of new findings relating to menopause that we as a field need to be more proactive in addressing.

Ask the right questions when these people come in to you, irrespective of why they’re there. Start to ask about the quality of their sleep. What are their other functional symptoms? What are their other potential osteoporosis-related risks?

We must do a better job about individualizing care. Rather than treating patients as disease states, we must start to do specific patient-focused care.

I hope this gives you some provocative thoughts when you have your next session with a patient in the perimenopausal or menopausal state. There are lots of things that we continue to learn.
 

Dr. Johnson is professor of medicine and chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Va., and a past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. He serves as an adviser to ISOThrive and Johnson & Johnson.

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

The rapid expansion of teledermatology in the United States due to the COVID-19 pandemic has been well documented, ¹ but where do we stand now that health care and society as a whole are back to a new version of normal? It is important to consider why telemedicine was able to grow so quickly during that period—the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) unilaterally changed policies related to provision of services and reimbursement thereof due to the public health emergency (PHE), which was declared by the Department of Health and Human Services in January 2020 to provide increased access to care for patients. Under the PHE, reimbursement rates for virtual visits improved, providers could care for patients from their homes and across state lines, and the use of video platforms that were not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant was allowed. ^2,3

The trajectory of teledermatology after the pandemic, however, remains unclear. In a survey assessing dermatologists’ perceptions of telemedicine (N=4356), 97% used telemedicine during the pandemic but only 58% reported that they intended to continue using teledermatology postpandemic,¹ which is driven, at least in part, by the potential concern that dermatologists will again experience the same regulatory and logistical barriers that limited teledermatology utilization prepandemic.

What has changed in reimbursement for teledermatology since the PHE ended?

The PHE ended on May 11, 2023, and already video platforms that were used during the pandemic to provide telemedicine visits but are not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant are now forbidden,² Medicare virtual check-in appointments can only be conducted with established patients,⁴ and medical licensing requirements have been reinstated in most states such that patients must be located in the state where the provider is licensed to practice medicine at the time of a virtual visit.³ Although the CMS was granted wide freedoms to waive and suspend certain rules, this was only in the context of the PHE, and any lasting changes must be established by Congress.

Reassuringly, recent legislation via the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, authorized an extension of many of the CMS telehealth flexibilities that were in place during the PHE through December 31, 2024 (Table),² such as allowing access to telehealth services in any geographic area in the United States rather than only rural areas, allowing patients to stay in their homes for telehealth visits rather than traveling to an approved health care facility, and allowing the delivery of telemedicine via audio-only technology if a patient is unable to use both audio and video. As of now, the place of service (POS) designation for telehealth visits will not revert back to the former code (POS 02) but will remain at POS 11 with the telehealth modifier -95 so physicians will be reimbursed at the full level of a non-facility physician’s office rate.⁴ The CMS has indicated that there will be no change in the reimbursement policy until after December 31, 2023⁴; however, the sense of uncertainty around what happens after this date has made it hard for organizations and practices to fully commit to teledermatology services without knowing what the long-term financial impact may be. Some organizations have already noted that they plan to continue supporting telemedicine after the CMS flexibilities expire. Accountable Care Organizations have the ability to offer services that allow participating practitioners to continue the use of telemedicine visits to expand access to care. Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program policies vary by state and private health insurance policies vary by individual plans, but it should be noted that commercial coverage for telemedicine visits was already strong prior to the pandemic.²

What medical licensing requirements are in place now for telehealth?

During the PHE, medical licensing requirements also were relaxed, enabling providers to deliver telemedicine service in states where they were not licensed.³ As the PHE orders ended, some states including New York discontinued cross-state licensing waivers altogether,⁶ whereas others have enacted legislation to make them permanent or extend them for brief periods of time.^3,6 One potential solution is the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (https://www.imlcc.org/), which includes 39 states as of October 2023. This program expedites the process for physicians already licensed in participating states to obtain their medical license in another participating state, though licensing fees are required for each state in which a physician wants to practice. Furthermore, some states such as North Dakota, Hawaii, and Virginia have licensure by endorsement policies, which enable licensed physicians with specific qualifications to provide telehealth services in the endorsing state. Other states such as Florida, New Jersey, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, and New Mexico have special telehealth registries that allow physicians in good standing who are licensed in other states to deliver telehealth services to in-state residents barring they do not provide in-person, in-state services.⁶ Lastly, some states have temporary practice laws to allow existing patients who need medical attention while traveling out of state to see their home providers virtually or in person under certain circumstances for a limited period of time.^3,5 In Hawaii and New Hampshire, physicians with out-of-state licenses can provide consultative services in some circumstances.⁵

What changes have been made to make it easier for patients to use telehealth?

As the legislation around telemedicine is shifting postpandemic, it is important to address additional logistical barriers to teledermatology on a larger scale if the discipline is to stay in practice. On November 15, 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided $65 billion in funding for broadband to expand access to high-speed internet. Some of this money was allocated to the Affordable Connectivity Program, which provides eligible households with a discount on broadband service and internet-connected devices. Eligible patrons can qualify for a discount of up to $75 per month for internet service and a one-time discount up to $100 on a laptop, desktop computer, or tablet purchased through a participating provider.⁶ Although a step in the right direction, the effects of this program on telemedicine encounters remains to be proven. Additionally, these programs do not address educational barriers to understanding how to utilize telemedicine platforms or provide incentives for practitioners to offer telemedicine services.

Final Thoughts

The pandemic taught our specialty a great deal about how to utilize telemedicine. For many dermatologists a return to in-person business as usual could not come fast enough; however, many practices have continued to offer at least some teledermatology services. Although the PHE waivers have ended, the extension of numerous CMS flexibilities through the end of 2024 allows us more time to develop sustainable policies to support the long-term health of telemedicine as a whole, both to sustain practices and to expand access to care in dermatology. The favorable attitudes of both patients and physicians about teledermatology have been clearly documented,^1,7 and we should continue to safely expand the use of this technology.

The rapid expansion of teledermatology in the United States due to the COVID-19 pandemic has been well documented, ¹ but where do we stand now that health care and society as a whole are back to a new version of normal? It is important to consider why telemedicine was able to grow so quickly during that period—the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) unilaterally changed policies related to provision of services and reimbursement thereof due to the public health emergency (PHE), which was declared by the Department of Health and Human Services in January 2020 to provide increased access to care for patients. Under the PHE, reimbursement rates for virtual visits improved, providers could care for patients from their homes and across state lines, and the use of video platforms that were not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant was allowed. ^2,3

The trajectory of teledermatology after the pandemic, however, remains unclear. In a survey assessing dermatologists’ perceptions of telemedicine (N=4356), 97% used telemedicine during the pandemic but only 58% reported that they intended to continue using teledermatology postpandemic,¹ which is driven, at least in part, by the potential concern that dermatologists will again experience the same regulatory and logistical barriers that limited teledermatology utilization prepandemic.

What has changed in reimbursement for teledermatology since the PHE ended?

The PHE ended on May 11, 2023, and already video platforms that were used during the pandemic to provide telemedicine visits but are not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant are now forbidden,² Medicare virtual check-in appointments can only be conducted with established patients,⁴ and medical licensing requirements have been reinstated in most states such that patients must be located in the state where the provider is licensed to practice medicine at the time of a virtual visit.³ Although the CMS was granted wide freedoms to waive and suspend certain rules, this was only in the context of the PHE, and any lasting changes must be established by Congress.

Reassuringly, recent legislation via the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, authorized an extension of many of the CMS telehealth flexibilities that were in place during the PHE through December 31, 2024 (Table),² such as allowing access to telehealth services in any geographic area in the United States rather than only rural areas, allowing patients to stay in their homes for telehealth visits rather than traveling to an approved health care facility, and allowing the delivery of telemedicine via audio-only technology if a patient is unable to use both audio and video. As of now, the place of service (POS) designation for telehealth visits will not revert back to the former code (POS 02) but will remain at POS 11 with the telehealth modifier -95 so physicians will be reimbursed at the full level of a non-facility physician’s office rate.⁴ The CMS has indicated that there will be no change in the reimbursement policy until after December 31, 2023⁴; however, the sense of uncertainty around what happens after this date has made it hard for organizations and practices to fully commit to teledermatology services without knowing what the long-term financial impact may be. Some organizations have already noted that they plan to continue supporting telemedicine after the CMS flexibilities expire. Accountable Care Organizations have the ability to offer services that allow participating practitioners to continue the use of telemedicine visits to expand access to care. Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program policies vary by state and private health insurance policies vary by individual plans, but it should be noted that commercial coverage for telemedicine visits was already strong prior to the pandemic.²

What medical licensing requirements are in place now for telehealth?

During the PHE, medical licensing requirements also were relaxed, enabling providers to deliver telemedicine service in states where they were not licensed.³ As the PHE orders ended, some states including New York discontinued cross-state licensing waivers altogether,⁶ whereas others have enacted legislation to make them permanent or extend them for brief periods of time.^3,6 One potential solution is the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (https://www.imlcc.org/), which includes 39 states as of October 2023. This program expedites the process for physicians already licensed in participating states to obtain their medical license in another participating state, though licensing fees are required for each state in which a physician wants to practice. Furthermore, some states such as North Dakota, Hawaii, and Virginia have licensure by endorsement policies, which enable licensed physicians with specific qualifications to provide telehealth services in the endorsing state. Other states such as Florida, New Jersey, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, and New Mexico have special telehealth registries that allow physicians in good standing who are licensed in other states to deliver telehealth services to in-state residents barring they do not provide in-person, in-state services.⁶ Lastly, some states have temporary practice laws to allow existing patients who need medical attention while traveling out of state to see their home providers virtually or in person under certain circumstances for a limited period of time.^3,5 In Hawaii and New Hampshire, physicians with out-of-state licenses can provide consultative services in some circumstances.⁵

What changes have been made to make it easier for patients to use telehealth?

As the legislation around telemedicine is shifting postpandemic, it is important to address additional logistical barriers to teledermatology on a larger scale if the discipline is to stay in practice. On November 15, 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided $65 billion in funding for broadband to expand access to high-speed internet. Some of this money was allocated to the Affordable Connectivity Program, which provides eligible households with a discount on broadband service and internet-connected devices. Eligible patrons can qualify for a discount of up to $75 per month for internet service and a one-time discount up to $100 on a laptop, desktop computer, or tablet purchased through a participating provider.⁶ Although a step in the right direction, the effects of this program on telemedicine encounters remains to be proven. Additionally, these programs do not address educational barriers to understanding how to utilize telemedicine platforms or provide incentives for practitioners to offer telemedicine services.

Final Thoughts

The pandemic taught our specialty a great deal about how to utilize telemedicine. For many dermatologists a return to in-person business as usual could not come fast enough; however, many practices have continued to offer at least some teledermatology services. Although the PHE waivers have ended, the extension of numerous CMS flexibilities through the end of 2024 allows us more time to develop sustainable policies to support the long-term health of telemedicine as a whole, both to sustain practices and to expand access to care in dermatology. The favorable attitudes of both patients and physicians about teledermatology have been clearly documented,^1,7 and we should continue to safely expand the use of this technology.

The rapid expansion of teledermatology in the United States due to the COVID-19 pandemic has been well documented, ¹ but where do we stand now that health care and society as a whole are back to a new version of normal? It is important to consider why telemedicine was able to grow so quickly during that period—the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) unilaterally changed policies related to provision of services and reimbursement thereof due to the public health emergency (PHE), which was declared by the Department of Health and Human Services in January 2020 to provide increased access to care for patients. Under the PHE, reimbursement rates for virtual visits improved, providers could care for patients from their homes and across state lines, and the use of video platforms that were not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant was allowed. ^2,3

The trajectory of teledermatology after the pandemic, however, remains unclear. In a survey assessing dermatologists’ perceptions of telemedicine (N=4356), 97% used telemedicine during the pandemic but only 58% reported that they intended to continue using teledermatology postpandemic,¹ which is driven, at least in part, by the potential concern that dermatologists will again experience the same regulatory and logistical barriers that limited teledermatology utilization prepandemic.

What has changed in reimbursement for teledermatology since the PHE ended?

The PHE ended on May 11, 2023, and already video platforms that were used during the pandemic to provide telemedicine visits but are not Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant are now forbidden,² Medicare virtual check-in appointments can only be conducted with established patients,⁴ and medical licensing requirements have been reinstated in most states such that patients must be located in the state where the provider is licensed to practice medicine at the time of a virtual visit.³ Although the CMS was granted wide freedoms to waive and suspend certain rules, this was only in the context of the PHE, and any lasting changes must be established by Congress.

Reassuringly, recent legislation via the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, authorized an extension of many of the CMS telehealth flexibilities that were in place during the PHE through December 31, 2024 (Table),² such as allowing access to telehealth services in any geographic area in the United States rather than only rural areas, allowing patients to stay in their homes for telehealth visits rather than traveling to an approved health care facility, and allowing the delivery of telemedicine via audio-only technology if a patient is unable to use both audio and video. As of now, the place of service (POS) designation for telehealth visits will not revert back to the former code (POS 02) but will remain at POS 11 with the telehealth modifier -95 so physicians will be reimbursed at the full level of a non-facility physician’s office rate.⁴ The CMS has indicated that there will be no change in the reimbursement policy until after December 31, 2023⁴; however, the sense of uncertainty around what happens after this date has made it hard for organizations and practices to fully commit to teledermatology services without knowing what the long-term financial impact may be. Some organizations have already noted that they plan to continue supporting telemedicine after the CMS flexibilities expire. Accountable Care Organizations have the ability to offer services that allow participating practitioners to continue the use of telemedicine visits to expand access to care. Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program policies vary by state and private health insurance policies vary by individual plans, but it should be noted that commercial coverage for telemedicine visits was already strong prior to the pandemic.²

What medical licensing requirements are in place now for telehealth?

During the PHE, medical licensing requirements also were relaxed, enabling providers to deliver telemedicine service in states where they were not licensed.³ As the PHE orders ended, some states including New York discontinued cross-state licensing waivers altogether,⁶ whereas others have enacted legislation to make them permanent or extend them for brief periods of time.^3,6 One potential solution is the Interstate Medical Licensure Compact (https://www.imlcc.org/), which includes 39 states as of October 2023. This program expedites the process for physicians already licensed in participating states to obtain their medical license in another participating state, though licensing fees are required for each state in which a physician wants to practice. Furthermore, some states such as North Dakota, Hawaii, and Virginia have licensure by endorsement policies, which enable licensed physicians with specific qualifications to provide telehealth services in the endorsing state. Other states such as Florida, New Jersey, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada, and New Mexico have special telehealth registries that allow physicians in good standing who are licensed in other states to deliver telehealth services to in-state residents barring they do not provide in-person, in-state services.⁶ Lastly, some states have temporary practice laws to allow existing patients who need medical attention while traveling out of state to see their home providers virtually or in person under certain circumstances for a limited period of time.^3,5 In Hawaii and New Hampshire, physicians with out-of-state licenses can provide consultative services in some circumstances.⁵

What changes have been made to make it easier for patients to use telehealth?

As the legislation around telemedicine is shifting postpandemic, it is important to address additional logistical barriers to teledermatology on a larger scale if the discipline is to stay in practice. On November 15, 2021, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act provided $65 billion in funding for broadband to expand access to high-speed internet. Some of this money was allocated to the Affordable Connectivity Program, which provides eligible households with a discount on broadband service and internet-connected devices. Eligible patrons can qualify for a discount of up to $75 per month for internet service and a one-time discount up to $100 on a laptop, desktop computer, or tablet purchased through a participating provider.⁶ Although a step in the right direction, the effects of this program on telemedicine encounters remains to be proven. Additionally, these programs do not address educational barriers to understanding how to utilize telemedicine platforms or provide incentives for practitioners to offer telemedicine services.

Final Thoughts

The pandemic taught our specialty a great deal about how to utilize telemedicine. For many dermatologists a return to in-person business as usual could not come fast enough; however, many practices have continued to offer at least some teledermatology services. Although the PHE waivers have ended, the extension of numerous CMS flexibilities through the end of 2024 allows us more time to develop sustainable policies to support the long-term health of telemedicine as a whole, both to sustain practices and to expand access to care in dermatology. The favorable attitudes of both patients and physicians about teledermatology have been clearly documented,^1,7 and we should continue to safely expand the use of this technology.

A very long time ago, when I ran clinical labs, one of the most ordered tests was the “sed rate” (aka ESR, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate). Easy, quick, and low cost, with high sensitivity but very low specificity. If the sed rate was normal, the patient probably did not have an infectious or inflammatory disease. If it was elevated, they probably did, but no telling what. Later, the C-reactive protein (CRP) test came into common use. Same general inferences: If the CRP was low, the patient was unlikely to have an inflammatory process; if high, they were sick, but we didn’t know what with.

Could the heart rate variability (HRV) score come to be thought of similarly? Much as the sed rate and CRP are sensitivity indicators of infectious or inflammatory diseases, might the HRV score be a sensitivity indicator for nervous system (central and autonomic) and cardiovascular (especially heart rhythm) malfunctions?

A substantial and relatively old body of heart rhythm literature ties HRV alterations to posttraumatic stress disorder, physician occupational stress, sleep disorders, depression, autonomic nervous system derangements, various cardiac arrhythmias, fatigue, overexertion, medications, and age itself.

More than 100 million Americans are now believed to use smartwatches or personal fitness monitors. Some 30%-40% of these devices measure HRV. So what? Credible research about this huge mass of accumulating data from “wearables” is lacking.
 

What is HRV?

HRV is the variation in time between each heartbeat, in milliseconds. HRV is influenced by the autonomic nervous system, perhaps reflecting sympathetic-parasympathetic balance. Some devices measure HRV 24/7. My Fitbit Inspire 2 reports only nighttime measures during 3 hours of sustained sleep. Most trackers report averages; some calculate the root mean squares; others calculate standard deviations. All fitness trackers warn not to use the data for medical purposes.

Normal values (reference ranges) for HRV begin at an average of 100 msec in the first decade of life and decline by approximately 10 msec per decade lived. At age 30-40, the average is 70 msec; age 60-70, it’s 40 msec; and at age 90-100, it’s 10 msec.

As a long-time lab guy, I used to teach proper use of lab tests. Fitness trackers are “lab tests” of a sort. We taught never to do a lab test unless you know what you are going to do with the result, no matter what it is. We also taught “never do anything just because you can.” Curiosity, we know, is a frequent driver of lab test ordering.

That underlying philosophy gives me a hard time when it comes to wearables. I have been enamored of watching my step count, active zone minutes, resting heart rate, active heart rate, various sleep scores, and breathing rate (and, of course, a manually entered early morning daily body weight) for several years. I even check my “readiness score” (a calculation using resting heart rate, recent sleep, recent active zone minutes, and perhaps HRV) each morning and adjust my behaviors accordingly.
 

Why monitor HRV?

But what should we do with HRV scores? Ignore them? Try to understand them, perhaps as a screening tool? Or monitor HRV for consistency or change? “Monitoring” is a proper and common use of lab tests.

Some say we should improve the HRV score by managing stress, getting regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, getting enough sleep, and not smoking or consuming excess alcohol. Duh! I do all of that anyway.

The claims that HRV is a “simple but powerful tool that can be used to track overall health and well-being” might turn out to be true. Proper study and sharing of data will enable that determination.

To advance understanding, I offer an n-of-1, a real-world personal anecdote about HRV.

I did not request the HRV function on my Fitbit Inspire 2. It simply appeared, and I ignored it for some time.

A year or two ago, I started noticing my HRV score every morning. Initially, I did not like to see my “low” score, until I learned that the reference range was dramatically affected by age and I was in my late 80s at the time. The vast majority of my HRV readings were in the range of 17 msec to 27 msec.

Last week, I was administered the new Moderna COVID-19 Spikevax vaccine and the old folks’ influenza vaccine simultaneously. In my case, side effects from each vaccine have been modest in the past, but I never previously had both administered at the same time. My immune response was, shall we say, robust. Chills, muscle aches, headache, fatigue, deltoid swelling, fitful sleep, and increased resting heart rate.

My nightly average HRV had been running between 17 msec and 35 msec for many months. WHOA! After the shots, my overnight HRV score plummeted from 24 msec to 10 msec, my lowest ever. Instant worry. The next day, it rebounded to 28 msec, and it has been in the high teens or low 20s since then.

Off to PubMed. A recent study of HRV on the second and 10th days after administering the Pfizer mRNA vaccine to 75 healthy volunteers found that the HRV on day 2 was dramatically lower than prevaccination levels and by day 10, it had returned to prevaccination levels. Some comfort there.

Another review article has reported a rapid fall and rapid rebound of HRV after COVID-19 vaccination. A 2010 report demonstrated a significant but not dramatic short-term lowering of HRV after influenza A vaccination and correlated it with CRP changes.

Some believe that the decline in HRV after vaccination reflects an increased immune response and sympathetic nervous activity.

I don’t plan to receive my flu and COVID vaccines on the same day again.

So, I went back to review what happened to my HRV when I had COVID in 2023. My HRV was 14 msec and 12 msec on the first 2 days of symptoms, and then returned to the 20 msec range.

I received the RSV vaccine this year without adverse effects, and my HRV scores were 29 msec, 33 msec, and 32 msec on the first 3 days after vaccination. Finally, after receiving a pneumococcal vaccine in 2023, I had no adverse effects, and my HRV scores on the 5 days after vaccination were indeterminate: 19 msec, 14 msec, 18 msec, 13 msec, and 17 msec.

Of course, correlation is not causation. Cause and effect remain undetermined. But I find these observations interesting for a potentially useful screening test.

George D. Lundberg, MD, is the Editor in Chief of Cancer Commons.

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

A very long time ago, when I ran clinical labs, one of the most ordered tests was the “sed rate” (aka ESR, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate). Easy, quick, and low cost, with high sensitivity but very low specificity. If the sed rate was normal, the patient probably did not have an infectious or inflammatory disease. If it was elevated, they probably did, but no telling what. Later, the C-reactive protein (CRP) test came into common use. Same general inferences: If the CRP was low, the patient was unlikely to have an inflammatory process; if high, they were sick, but we didn’t know what with.

Could the heart rate variability (HRV) score come to be thought of similarly? Much as the sed rate and CRP are sensitivity indicators of infectious or inflammatory diseases, might the HRV score be a sensitivity indicator for nervous system (central and autonomic) and cardiovascular (especially heart rhythm) malfunctions?

A substantial and relatively old body of heart rhythm literature ties HRV alterations to posttraumatic stress disorder, physician occupational stress, sleep disorders, depression, autonomic nervous system derangements, various cardiac arrhythmias, fatigue, overexertion, medications, and age itself.

More than 100 million Americans are now believed to use smartwatches or personal fitness monitors. Some 30%-40% of these devices measure HRV. So what? Credible research about this huge mass of accumulating data from “wearables” is lacking.
 

What is HRV?

HRV is the variation in time between each heartbeat, in milliseconds. HRV is influenced by the autonomic nervous system, perhaps reflecting sympathetic-parasympathetic balance. Some devices measure HRV 24/7. My Fitbit Inspire 2 reports only nighttime measures during 3 hours of sustained sleep. Most trackers report averages; some calculate the root mean squares; others calculate standard deviations. All fitness trackers warn not to use the data for medical purposes.

Normal values (reference ranges) for HRV begin at an average of 100 msec in the first decade of life and decline by approximately 10 msec per decade lived. At age 30-40, the average is 70 msec; age 60-70, it’s 40 msec; and at age 90-100, it’s 10 msec.

As a long-time lab guy, I used to teach proper use of lab tests. Fitness trackers are “lab tests” of a sort. We taught never to do a lab test unless you know what you are going to do with the result, no matter what it is. We also taught “never do anything just because you can.” Curiosity, we know, is a frequent driver of lab test ordering.

That underlying philosophy gives me a hard time when it comes to wearables. I have been enamored of watching my step count, active zone minutes, resting heart rate, active heart rate, various sleep scores, and breathing rate (and, of course, a manually entered early morning daily body weight) for several years. I even check my “readiness score” (a calculation using resting heart rate, recent sleep, recent active zone minutes, and perhaps HRV) each morning and adjust my behaviors accordingly.
 

Why monitor HRV?

But what should we do with HRV scores? Ignore them? Try to understand them, perhaps as a screening tool? Or monitor HRV for consistency or change? “Monitoring” is a proper and common use of lab tests.

Some say we should improve the HRV score by managing stress, getting regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, getting enough sleep, and not smoking or consuming excess alcohol. Duh! I do all of that anyway.

The claims that HRV is a “simple but powerful tool that can be used to track overall health and well-being” might turn out to be true. Proper study and sharing of data will enable that determination.

To advance understanding, I offer an n-of-1, a real-world personal anecdote about HRV.

I did not request the HRV function on my Fitbit Inspire 2. It simply appeared, and I ignored it for some time.

A year or two ago, I started noticing my HRV score every morning. Initially, I did not like to see my “low” score, until I learned that the reference range was dramatically affected by age and I was in my late 80s at the time. The vast majority of my HRV readings were in the range of 17 msec to 27 msec.

Last week, I was administered the new Moderna COVID-19 Spikevax vaccine and the old folks’ influenza vaccine simultaneously. In my case, side effects from each vaccine have been modest in the past, but I never previously had both administered at the same time. My immune response was, shall we say, robust. Chills, muscle aches, headache, fatigue, deltoid swelling, fitful sleep, and increased resting heart rate.

My nightly average HRV had been running between 17 msec and 35 msec for many months. WHOA! After the shots, my overnight HRV score plummeted from 24 msec to 10 msec, my lowest ever. Instant worry. The next day, it rebounded to 28 msec, and it has been in the high teens or low 20s since then.

Off to PubMed. A recent study of HRV on the second and 10th days after administering the Pfizer mRNA vaccine to 75 healthy volunteers found that the HRV on day 2 was dramatically lower than prevaccination levels and by day 10, it had returned to prevaccination levels. Some comfort there.

Another review article has reported a rapid fall and rapid rebound of HRV after COVID-19 vaccination. A 2010 report demonstrated a significant but not dramatic short-term lowering of HRV after influenza A vaccination and correlated it with CRP changes.

Some believe that the decline in HRV after vaccination reflects an increased immune response and sympathetic nervous activity.

I don’t plan to receive my flu and COVID vaccines on the same day again.

So, I went back to review what happened to my HRV when I had COVID in 2023. My HRV was 14 msec and 12 msec on the first 2 days of symptoms, and then returned to the 20 msec range.

I received the RSV vaccine this year without adverse effects, and my HRV scores were 29 msec, 33 msec, and 32 msec on the first 3 days after vaccination. Finally, after receiving a pneumococcal vaccine in 2023, I had no adverse effects, and my HRV scores on the 5 days after vaccination were indeterminate: 19 msec, 14 msec, 18 msec, 13 msec, and 17 msec.

Of course, correlation is not causation. Cause and effect remain undetermined. But I find these observations interesting for a potentially useful screening test.

George D. Lundberg, MD, is the Editor in Chief of Cancer Commons.

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

A very long time ago, when I ran clinical labs, one of the most ordered tests was the “sed rate” (aka ESR, the erythrocyte sedimentation rate). Easy, quick, and low cost, with high sensitivity but very low specificity. If the sed rate was normal, the patient probably did not have an infectious or inflammatory disease. If it was elevated, they probably did, but no telling what. Later, the C-reactive protein (CRP) test came into common use. Same general inferences: If the CRP was low, the patient was unlikely to have an inflammatory process; if high, they were sick, but we didn’t know what with.

Could the heart rate variability (HRV) score come to be thought of similarly? Much as the sed rate and CRP are sensitivity indicators of infectious or inflammatory diseases, might the HRV score be a sensitivity indicator for nervous system (central and autonomic) and cardiovascular (especially heart rhythm) malfunctions?

A substantial and relatively old body of heart rhythm literature ties HRV alterations to posttraumatic stress disorder, physician occupational stress, sleep disorders, depression, autonomic nervous system derangements, various cardiac arrhythmias, fatigue, overexertion, medications, and age itself.

More than 100 million Americans are now believed to use smartwatches or personal fitness monitors. Some 30%-40% of these devices measure HRV. So what? Credible research about this huge mass of accumulating data from “wearables” is lacking.
 

What is HRV?

HRV is the variation in time between each heartbeat, in milliseconds. HRV is influenced by the autonomic nervous system, perhaps reflecting sympathetic-parasympathetic balance. Some devices measure HRV 24/7. My Fitbit Inspire 2 reports only nighttime measures during 3 hours of sustained sleep. Most trackers report averages; some calculate the root mean squares; others calculate standard deviations. All fitness trackers warn not to use the data for medical purposes.

Normal values (reference ranges) for HRV begin at an average of 100 msec in the first decade of life and decline by approximately 10 msec per decade lived. At age 30-40, the average is 70 msec; age 60-70, it’s 40 msec; and at age 90-100, it’s 10 msec.

As a long-time lab guy, I used to teach proper use of lab tests. Fitness trackers are “lab tests” of a sort. We taught never to do a lab test unless you know what you are going to do with the result, no matter what it is. We also taught “never do anything just because you can.” Curiosity, we know, is a frequent driver of lab test ordering.

That underlying philosophy gives me a hard time when it comes to wearables. I have been enamored of watching my step count, active zone minutes, resting heart rate, active heart rate, various sleep scores, and breathing rate (and, of course, a manually entered early morning daily body weight) for several years. I even check my “readiness score” (a calculation using resting heart rate, recent sleep, recent active zone minutes, and perhaps HRV) each morning and adjust my behaviors accordingly.
 

Why monitor HRV?

But what should we do with HRV scores? Ignore them? Try to understand them, perhaps as a screening tool? Or monitor HRV for consistency or change? “Monitoring” is a proper and common use of lab tests.

Some say we should improve the HRV score by managing stress, getting regular exercise, eating a healthy diet, getting enough sleep, and not smoking or consuming excess alcohol. Duh! I do all of that anyway.

The claims that HRV is a “simple but powerful tool that can be used to track overall health and well-being” might turn out to be true. Proper study and sharing of data will enable that determination.

To advance understanding, I offer an n-of-1, a real-world personal anecdote about HRV.

I did not request the HRV function on my Fitbit Inspire 2. It simply appeared, and I ignored it for some time.

A year or two ago, I started noticing my HRV score every morning. Initially, I did not like to see my “low” score, until I learned that the reference range was dramatically affected by age and I was in my late 80s at the time. The vast majority of my HRV readings were in the range of 17 msec to 27 msec.

Last week, I was administered the new Moderna COVID-19 Spikevax vaccine and the old folks’ influenza vaccine simultaneously. In my case, side effects from each vaccine have been modest in the past, but I never previously had both administered at the same time. My immune response was, shall we say, robust. Chills, muscle aches, headache, fatigue, deltoid swelling, fitful sleep, and increased resting heart rate.

My nightly average HRV had been running between 17 msec and 35 msec for many months. WHOA! After the shots, my overnight HRV score plummeted from 24 msec to 10 msec, my lowest ever. Instant worry. The next day, it rebounded to 28 msec, and it has been in the high teens or low 20s since then.

Off to PubMed. A recent study of HRV on the second and 10th days after administering the Pfizer mRNA vaccine to 75 healthy volunteers found that the HRV on day 2 was dramatically lower than prevaccination levels and by day 10, it had returned to prevaccination levels. Some comfort there.

Another review article has reported a rapid fall and rapid rebound of HRV after COVID-19 vaccination. A 2010 report demonstrated a significant but not dramatic short-term lowering of HRV after influenza A vaccination and correlated it with CRP changes.

Some believe that the decline in HRV after vaccination reflects an increased immune response and sympathetic nervous activity.

I don’t plan to receive my flu and COVID vaccines on the same day again.

So, I went back to review what happened to my HRV when I had COVID in 2023. My HRV was 14 msec and 12 msec on the first 2 days of symptoms, and then returned to the 20 msec range.

I received the RSV vaccine this year without adverse effects, and my HRV scores were 29 msec, 33 msec, and 32 msec on the first 3 days after vaccination. Finally, after receiving a pneumococcal vaccine in 2023, I had no adverse effects, and my HRV scores on the 5 days after vaccination were indeterminate: 19 msec, 14 msec, 18 msec, 13 msec, and 17 msec.

Of course, correlation is not causation. Cause and effect remain undetermined. But I find these observations interesting for a potentially useful screening test.

George D. Lundberg, MD, is the Editor in Chief of Cancer Commons.

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

It’s upper respiratory infection (URI) season. The following is a clinical scenario drawn from my own practice. I’ll tell you what I plan to do, but I’m most interested in crowdsourcing a response from all of you to collectively determine best practice. So please answer the polling questions and contribute your thoughts in the comments, whether you agree or disagree with me.

The patient

The patient is a 69-year-old woman with a 3-day history of cough, nasal congestion, malaise, tactile fever, and poor appetite. She has no sick contacts. She denies dyspnea, presyncope, and chest pain. She has tried guaifenesin and ibuprofen for her symptoms, which helped a little.

She is up to date on immunizations, including four doses of COVID-19 vaccine and the influenza vaccine, which she received 2 months ago.

The patient has a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease stage 3aA2, obesity, and osteoarthritis. Current medications include atorvastatin, losartan, metoprolol, and aspirin.

Her weight is stable at 212 lb, and her vital signs today are:

• Temperature: 37.5° C
• Pulse: 60 beats/min
• Blood pressure: 150/88 mm Hg
• Respiration rate: 14 breaths/min
• SpO₂: 93% on room air

What information is most critical before deciding on management?

Your peers chose: 

• The patient’s history of viral URIs

 14%

 

• Whether her cough is productive and the color of the sputum

 38%

 

• How well this season’s flu vaccine matches circulating influenza viruses

 8%

 

• Local epidemiology of major viral pathogens (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, influenza, RSV)

 40%
 

Dr. Vega’s take

To provide the best care for our patients when they are threatened with multiple viral upper respiratory pathogens, it is imperative that clinicians have some idea regarding the epidemiology of viral infections, with as much local data as possible. This knowledge will help direct appropriate testing and treatment.

Modern viral molecular testing platforms are highly accurate, but they are not infallible. Small flaws in specificity and sensitivity of testing are magnified when community viral circulation is low. In a U.K. study conducted during a period of low COVID-19 prevalence, the positive predictive value of reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was just 16%. Although the negative predictive value was much higher, the false-positive rate of testing was still 0.5%. The authors of the study describe important potential consequences of false-positive results, such as being temporarily removed from an organ transplant list and unnecessary contact tracing.
 

Testing and treatment

Your county public health department maintains a website describing local activity of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza. Both viruses are in heavy circulation now.

What is the next best step in this patient’s management?

Your peers chose: 

• Treat empirically with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir

 7%

 

• Treat empirically with oseltamivir or baloxavir

 14%

 

• Perform lab-based multiplex RT-PCR testing and wait to treat on the basis of results

 34%

 

• Perform rapid nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) and treat on the basis of results

 45%

Every practice has different resources and should use the best means available to treat patients. Ideally, this patient would undergo rapid NAAT with results available within 30 minutes. Test results will help guide not only treatment decisions but also infection-control measures.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America has provided updates for testing for URIs since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Both laboratory-based and point-of-care rapid NAATs are recommended for testing. Rapid NAATs have been demonstrated to have a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 100% in the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Obviously, they also offer a highly efficient means to make treatment and isolation decisions.

There are multiple platforms for molecular testing available. Laboratory-based platforms can test for dozens of potential pathogens, including bacteria. Rapid NAATs often have the ability to test for SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). This functionality is important, because these infections generally are difficult to discriminate on the basis of clinical information alone.

The IDSA clearly recognizes the challenges of trying to manage cases of URI. For example, they state that testing of the anterior nares (AN) or oropharynx (OP) is acceptable, even though testing from the nasopharynx offers increased sensitivity. However, testing at the AN/OP allows for patient self-collection of samples, which is also recommended as an option by the IDSA. In an analysis of six cohort studies, the pooled sensitivity of patient-collected nasopharyngeal samples from the AN/OP was 88%, whereas the respective value for samples taken by health care providers was 95%.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also provides recommendations for the management of patients with acute upper respiratory illness. Patients who are sick enough to be hospitalized should be tested at least for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza using molecular assays. Outpatients should be tested for SARS-CoV-2 with either molecular or antigen testing, and influenza testing should be offered if the findings will change decisions regarding treatment or isolation. Practically speaking, the recommendations for influenza testing mean that most individuals should be tested, including patients at high risk for complications of influenza and those who might have exposure to individuals at high risk.

Treatment of COVID-19 should only be provided in cases of a positive test within 5 days of symptom onset. However, clinicians may treat patients with anti-influenza medications presumptively if test results are not immediately available and the patient has worsening symptoms or is in a group at high risk for complications.

What are some of the challenges that you have faced during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding the management of patients with acute URIs? What have you found in terms of solutions, and where do gaps in quality of care persist? Please add your comments. I will review and circle back with a response. Thank you!

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

It’s upper respiratory infection (URI) season. The following is a clinical scenario drawn from my own practice. I’ll tell you what I plan to do, but I’m most interested in crowdsourcing a response from all of you to collectively determine best practice. So please answer the polling questions and contribute your thoughts in the comments, whether you agree or disagree with me.

The patient

The patient is a 69-year-old woman with a 3-day history of cough, nasal congestion, malaise, tactile fever, and poor appetite. She has no sick contacts. She denies dyspnea, presyncope, and chest pain. She has tried guaifenesin and ibuprofen for her symptoms, which helped a little.

She is up to date on immunizations, including four doses of COVID-19 vaccine and the influenza vaccine, which she received 2 months ago.

The patient has a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease stage 3aA2, obesity, and osteoarthritis. Current medications include atorvastatin, losartan, metoprolol, and aspirin.

Her weight is stable at 212 lb, and her vital signs today are:

• Temperature: 37.5° C
• Pulse: 60 beats/min
• Blood pressure: 150/88 mm Hg
• Respiration rate: 14 breaths/min
• SpO₂: 93% on room air

What information is most critical before deciding on management?

Your peers chose: 

• The patient’s history of viral URIs

 14%

 

• Whether her cough is productive and the color of the sputum

 38%

 

• How well this season’s flu vaccine matches circulating influenza viruses

 8%

 

• Local epidemiology of major viral pathogens (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, influenza, RSV)

 40%
 

Dr. Vega’s take

To provide the best care for our patients when they are threatened with multiple viral upper respiratory pathogens, it is imperative that clinicians have some idea regarding the epidemiology of viral infections, with as much local data as possible. This knowledge will help direct appropriate testing and treatment.

Modern viral molecular testing platforms are highly accurate, but they are not infallible. Small flaws in specificity and sensitivity of testing are magnified when community viral circulation is low. In a U.K. study conducted during a period of low COVID-19 prevalence, the positive predictive value of reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was just 16%. Although the negative predictive value was much higher, the false-positive rate of testing was still 0.5%. The authors of the study describe important potential consequences of false-positive results, such as being temporarily removed from an organ transplant list and unnecessary contact tracing.
 

Testing and treatment

Your county public health department maintains a website describing local activity of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza. Both viruses are in heavy circulation now.

What is the next best step in this patient’s management?

Your peers chose: 

• Treat empirically with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir

 7%

 

• Treat empirically with oseltamivir or baloxavir

 14%

 

• Perform lab-based multiplex RT-PCR testing and wait to treat on the basis of results

 34%

 

• Perform rapid nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) and treat on the basis of results

 45%

Every practice has different resources and should use the best means available to treat patients. Ideally, this patient would undergo rapid NAAT with results available within 30 minutes. Test results will help guide not only treatment decisions but also infection-control measures.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America has provided updates for testing for URIs since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Both laboratory-based and point-of-care rapid NAATs are recommended for testing. Rapid NAATs have been demonstrated to have a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 100% in the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Obviously, they also offer a highly efficient means to make treatment and isolation decisions.

There are multiple platforms for molecular testing available. Laboratory-based platforms can test for dozens of potential pathogens, including bacteria. Rapid NAATs often have the ability to test for SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). This functionality is important, because these infections generally are difficult to discriminate on the basis of clinical information alone.

The IDSA clearly recognizes the challenges of trying to manage cases of URI. For example, they state that testing of the anterior nares (AN) or oropharynx (OP) is acceptable, even though testing from the nasopharynx offers increased sensitivity. However, testing at the AN/OP allows for patient self-collection of samples, which is also recommended as an option by the IDSA. In an analysis of six cohort studies, the pooled sensitivity of patient-collected nasopharyngeal samples from the AN/OP was 88%, whereas the respective value for samples taken by health care providers was 95%.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also provides recommendations for the management of patients with acute upper respiratory illness. Patients who are sick enough to be hospitalized should be tested at least for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza using molecular assays. Outpatients should be tested for SARS-CoV-2 with either molecular or antigen testing, and influenza testing should be offered if the findings will change decisions regarding treatment or isolation. Practically speaking, the recommendations for influenza testing mean that most individuals should be tested, including patients at high risk for complications of influenza and those who might have exposure to individuals at high risk.

Treatment of COVID-19 should only be provided in cases of a positive test within 5 days of symptom onset. However, clinicians may treat patients with anti-influenza medications presumptively if test results are not immediately available and the patient has worsening symptoms or is in a group at high risk for complications.

What are some of the challenges that you have faced during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding the management of patients with acute URIs? What have you found in terms of solutions, and where do gaps in quality of care persist? Please add your comments. I will review and circle back with a response. Thank you!

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

It’s upper respiratory infection (URI) season. The following is a clinical scenario drawn from my own practice. I’ll tell you what I plan to do, but I’m most interested in crowdsourcing a response from all of you to collectively determine best practice. So please answer the polling questions and contribute your thoughts in the comments, whether you agree or disagree with me.

The patient

The patient is a 69-year-old woman with a 3-day history of cough, nasal congestion, malaise, tactile fever, and poor appetite. She has no sick contacts. She denies dyspnea, presyncope, and chest pain. She has tried guaifenesin and ibuprofen for her symptoms, which helped a little.

She is up to date on immunizations, including four doses of COVID-19 vaccine and the influenza vaccine, which she received 2 months ago.

The patient has a history of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, coronary artery disease, hypertension, chronic kidney disease stage 3aA2, obesity, and osteoarthritis. Current medications include atorvastatin, losartan, metoprolol, and aspirin.

Her weight is stable at 212 lb, and her vital signs today are:

• Temperature: 37.5° C
• Pulse: 60 beats/min
• Blood pressure: 150/88 mm Hg
• Respiration rate: 14 breaths/min
• SpO₂: 93% on room air

What information is most critical before deciding on management?

Your peers chose: 

• The patient’s history of viral URIs

 14%

 

• Whether her cough is productive and the color of the sputum

 38%

 

• How well this season’s flu vaccine matches circulating influenza viruses

 8%

 

• Local epidemiology of major viral pathogens (e.g., SARS-CoV-2, influenza, RSV)

 40%
 

Dr. Vega’s take

To provide the best care for our patients when they are threatened with multiple viral upper respiratory pathogens, it is imperative that clinicians have some idea regarding the epidemiology of viral infections, with as much local data as possible. This knowledge will help direct appropriate testing and treatment.

Modern viral molecular testing platforms are highly accurate, but they are not infallible. Small flaws in specificity and sensitivity of testing are magnified when community viral circulation is low. In a U.K. study conducted during a period of low COVID-19 prevalence, the positive predictive value of reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing was just 16%. Although the negative predictive value was much higher, the false-positive rate of testing was still 0.5%. The authors of the study describe important potential consequences of false-positive results, such as being temporarily removed from an organ transplant list and unnecessary contact tracing.
 

Testing and treatment

Your county public health department maintains a website describing local activity of SARS-CoV-2 and influenza. Both viruses are in heavy circulation now.

What is the next best step in this patient’s management?

Your peers chose: 

• Treat empirically with ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir

 7%

 

• Treat empirically with oseltamivir or baloxavir

 14%

 

• Perform lab-based multiplex RT-PCR testing and wait to treat on the basis of results

 34%

 

• Perform rapid nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) and treat on the basis of results

 45%

Every practice has different resources and should use the best means available to treat patients. Ideally, this patient would undergo rapid NAAT with results available within 30 minutes. Test results will help guide not only treatment decisions but also infection-control measures.

The Infectious Diseases Society of America has provided updates for testing for URIs since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Both laboratory-based and point-of-care rapid NAATs are recommended for testing. Rapid NAATs have been demonstrated to have a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 100% in the detection of SARS-CoV-2. Obviously, they also offer a highly efficient means to make treatment and isolation decisions.

There are multiple platforms for molecular testing available. Laboratory-based platforms can test for dozens of potential pathogens, including bacteria. Rapid NAATs often have the ability to test for SARS-CoV-2, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). This functionality is important, because these infections generally are difficult to discriminate on the basis of clinical information alone.

The IDSA clearly recognizes the challenges of trying to manage cases of URI. For example, they state that testing of the anterior nares (AN) or oropharynx (OP) is acceptable, even though testing from the nasopharynx offers increased sensitivity. However, testing at the AN/OP allows for patient self-collection of samples, which is also recommended as an option by the IDSA. In an analysis of six cohort studies, the pooled sensitivity of patient-collected nasopharyngeal samples from the AN/OP was 88%, whereas the respective value for samples taken by health care providers was 95%.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention also provides recommendations for the management of patients with acute upper respiratory illness. Patients who are sick enough to be hospitalized should be tested at least for SARS-CoV-2 and influenza using molecular assays. Outpatients should be tested for SARS-CoV-2 with either molecular or antigen testing, and influenza testing should be offered if the findings will change decisions regarding treatment or isolation. Practically speaking, the recommendations for influenza testing mean that most individuals should be tested, including patients at high risk for complications of influenza and those who might have exposure to individuals at high risk.

Treatment of COVID-19 should only be provided in cases of a positive test within 5 days of symptom onset. However, clinicians may treat patients with anti-influenza medications presumptively if test results are not immediately available and the patient has worsening symptoms or is in a group at high risk for complications.

What are some of the challenges that you have faced during the COVID-19 pandemic regarding the management of patients with acute URIs? What have you found in terms of solutions, and where do gaps in quality of care persist? Please add your comments. I will review and circle back with a response. Thank you!

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

The XXXIII Olympic Summer Games will take place in Paris, France, from July 26 to August 11, 2024, and a variety of outdoor sporting events (eg, surfing, cycling, beach volleyball) will be included. Participation in the Olympic Games is a distinct honor for athletes selected to compete at the highest level in their sports.

Because of their training regimens and lifestyles, Olympic athletes face unique health risks. One such risk appears to be skin cancer, a substantial contributor to the global burden of disease. Taken together, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma account for 6.7 million cases of skin cancer worldwide. Squamous cell carcinoma and malignant skin melanoma were attributed to 1.2 million and 1.7 million life-years lost to disability, respectively.¹

Olympic athletes are at increased risk for sunburn from UVA and UVB radiation, placing them at higher risk for both melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers.^2,3 Sweating increases skin photosensitivity, sportswear often offers inadequate sun protection, and sustained high-intensity exercise itself has an immunosuppressive effect. Athletes competing in skiing and snowboarding events also receive radiation reflected off snow and ice at high altitudes.³ In fact, skiing without sunscreen at 11,000-feet above sea level can induce sunburn after only 6 minutes of exposure.⁴ Moreover, sweat, water immersion, and friction can decrease the effectiveness of topical sunscreens.⁵

World-class athletes appear to be exposed to UV radiation to a substantially higher degree than the general public. In an analysis of 144 events at the 2020 XXXII Olympic Summer Games in Tokyo, Japan, the highest exposure assessments were for women’s tennis, men’s golf, and men’s road cycling.⁶ In a 2020 study (N=240), the rates of sunburn were as high as 76.7% among Olympic sailors, elite surfers, and windsurfers, with more than one-quarter of athletes reporting sunburn that lasted longer than 24 hours.⁷ An earlier study reported that professional cyclists were exposed to UV radiation during a single race that exceeded the personal exposure limit by 30 times.⁸

Regrettably, the high level of sun exposure experienced by elite athletes is compounded by their low rate of sunscreen use. In a 2020 survey of 95 Olympians and super sprint triathletes, approximately half rarely used sunscreen, with 1 in 5 athletes never using sunscreen during training.⁹ In another study of 246 elite athletes in surfing, windsurfing, and sailing, nearly half used inadequate sun protection and nearly one-quarter reported never using sunscreen.¹⁰ Surprisingly, as many as 90% of Olympic athletes and super sprint competitors understood the importance of using sunscreen.⁹

What can we learn from these findings?

First, elite athletes remain at high risk for skin cancer because of training regimens, occupational environmental hazards, and other requirements of their sport. Second, despite awareness of the risks of UV radiation exposure, Olympic athletes utilize inadequate photoprotection. Athletes with darker skin are still at risk for skin cancer, photoaging, and pigmentation disorders—indicating a need for photoprotective behaviors in athletes of all skin types.¹¹

Therefore, efforts to promote adequate sunscreen use and understanding of the consequences of UV radiation may need to be prioritized earlier in athletes’ careers and implemented according to evidence-based guidelines. For example, the Stanford University Network for Sun Protection, Outreach, Research and Teamwork (Sunsport) provided information about skin cancer risk and prevention by educating student-athletes, coaches, and trainers in the National Collegiate Athletic Association in the United States. The Sunsport initiative led to a dramatic increase in sunscreen use by student-athletes as well as increased knowledge and discussion of skin cancer risk.¹²

The XXXIII Olympic Summer Games will take place in Paris, France, from July 26 to August 11, 2024, and a variety of outdoor sporting events (eg, surfing, cycling, beach volleyball) will be included. Participation in the Olympic Games is a distinct honor for athletes selected to compete at the highest level in their sports.

Because of their training regimens and lifestyles, Olympic athletes face unique health risks. One such risk appears to be skin cancer, a substantial contributor to the global burden of disease. Taken together, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma account for 6.7 million cases of skin cancer worldwide. Squamous cell carcinoma and malignant skin melanoma were attributed to 1.2 million and 1.7 million life-years lost to disability, respectively.¹

Olympic athletes are at increased risk for sunburn from UVA and UVB radiation, placing them at higher risk for both melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers.^2,3 Sweating increases skin photosensitivity, sportswear often offers inadequate sun protection, and sustained high-intensity exercise itself has an immunosuppressive effect. Athletes competing in skiing and snowboarding events also receive radiation reflected off snow and ice at high altitudes.³ In fact, skiing without sunscreen at 11,000-feet above sea level can induce sunburn after only 6 minutes of exposure.⁴ Moreover, sweat, water immersion, and friction can decrease the effectiveness of topical sunscreens.⁵

World-class athletes appear to be exposed to UV radiation to a substantially higher degree than the general public. In an analysis of 144 events at the 2020 XXXII Olympic Summer Games in Tokyo, Japan, the highest exposure assessments were for women’s tennis, men’s golf, and men’s road cycling.⁶ In a 2020 study (N=240), the rates of sunburn were as high as 76.7% among Olympic sailors, elite surfers, and windsurfers, with more than one-quarter of athletes reporting sunburn that lasted longer than 24 hours.⁷ An earlier study reported that professional cyclists were exposed to UV radiation during a single race that exceeded the personal exposure limit by 30 times.⁸

Regrettably, the high level of sun exposure experienced by elite athletes is compounded by their low rate of sunscreen use. In a 2020 survey of 95 Olympians and super sprint triathletes, approximately half rarely used sunscreen, with 1 in 5 athletes never using sunscreen during training.⁹ In another study of 246 elite athletes in surfing, windsurfing, and sailing, nearly half used inadequate sun protection and nearly one-quarter reported never using sunscreen.¹⁰ Surprisingly, as many as 90% of Olympic athletes and super sprint competitors understood the importance of using sunscreen.⁹

What can we learn from these findings?

First, elite athletes remain at high risk for skin cancer because of training regimens, occupational environmental hazards, and other requirements of their sport. Second, despite awareness of the risks of UV radiation exposure, Olympic athletes utilize inadequate photoprotection. Athletes with darker skin are still at risk for skin cancer, photoaging, and pigmentation disorders—indicating a need for photoprotective behaviors in athletes of all skin types.¹¹

Therefore, efforts to promote adequate sunscreen use and understanding of the consequences of UV radiation may need to be prioritized earlier in athletes’ careers and implemented according to evidence-based guidelines. For example, the Stanford University Network for Sun Protection, Outreach, Research and Teamwork (Sunsport) provided information about skin cancer risk and prevention by educating student-athletes, coaches, and trainers in the National Collegiate Athletic Association in the United States. The Sunsport initiative led to a dramatic increase in sunscreen use by student-athletes as well as increased knowledge and discussion of skin cancer risk.¹²

The XXXIII Olympic Summer Games will take place in Paris, France, from July 26 to August 11, 2024, and a variety of outdoor sporting events (eg, surfing, cycling, beach volleyball) will be included. Participation in the Olympic Games is a distinct honor for athletes selected to compete at the highest level in their sports.

Because of their training regimens and lifestyles, Olympic athletes face unique health risks. One such risk appears to be skin cancer, a substantial contributor to the global burden of disease. Taken together, basal cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma, and melanoma account for 6.7 million cases of skin cancer worldwide. Squamous cell carcinoma and malignant skin melanoma were attributed to 1.2 million and 1.7 million life-years lost to disability, respectively.¹

Olympic athletes are at increased risk for sunburn from UVA and UVB radiation, placing them at higher risk for both melanoma and nonmelanoma skin cancers.^2,3 Sweating increases skin photosensitivity, sportswear often offers inadequate sun protection, and sustained high-intensity exercise itself has an immunosuppressive effect. Athletes competing in skiing and snowboarding events also receive radiation reflected off snow and ice at high altitudes.³ In fact, skiing without sunscreen at 11,000-feet above sea level can induce sunburn after only 6 minutes of exposure.⁴ Moreover, sweat, water immersion, and friction can decrease the effectiveness of topical sunscreens.⁵

World-class athletes appear to be exposed to UV radiation to a substantially higher degree than the general public. In an analysis of 144 events at the 2020 XXXII Olympic Summer Games in Tokyo, Japan, the highest exposure assessments were for women’s tennis, men’s golf, and men’s road cycling.⁶ In a 2020 study (N=240), the rates of sunburn were as high as 76.7% among Olympic sailors, elite surfers, and windsurfers, with more than one-quarter of athletes reporting sunburn that lasted longer than 24 hours.⁷ An earlier study reported that professional cyclists were exposed to UV radiation during a single race that exceeded the personal exposure limit by 30 times.⁸

Regrettably, the high level of sun exposure experienced by elite athletes is compounded by their low rate of sunscreen use. In a 2020 survey of 95 Olympians and super sprint triathletes, approximately half rarely used sunscreen, with 1 in 5 athletes never using sunscreen during training.⁹ In another study of 246 elite athletes in surfing, windsurfing, and sailing, nearly half used inadequate sun protection and nearly one-quarter reported never using sunscreen.¹⁰ Surprisingly, as many as 90% of Olympic athletes and super sprint competitors understood the importance of using sunscreen.⁹

What can we learn from these findings?

First, elite athletes remain at high risk for skin cancer because of training regimens, occupational environmental hazards, and other requirements of their sport. Second, despite awareness of the risks of UV radiation exposure, Olympic athletes utilize inadequate photoprotection. Athletes with darker skin are still at risk for skin cancer, photoaging, and pigmentation disorders—indicating a need for photoprotective behaviors in athletes of all skin types.¹¹

Therefore, efforts to promote adequate sunscreen use and understanding of the consequences of UV radiation may need to be prioritized earlier in athletes’ careers and implemented according to evidence-based guidelines. For example, the Stanford University Network for Sun Protection, Outreach, Research and Teamwork (Sunsport) provided information about skin cancer risk and prevention by educating student-athletes, coaches, and trainers in the National Collegiate Athletic Association in the United States. The Sunsport initiative led to a dramatic increase in sunscreen use by student-athletes as well as increased knowledge and discussion of skin cancer risk.¹²