Original Research

To the Editor:

Phototherapy regularly is utilized in the outpatient setting to address various skin pathologies, including atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, pruritus, vitiligo, and mycosis fungoides.^1,2 Phototherapy is broadly defined by the measured administration of nonionizing radiation within the UV range including wavelengths within the UVA (eg, psoralen sensitizer plus UVA-1) and UVB (eg, broadband UVB, narrowband UVB) spectrums.^1,3 Generally, the mechanism of action is derived from effects on inflammatory components of cutaneous disorders and the induction of apoptosis, both precipitating numerous downstream events.⁴

From 2015 to 2018, there were more than 1.3 million outpatient phototherapy visits in the United States, with the most common procedural indications being dermatitis not otherwise specified, atopic dermatitis, and pruritus.⁵ From 2000 to 2015, the quantity of phototherapy services billed to Medicare trended upwards by an average of 5% per year, increasing from 334,670 in the year 2000 to 692,093 in 2015.⁶ Therefore, an illustration of associated costs would be beneficial. Additionally, because total cost and physician reimbursement fluctuate from year to year, studies demonstrating overall trends can inform both US policymakers and physicians. There is a paucity of research on geographical trends for procedural reimbursements in dermatology for phototherapy. Understanding geographic trends of reimbursement could duly serve to optimize dermatologist practice patterns involving access to viable and quality care for patients seeking treatment as well as draw health policymakers’ attention to striking adjustments in physician fees. Therefore, in this study we aimed to illustrate the most recent regional payment trends in phototherapy procedures for Medicare B patients.

We queried the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) database (https://www.cms.gov/medicare/payment/fee-schedules/physician/lookup-tool) for the years 2010 to 2023 for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes common to phototherapy procedures: actinotherapy (96900); photochemotherapy by Goeckerman treatment or using petrolatum and UVB (96910); photochemotherapy using psoralen plus UVA (96912); and photochemotherapy of severe dermatoses requiring a minimum of 4 hours of care under direct physician supervision (96913). Nonfacility prices for these procedures were analyzed. For 2010, due to midyear alterations to Medicare reimbursement (owed to bills HR 3962 and HR 4872), the mean price data of MPFS files 2010A and 2010B were used. All dollar values were converted to January 2023 US dollars using corresponding consumer price index inflation data. The Medicare Administrative Contractors were used to group state pricing information by region in accordance with established US Census Bureau subdivisions (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/economic-census/guidance-geographies/levels.html). Weighted percentage change in reimbursement rate was calculated using physician (MD or DO) utilization (procedure volume) data available in the 2020 Physician and Other Practitioners Public Use File (https://data.cms.gov/provider-summary-by-type-of-service/medicare-physician-other-practitioners/medicare-physician-other-practitioners-by-provider-and-service). All descriptive statistics and visualization were generated using R software (v4.2.2)(R Development Core Team).

Table 1 provides physician utilization data and the corresponding number of Part B beneficiaries for phototherapy procedures in 2020. There were 65,045 services of actinotherapy provided to a total of 6855 unique Part B beneficiaries, 173,979 services of photochemotherapy by Goeckerman treatment or using petrolatum and UVB provided to 13,122 unique Part B beneficiaries, 2524 services of photochemotherapy using psoralen plus UVA provided to a total of 357 unique Part B beneficiaries, and 37 services of photochemotherapy of severe dermatoses requiring a minimum of 4 hours of care under direct physician supervision provided to a total of 27 unique Part B beneficiaries.

On average (unweighted), phototherapy reimbursement rates in the North increased by 0.68% between 2010 and 2023 (Table 2). After weighting for 2020 physician utilization, the average change in reimbursement rate was +19.37%. During this time period, CPT code 96910 reported the greatest adjusted increase in reimbursement (+31.45%)($98.12 to $128.98; compound annual growth rate [CAGR], +0.0213), and CPT code 96912 reported the greatest adjusted decrease in reimbursement (−12.76%)($126.09 to $109.97; CAGR, −0.0105). For CPT code 96900, the reported adjusted decrease in reimbursement was −11.68% ($30.21 to $26.68; CAGR, −0.0095), and for CPT code 96913, the reported adjusted decrease in reimbursement was −4.27% ($174.03 to $166.60; CAGR, −0.0034).

On average (unweighted), phototherapy reimbursement rates in the Midwest increased by 8.40% between 2010 and 2023 (Table 3). After weighting for 2020 physician utilization, the average change in reimbursement rate was +28.53%. During this time period, CPT code 96910 reported the greatest adjusted change in reimbursement (+41.48%)($80.42 to $113.78; CAGR, +0.0270), and CPT code 96912 reported the greatest adjusted decrease in reimbursement (−6.14%)($103.28 to $97.03; CAGR, −0.0049). For CPT code 96900, the reported adjusted decrease in reimbursement was −4.73% ($24.69 to $23.52; CAGR, −0.0037), and for CPT code 96913, the reported adjusted increase in reimbursement was +2.99% ($142.72 to $146.99; CAGR, +0.0023).

On average (unweighted), phototherapy reimbursement rates in the South decreased by 2.62% between 2010 and 2023 (Table 4). After weighting for 2020 physician utilization, the average change in reimbursement rate was +15.41%. During this time period, CPT code 96910 reported the greatest adjusted change in reimbursement (+27.26%)($90.40 to $115.04 USD; CAGR, +0.0187), and CPT code 96912 reported the greatest adjusted decrease in reimbursement (−15.50%)($116.08 to $98.09; CAGR, −0.0129). For CPT code 96900, the reported adjusted decrease in reimbursement was −15.06% ($28.02 to $23.80; CAGR, −0.0125), and for CPT code 96913, the reported adjusted decrease in reimbursement was −7.19% ($160.11 to $148.61; CAGR, −0.0057).

On average (unweighted), phototherapy reimbursement rates in the West increased by 27.53% between 2010 and 2023 (Table 5). After weighting for 2020 physician utilization, the average change in reimbursement rate was +51.16%. Reimbursement for all analyzed procedures increased in the western United States. During this time period, CPT code 96910 reported the greatest adjusted increase in reimbursement (+66.56%)($80.84 to $134.65; CAGR, +0.0400), and CPT code 96912 reported the lowest adjusted increase in reimbursement (+10.64%)($103.88 to $114.93; CAGR, +0.0078). For CPT code 96900, the reported adjusted increase in reimbursement was 11.54% ($24.88 to $27.75; CAGR, +0.0084), and for CPT code 96913, the reported adjusted increase in reimbursement was 21.38% ($143.39 to $174.04; CAGR, +0.0150).

In this study evaluating geographical payment trends for phototherapy from 2010 to 2023, we demonstrated regional inconsistency in mean inflation-adjusted Medicare reimbursement rates. We found that all phototherapy procedures had increased reimbursement in the western United States, whereas all other regions reported cuts in reimbursement rates for at least half of the analyzed procedures. After adjusting for procedure utilization by physicians, weighted mean reimbursement for phototherapy increased in all US regions.

In a cross-sectional study that explored trends in the geographic distribution of dermatologists from 2012 to 2017, dermatologists in the northeastern and western United States were more likely to be located in higher-income zip codes, whereas dermatologists in the southern United States were more likely to be located in lower-income zip codes,⁷ suggesting that payment rate changes are not concordant with cost of living. Additionally, Lauck and colleagues⁸ observed that 75% of the top 20 most common procedures performed by dermatologists had decreased reimbursement (mean change, −10.8%) from 2011 to 2021. Other studies on Medicare reimbursement trends over the last 2 decades have reported major decreases within other specialties, suggesting that declining Medicare reimbursements are not unique to dermatology.^9,10 It is critical to monitor these developments, as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services emphasized health care policy changes aimed at increasing reimbursements for evaluation and management services with compensatory payment cuts in billing for procedural services.¹¹

Mazmudar et al¹² previously reported a mean reimbursement decrease of −6.6% for laser/phototherapy procedures between 2007 and 2021, but these data did not include the heavily utilized Goeckerman treatment. Changes in reimbursement pose major ramifications for dermatologists—for practice size, scope, and longevity—as rates influence changes in commercial insurance reimbursements.¹³ Medicare plays a major role in the US health care system as the second largest expenditure¹⁴; indeed, between 2000 and 2015, Part B billing volume for phototherapy procedures increased 5% annually. However, phototherapy remains inaccessible in many locations due to unequal regional distribution of phototherapy clinics.⁶ Moreover, home phototherapy units are not yet widely utilized because of safety and efficacy concerns, lack of physician oversight, and difficulty obtaining insurance coverage.¹⁵ Acknowledgment and consideration of these geographical trends may persuasively allow policymakers, hospitals, and physicians to facilitate cost-effective phototherapy reimbursements that ensure continued access to quality and sustainable dermatologic care in the United States that tailor to regional needs.

In sum, this analysis reveals regional trends in Part B physician reimbursement for phototherapy procedures, with all US regions reporting a mean increase in phototherapy reimbursement after adjusting for utilization, albeit to varying degrees. Mean reimbursement for photochemotherapy by Goeckerman treatment or using petrolatum and UVB increased most among phototherapy procedures. Mean reimbursement for both actinotherapy and photochemotherapy using psoralen plus UVA decreased in all regions except the western United States.

Limitations include the restriction to Part B MPFS and the reliance on single-year (2020) physician utilization data to compute weighted changes in average reimbursement across a multiyear range, effectively restricting sweeping conclusions. Still, this study puts forth actionable insights for dermatologists and policymakers alike to appreciate and consider.

To the Editor:

Phototherapy regularly is utilized in the outpatient setting to address various skin pathologies, including atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, pruritus, vitiligo, and mycosis fungoides.^1,2 Phototherapy is broadly defined by the measured administration of nonionizing radiation within the UV range including wavelengths within the UVA (eg, psoralen sensitizer plus UVA-1) and UVB (eg, broadband UVB, narrowband UVB) spectrums.^1,3 Generally, the mechanism of action is derived from effects on inflammatory components of cutaneous disorders and the induction of apoptosis, both precipitating numerous downstream events.⁴

From 2015 to 2018, there were more than 1.3 million outpatient phototherapy visits in the United States, with the most common procedural indications being dermatitis not otherwise specified, atopic dermatitis, and pruritus.⁵ From 2000 to 2015, the quantity of phototherapy services billed to Medicare trended upwards by an average of 5% per year, increasing from 334,670 in the year 2000 to 692,093 in 2015.⁶ Therefore, an illustration of associated costs would be beneficial. Additionally, because total cost and physician reimbursement fluctuate from year to year, studies demonstrating overall trends can inform both US policymakers and physicians. There is a paucity of research on geographical trends for procedural reimbursements in dermatology for phototherapy. Understanding geographic trends of reimbursement could duly serve to optimize dermatologist practice patterns involving access to viable and quality care for patients seeking treatment as well as draw health policymakers’ attention to striking adjustments in physician fees. Therefore, in this study we aimed to illustrate the most recent regional payment trends in phototherapy procedures for Medicare B patients.

We queried the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) database (https://www.cms.gov/medicare/payment/fee-schedules/physician/lookup-tool) for the years 2010 to 2023 for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes common to phototherapy procedures: actinotherapy (96900); photochemotherapy by Goeckerman treatment or using petrolatum and UVB (96910); photochemotherapy using psoralen plus UVA (96912); and photochemotherapy of severe dermatoses requiring a minimum of 4 hours of care under direct physician supervision (96913). Nonfacility prices for these procedures were analyzed. For 2010, due to midyear alterations to Medicare reimbursement (owed to bills HR 3962 and HR 4872), the mean price data of MPFS files 2010A and 2010B were used. All dollar values were converted to January 2023 US dollars using corresponding consumer price index inflation data. The Medicare Administrative Contractors were used to group state pricing information by region in accordance with established US Census Bureau subdivisions (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/economic-census/guidance-geographies/levels.html). Weighted percentage change in reimbursement rate was calculated using physician (MD or DO) utilization (procedure volume) data available in the 2020 Physician and Other Practitioners Public Use File (https://data.cms.gov/provider-summary-by-type-of-service/medicare-physician-other-practitioners/medicare-physician-other-practitioners-by-provider-and-service). All descriptive statistics and visualization were generated using R software (v4.2.2)(R Development Core Team).

Table 1 provides physician utilization data and the corresponding number of Part B beneficiaries for phototherapy procedures in 2020. There were 65,045 services of actinotherapy provided to a total of 6855 unique Part B beneficiaries, 173,979 services of photochemotherapy by Goeckerman treatment or using petrolatum and UVB provided to 13,122 unique Part B beneficiaries, 2524 services of photochemotherapy using psoralen plus UVA provided to a total of 357 unique Part B beneficiaries, and 37 services of photochemotherapy of severe dermatoses requiring a minimum of 4 hours of care under direct physician supervision provided to a total of 27 unique Part B beneficiaries.

On average (unweighted), phototherapy reimbursement rates in the North increased by 0.68% between 2010 and 2023 (Table 2). After weighting for 2020 physician utilization, the average change in reimbursement rate was +19.37%. During this time period, CPT code 96910 reported the greatest adjusted increase in reimbursement (+31.45%)($98.12 to $128.98; compound annual growth rate [CAGR], +0.0213), and CPT code 96912 reported the greatest adjusted decrease in reimbursement (−12.76%)($126.09 to $109.97; CAGR, −0.0105). For CPT code 96900, the reported adjusted decrease in reimbursement was −11.68% ($30.21 to $26.68; CAGR, −0.0095), and for CPT code 96913, the reported adjusted decrease in reimbursement was −4.27% ($174.03 to $166.60; CAGR, −0.0034).

On average (unweighted), phototherapy reimbursement rates in the Midwest increased by 8.40% between 2010 and 2023 (Table 3). After weighting for 2020 physician utilization, the average change in reimbursement rate was +28.53%. During this time period, CPT code 96910 reported the greatest adjusted change in reimbursement (+41.48%)($80.42 to $113.78; CAGR, +0.0270), and CPT code 96912 reported the greatest adjusted decrease in reimbursement (−6.14%)($103.28 to $97.03; CAGR, −0.0049). For CPT code 96900, the reported adjusted decrease in reimbursement was −4.73% ($24.69 to $23.52; CAGR, −0.0037), and for CPT code 96913, the reported adjusted increase in reimbursement was +2.99% ($142.72 to $146.99; CAGR, +0.0023).

On average (unweighted), phototherapy reimbursement rates in the South decreased by 2.62% between 2010 and 2023 (Table 4). After weighting for 2020 physician utilization, the average change in reimbursement rate was +15.41%. During this time period, CPT code 96910 reported the greatest adjusted change in reimbursement (+27.26%)($90.40 to $115.04 USD; CAGR, +0.0187), and CPT code 96912 reported the greatest adjusted decrease in reimbursement (−15.50%)($116.08 to $98.09; CAGR, −0.0129). For CPT code 96900, the reported adjusted decrease in reimbursement was −15.06% ($28.02 to $23.80; CAGR, −0.0125), and for CPT code 96913, the reported adjusted decrease in reimbursement was −7.19% ($160.11 to $148.61; CAGR, −0.0057).

On average (unweighted), phototherapy reimbursement rates in the West increased by 27.53% between 2010 and 2023 (Table 5). After weighting for 2020 physician utilization, the average change in reimbursement rate was +51.16%. Reimbursement for all analyzed procedures increased in the western United States. During this time period, CPT code 96910 reported the greatest adjusted increase in reimbursement (+66.56%)($80.84 to $134.65; CAGR, +0.0400), and CPT code 96912 reported the lowest adjusted increase in reimbursement (+10.64%)($103.88 to $114.93; CAGR, +0.0078). For CPT code 96900, the reported adjusted increase in reimbursement was 11.54% ($24.88 to $27.75; CAGR, +0.0084), and for CPT code 96913, the reported adjusted increase in reimbursement was 21.38% ($143.39 to $174.04; CAGR, +0.0150).

In this study evaluating geographical payment trends for phototherapy from 2010 to 2023, we demonstrated regional inconsistency in mean inflation-adjusted Medicare reimbursement rates. We found that all phototherapy procedures had increased reimbursement in the western United States, whereas all other regions reported cuts in reimbursement rates for at least half of the analyzed procedures. After adjusting for procedure utilization by physicians, weighted mean reimbursement for phototherapy increased in all US regions.

In a cross-sectional study that explored trends in the geographic distribution of dermatologists from 2012 to 2017, dermatologists in the northeastern and western United States were more likely to be located in higher-income zip codes, whereas dermatologists in the southern United States were more likely to be located in lower-income zip codes,⁷ suggesting that payment rate changes are not concordant with cost of living. Additionally, Lauck and colleagues⁸ observed that 75% of the top 20 most common procedures performed by dermatologists had decreased reimbursement (mean change, −10.8%) from 2011 to 2021. Other studies on Medicare reimbursement trends over the last 2 decades have reported major decreases within other specialties, suggesting that declining Medicare reimbursements are not unique to dermatology.^9,10 It is critical to monitor these developments, as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services emphasized health care policy changes aimed at increasing reimbursements for evaluation and management services with compensatory payment cuts in billing for procedural services.¹¹

Mazmudar et al¹² previously reported a mean reimbursement decrease of −6.6% for laser/phototherapy procedures between 2007 and 2021, but these data did not include the heavily utilized Goeckerman treatment. Changes in reimbursement pose major ramifications for dermatologists—for practice size, scope, and longevity—as rates influence changes in commercial insurance reimbursements.¹³ Medicare plays a major role in the US health care system as the second largest expenditure¹⁴; indeed, between 2000 and 2015, Part B billing volume for phototherapy procedures increased 5% annually. However, phototherapy remains inaccessible in many locations due to unequal regional distribution of phototherapy clinics.⁶ Moreover, home phototherapy units are not yet widely utilized because of safety and efficacy concerns, lack of physician oversight, and difficulty obtaining insurance coverage.¹⁵ Acknowledgment and consideration of these geographical trends may persuasively allow policymakers, hospitals, and physicians to facilitate cost-effective phototherapy reimbursements that ensure continued access to quality and sustainable dermatologic care in the United States that tailor to regional needs.

In sum, this analysis reveals regional trends in Part B physician reimbursement for phototherapy procedures, with all US regions reporting a mean increase in phototherapy reimbursement after adjusting for utilization, albeit to varying degrees. Mean reimbursement for photochemotherapy by Goeckerman treatment or using petrolatum and UVB increased most among phototherapy procedures. Mean reimbursement for both actinotherapy and photochemotherapy using psoralen plus UVA decreased in all regions except the western United States.

Limitations include the restriction to Part B MPFS and the reliance on single-year (2020) physician utilization data to compute weighted changes in average reimbursement across a multiyear range, effectively restricting sweeping conclusions. Still, this study puts forth actionable insights for dermatologists and policymakers alike to appreciate and consider.

To the Editor:

Phototherapy regularly is utilized in the outpatient setting to address various skin pathologies, including atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, pruritus, vitiligo, and mycosis fungoides.^1,2 Phototherapy is broadly defined by the measured administration of nonionizing radiation within the UV range including wavelengths within the UVA (eg, psoralen sensitizer plus UVA-1) and UVB (eg, broadband UVB, narrowband UVB) spectrums.^1,3 Generally, the mechanism of action is derived from effects on inflammatory components of cutaneous disorders and the induction of apoptosis, both precipitating numerous downstream events.⁴

From 2015 to 2018, there were more than 1.3 million outpatient phototherapy visits in the United States, with the most common procedural indications being dermatitis not otherwise specified, atopic dermatitis, and pruritus.⁵ From 2000 to 2015, the quantity of phototherapy services billed to Medicare trended upwards by an average of 5% per year, increasing from 334,670 in the year 2000 to 692,093 in 2015.⁶ Therefore, an illustration of associated costs would be beneficial. Additionally, because total cost and physician reimbursement fluctuate from year to year, studies demonstrating overall trends can inform both US policymakers and physicians. There is a paucity of research on geographical trends for procedural reimbursements in dermatology for phototherapy. Understanding geographic trends of reimbursement could duly serve to optimize dermatologist practice patterns involving access to viable and quality care for patients seeking treatment as well as draw health policymakers’ attention to striking adjustments in physician fees. Therefore, in this study we aimed to illustrate the most recent regional payment trends in phototherapy procedures for Medicare B patients.

We queried the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Medicare Physician Fee Schedule (MPFS) database (https://www.cms.gov/medicare/payment/fee-schedules/physician/lookup-tool) for the years 2010 to 2023 for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) codes common to phototherapy procedures: actinotherapy (96900); photochemotherapy by Goeckerman treatment or using petrolatum and UVB (96910); photochemotherapy using psoralen plus UVA (96912); and photochemotherapy of severe dermatoses requiring a minimum of 4 hours of care under direct physician supervision (96913). Nonfacility prices for these procedures were analyzed. For 2010, due to midyear alterations to Medicare reimbursement (owed to bills HR 3962 and HR 4872), the mean price data of MPFS files 2010A and 2010B were used. All dollar values were converted to January 2023 US dollars using corresponding consumer price index inflation data. The Medicare Administrative Contractors were used to group state pricing information by region in accordance with established US Census Bureau subdivisions (https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/economic-census/guidance-geographies/levels.html). Weighted percentage change in reimbursement rate was calculated using physician (MD or DO) utilization (procedure volume) data available in the 2020 Physician and Other Practitioners Public Use File (https://data.cms.gov/provider-summary-by-type-of-service/medicare-physician-other-practitioners/medicare-physician-other-practitioners-by-provider-and-service). All descriptive statistics and visualization were generated using R software (v4.2.2)(R Development Core Team).

Table 1 provides physician utilization data and the corresponding number of Part B beneficiaries for phototherapy procedures in 2020. There were 65,045 services of actinotherapy provided to a total of 6855 unique Part B beneficiaries, 173,979 services of photochemotherapy by Goeckerman treatment or using petrolatum and UVB provided to 13,122 unique Part B beneficiaries, 2524 services of photochemotherapy using psoralen plus UVA provided to a total of 357 unique Part B beneficiaries, and 37 services of photochemotherapy of severe dermatoses requiring a minimum of 4 hours of care under direct physician supervision provided to a total of 27 unique Part B beneficiaries.

On average (unweighted), phototherapy reimbursement rates in the North increased by 0.68% between 2010 and 2023 (Table 2). After weighting for 2020 physician utilization, the average change in reimbursement rate was +19.37%. During this time period, CPT code 96910 reported the greatest adjusted increase in reimbursement (+31.45%)($98.12 to $128.98; compound annual growth rate [CAGR], +0.0213), and CPT code 96912 reported the greatest adjusted decrease in reimbursement (−12.76%)($126.09 to $109.97; CAGR, −0.0105). For CPT code 96900, the reported adjusted decrease in reimbursement was −11.68% ($30.21 to $26.68; CAGR, −0.0095), and for CPT code 96913, the reported adjusted decrease in reimbursement was −4.27% ($174.03 to $166.60; CAGR, −0.0034).

On average (unweighted), phototherapy reimbursement rates in the Midwest increased by 8.40% between 2010 and 2023 (Table 3). After weighting for 2020 physician utilization, the average change in reimbursement rate was +28.53%. During this time period, CPT code 96910 reported the greatest adjusted change in reimbursement (+41.48%)($80.42 to $113.78; CAGR, +0.0270), and CPT code 96912 reported the greatest adjusted decrease in reimbursement (−6.14%)($103.28 to $97.03; CAGR, −0.0049). For CPT code 96900, the reported adjusted decrease in reimbursement was −4.73% ($24.69 to $23.52; CAGR, −0.0037), and for CPT code 96913, the reported adjusted increase in reimbursement was +2.99% ($142.72 to $146.99; CAGR, +0.0023).

On average (unweighted), phototherapy reimbursement rates in the South decreased by 2.62% between 2010 and 2023 (Table 4). After weighting for 2020 physician utilization, the average change in reimbursement rate was +15.41%. During this time period, CPT code 96910 reported the greatest adjusted change in reimbursement (+27.26%)($90.40 to $115.04 USD; CAGR, +0.0187), and CPT code 96912 reported the greatest adjusted decrease in reimbursement (−15.50%)($116.08 to $98.09; CAGR, −0.0129). For CPT code 96900, the reported adjusted decrease in reimbursement was −15.06% ($28.02 to $23.80; CAGR, −0.0125), and for CPT code 96913, the reported adjusted decrease in reimbursement was −7.19% ($160.11 to $148.61; CAGR, −0.0057).

On average (unweighted), phototherapy reimbursement rates in the West increased by 27.53% between 2010 and 2023 (Table 5). After weighting for 2020 physician utilization, the average change in reimbursement rate was +51.16%. Reimbursement for all analyzed procedures increased in the western United States. During this time period, CPT code 96910 reported the greatest adjusted increase in reimbursement (+66.56%)($80.84 to $134.65; CAGR, +0.0400), and CPT code 96912 reported the lowest adjusted increase in reimbursement (+10.64%)($103.88 to $114.93; CAGR, +0.0078). For CPT code 96900, the reported adjusted increase in reimbursement was 11.54% ($24.88 to $27.75; CAGR, +0.0084), and for CPT code 96913, the reported adjusted increase in reimbursement was 21.38% ($143.39 to $174.04; CAGR, +0.0150).

In this study evaluating geographical payment trends for phototherapy from 2010 to 2023, we demonstrated regional inconsistency in mean inflation-adjusted Medicare reimbursement rates. We found that all phototherapy procedures had increased reimbursement in the western United States, whereas all other regions reported cuts in reimbursement rates for at least half of the analyzed procedures. After adjusting for procedure utilization by physicians, weighted mean reimbursement for phototherapy increased in all US regions.

In a cross-sectional study that explored trends in the geographic distribution of dermatologists from 2012 to 2017, dermatologists in the northeastern and western United States were more likely to be located in higher-income zip codes, whereas dermatologists in the southern United States were more likely to be located in lower-income zip codes,⁷ suggesting that payment rate changes are not concordant with cost of living. Additionally, Lauck and colleagues⁸ observed that 75% of the top 20 most common procedures performed by dermatologists had decreased reimbursement (mean change, −10.8%) from 2011 to 2021. Other studies on Medicare reimbursement trends over the last 2 decades have reported major decreases within other specialties, suggesting that declining Medicare reimbursements are not unique to dermatology.^9,10 It is critical to monitor these developments, as the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services emphasized health care policy changes aimed at increasing reimbursements for evaluation and management services with compensatory payment cuts in billing for procedural services.¹¹

Mazmudar et al¹² previously reported a mean reimbursement decrease of −6.6% for laser/phototherapy procedures between 2007 and 2021, but these data did not include the heavily utilized Goeckerman treatment. Changes in reimbursement pose major ramifications for dermatologists—for practice size, scope, and longevity—as rates influence changes in commercial insurance reimbursements.¹³ Medicare plays a major role in the US health care system as the second largest expenditure¹⁴; indeed, between 2000 and 2015, Part B billing volume for phototherapy procedures increased 5% annually. However, phototherapy remains inaccessible in many locations due to unequal regional distribution of phototherapy clinics.⁶ Moreover, home phototherapy units are not yet widely utilized because of safety and efficacy concerns, lack of physician oversight, and difficulty obtaining insurance coverage.¹⁵ Acknowledgment and consideration of these geographical trends may persuasively allow policymakers, hospitals, and physicians to facilitate cost-effective phototherapy reimbursements that ensure continued access to quality and sustainable dermatologic care in the United States that tailor to regional needs.

In sum, this analysis reveals regional trends in Part B physician reimbursement for phototherapy procedures, with all US regions reporting a mean increase in phototherapy reimbursement after adjusting for utilization, albeit to varying degrees. Mean reimbursement for photochemotherapy by Goeckerman treatment or using petrolatum and UVB increased most among phototherapy procedures. Mean reimbursement for both actinotherapy and photochemotherapy using psoralen plus UVA decreased in all regions except the western United States.

Limitations include the restriction to Part B MPFS and the reliance on single-year (2020) physician utilization data to compute weighted changes in average reimbursement across a multiyear range, effectively restricting sweeping conclusions. Still, this study puts forth actionable insights for dermatologists and policymakers alike to appreciate and consider.

Competency in paracentesis is an important procedural skill for medical practitioners caring for patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis. Paracentesis is performed to drain ascitic fluid for both diagnosis and/or therapeutic purposes.¹ While this procedure can be performed without the use of ultrasound, it is preferable to use ultrasound to identify an area of fluid that is away from dangerous anatomy including bowel loops, the liver, and spleen. After prepping the area, lidocaine is administered locally. A catheter is then inserted until fluid begins flowing freely. The catheter is connected to a suction canister or collection kit, and the patient is monitored until the flow ceases. Samples can be sent for analysis to determine the etiology of ascites, identify concerns for infection, and more.

Paracentesis is a very common procedure. Barsuk and colleagues noted that between 2010 and 2012, 97,577 procedures were performed across 120 academic medical centers and 290 affiliated hospitals.² Patients undergo paracentesis in a variety of settings including the emergency department, inpatient hospitalizations, and clinics. Some patients may require only 1 paracentesis procedure while others may require it regularly.

Due to the rising need for paracentesis in the Central Texas Veterans Affairs Hospital (CTVAH) in Temple, a paracentesis clinic was started in February 2018. The goal of the paracentesis clinic was multifocal—to reduce hospital admissions, improve access to regularly scheduled procedures, decrease wait times, and increase patient satisfaction.³ Through the CTVAH affiliation with the Texas A&M internal medicine residency program, the paracentesis clinic started involving and training residents on this procedure. Up to 3 residents are on weekly rotation and can perform up to 6 paracentesis procedures in a week. The purpose of this article was to evaluate resident competency in paracentesis after completion of the paracentesis clinic.

Methods

The paracentesis clinic schedules up to 3 patients on Tuesdays and Thursdays between 8 am and noon. All the necessary equipment is readily available and includes the paracentesis kit, lidocaine, sterile gloves, ultrasound, and albumin if needed. Because this procedure is performed at the hospital, direct access to the emergency department is available. Residents are scheduled weekly. Up to 2 residents are scheduled for the paracentesis clinic during their dedicated clinic week. They are expected to practice obtaining consent, performing the procedure, and documenting the encounter under staff supervision. Additionally, 1 or 2 residents participate in the paracentesis clinic as part of an ultrasound elective twice per year. In this elective, they practice ultrasound skills using a simulation and translate that information in the paracentesis clinic while identifying anatomy and performing the paracentesis procedure under staff supervision.

A survey was sent via email to all categorical internal medicine residents across all 3 program years at the time of data collection. Competency for paracentesis sign-off was defined as completing and logging 5 procedures supervised by a competent physician who confirmed that all portions of the procedure were performed correctly. Residents were also asked to answer questions on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 representing no confidence and 10 representing strong confidence to practice independently (Table).

We also evaluated the number of procedures performed by internal medicine residents 3 years before the clinic was started in 2015 up to the completion of 2022. The numbers were obtained by examining procedural log data for each year for all internal medicine residents.

Results

Thirty-three residents completed the survey: 10 first-year internal medicine residents (PGY1), 12 second-year residents (PGY2), and 11 third-year residents (PGY3). The mean participation was 4.8 paracentesis sessions per person for the duration of the study. The range of paracentesis procedures performed varied based on PGY year: PGY1s performed 1 to > 10 procedures, PGY2s performed 2 to > 10 procedures, and PGY3s performed 5 to > 10 procedures. Thirty-six percent of residents completed > 10 procedures in the paracentesis clinic; 82% of PGY3s had completed > 10 procedures by December of their third year. Twenty-six residents (79%) were credentialed to perform paracentesis procedures independently after performing > 5 procedures, and 7 residents were not yet cleared for procedural independence.

In the survey, residents rated their comfort with performing paracentesis procedures independently at a mean of 7.9. The mean comfort reported by PGY1s was 7.2, PGY2s was 7.3, and PGY3s was 9.3. Residents also rated their opinion on whether or not the paracentesis clinic adequately prepared them for paracentesis procedural independence; the mean was 8.9 across all residents.

The total number of procedures performed by residents at CTVAH also increased. Starting in 2015, 3 years before the clinic was started, 38 procedures were performed by internal medicine residents, followed by 72 procedures in 2016; 76 in 2017; 58 in 2018; 94 in 2019; 88 in 2020; 136 in 2021; and 188 in 2022.

 

 

Discussion

Paracentesis is a simple but invasive procedure to relieve ascites, often relieving patients’ symptoms, preventing hospital admission, and increasing patient satisfaction.⁴ The CTVAH does not have the capacity to perform outpatient paracentesis effectively in its emergency or radiology departments. Furthermore, the use of the emergency or radiology departments for routine paracentesis may not be feasible due to the acuity of care being provided, as these procedures can be time consuming and can draw away critical resources and time from patients that need emergent care. The paracentesis clinic was then formed to provide veterans access to the procedural care they need, while also preparing residents to ably and confidently perform the procedure independently.

Based on our study, most residents were cleared to independently perform paracentesis procedures across all 3 years, with 79% of residents having completed the required 5 supervised procedures to independently practice. A study assessing unsupervised practice standards showed that paracentesis skill declines as soon as 3 months after training. However, retraining was shown to potentially interrupt this skill decline.⁵ Studies have shown that procedure-driven electives or services significantly improved paracentesis certification rates and total logged procedures, with minimal funding or scheduling changes required.⁶ Our clinic showed a significant increase in the number of procedures logged starting with the minimum of 38 procedures in 2015 and ending with 188 procedures logged at the end of 2022.

By allowing residents to routinely return to the paracentesis clinic across all 3 years, residents were more likely to feel comfortable independently performing the procedure, with residents reporting a mean comfort score of 7.9. The spaced repetition and ability to work with the clinic during elective time allows regular opportunities to undergo supervised training in a controlled environment and created scheduled retraining opportunities. Future studies should evaluate residents prior to each paracentesis clinic to ascertain if skill decline is occurring at a slower rate.

The inpatient effect of the clinic is also multifocal. Pham and colleagues showed that integrating paracentesis into timely training can reduce paracentesis delay and delays in care.⁷ By increasing the volume of procedures each resident performs and creating a sense of confidence amongst residents, the clinic increases the number of residents able and willing to perform inpatient procedures, thus reducing the number of unnecessary consultations and hospital resources. One of the reasons the paracentesis clinic was started was to allow patients to have scheduled times to remove fluid from their abdomen, thus cutting down on emergency department procedures and unnecessary admissions. Additionally, the benefits of early paracentesis procedural performance by residents and internal medicine physicians have been demonstrated in the literature. A study by Gaetano and colleagues noted that patients undergoing early paracentesis had reduced mortality of 5.5% vs 7.5% in those undergoing late paracentesis.⁸ This study also showed the in-hospital mortality rate was decreased with paracentesis (6.3%) vs without paracentesis (8.9%).⁸ By offering residents a chance to participate in the clinic, we have shown that regular opportunities to perform paracentesis may increase the number of physicians capable of independently practicing, improve procedural competency, and improve patient access to this procedure.

Limitations

Our study was not free of bias and has potential weaknesses. The survey was sent to all current residents who have participated in the paracentesis clinic, but not every resident filled out the survey (55% of all residents across 3 years completed the survey, 68.7% who had done clinic that year completed the survey). There is a possibility that those not signed off avoided doing the survey, but we are unable to confirm this. The survey also depended on resident recall of the number of paracenteses completed or looking at their procedure log. It is possible that some procedures were not documented, changing the true number. Additionally, rating comfortability with procedures is subjective, which may also create a source of potential weakness. Future projects should include a baseline survey for residents, followed by a repeat survey a year later to show changes from baseline competency.

Conclusions

A dedicated paracentesis clinic with internal medicine resident involvement may increase resident paracentesis procedural independence, the number of procedures available and performed, and procedural comfort level.

Competency in paracentesis is an important procedural skill for medical practitioners caring for patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis. Paracentesis is performed to drain ascitic fluid for both diagnosis and/or therapeutic purposes.¹ While this procedure can be performed without the use of ultrasound, it is preferable to use ultrasound to identify an area of fluid that is away from dangerous anatomy including bowel loops, the liver, and spleen. After prepping the area, lidocaine is administered locally. A catheter is then inserted until fluid begins flowing freely. The catheter is connected to a suction canister or collection kit, and the patient is monitored until the flow ceases. Samples can be sent for analysis to determine the etiology of ascites, identify concerns for infection, and more.

Paracentesis is a very common procedure. Barsuk and colleagues noted that between 2010 and 2012, 97,577 procedures were performed across 120 academic medical centers and 290 affiliated hospitals.² Patients undergo paracentesis in a variety of settings including the emergency department, inpatient hospitalizations, and clinics. Some patients may require only 1 paracentesis procedure while others may require it regularly.

Due to the rising need for paracentesis in the Central Texas Veterans Affairs Hospital (CTVAH) in Temple, a paracentesis clinic was started in February 2018. The goal of the paracentesis clinic was multifocal—to reduce hospital admissions, improve access to regularly scheduled procedures, decrease wait times, and increase patient satisfaction.³ Through the CTVAH affiliation with the Texas A&M internal medicine residency program, the paracentesis clinic started involving and training residents on this procedure. Up to 3 residents are on weekly rotation and can perform up to 6 paracentesis procedures in a week. The purpose of this article was to evaluate resident competency in paracentesis after completion of the paracentesis clinic.

Methods

The paracentesis clinic schedules up to 3 patients on Tuesdays and Thursdays between 8 am and noon. All the necessary equipment is readily available and includes the paracentesis kit, lidocaine, sterile gloves, ultrasound, and albumin if needed. Because this procedure is performed at the hospital, direct access to the emergency department is available. Residents are scheduled weekly. Up to 2 residents are scheduled for the paracentesis clinic during their dedicated clinic week. They are expected to practice obtaining consent, performing the procedure, and documenting the encounter under staff supervision. Additionally, 1 or 2 residents participate in the paracentesis clinic as part of an ultrasound elective twice per year. In this elective, they practice ultrasound skills using a simulation and translate that information in the paracentesis clinic while identifying anatomy and performing the paracentesis procedure under staff supervision.

A survey was sent via email to all categorical internal medicine residents across all 3 program years at the time of data collection. Competency for paracentesis sign-off was defined as completing and logging 5 procedures supervised by a competent physician who confirmed that all portions of the procedure were performed correctly. Residents were also asked to answer questions on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 representing no confidence and 10 representing strong confidence to practice independently (Table).

We also evaluated the number of procedures performed by internal medicine residents 3 years before the clinic was started in 2015 up to the completion of 2022. The numbers were obtained by examining procedural log data for each year for all internal medicine residents.

Results

Thirty-three residents completed the survey: 10 first-year internal medicine residents (PGY1), 12 second-year residents (PGY2), and 11 third-year residents (PGY3). The mean participation was 4.8 paracentesis sessions per person for the duration of the study. The range of paracentesis procedures performed varied based on PGY year: PGY1s performed 1 to > 10 procedures, PGY2s performed 2 to > 10 procedures, and PGY3s performed 5 to > 10 procedures. Thirty-six percent of residents completed > 10 procedures in the paracentesis clinic; 82% of PGY3s had completed > 10 procedures by December of their third year. Twenty-six residents (79%) were credentialed to perform paracentesis procedures independently after performing > 5 procedures, and 7 residents were not yet cleared for procedural independence.

In the survey, residents rated their comfort with performing paracentesis procedures independently at a mean of 7.9. The mean comfort reported by PGY1s was 7.2, PGY2s was 7.3, and PGY3s was 9.3. Residents also rated their opinion on whether or not the paracentesis clinic adequately prepared them for paracentesis procedural independence; the mean was 8.9 across all residents.

The total number of procedures performed by residents at CTVAH also increased. Starting in 2015, 3 years before the clinic was started, 38 procedures were performed by internal medicine residents, followed by 72 procedures in 2016; 76 in 2017; 58 in 2018; 94 in 2019; 88 in 2020; 136 in 2021; and 188 in 2022.

 

 

Discussion

Paracentesis is a simple but invasive procedure to relieve ascites, often relieving patients’ symptoms, preventing hospital admission, and increasing patient satisfaction.⁴ The CTVAH does not have the capacity to perform outpatient paracentesis effectively in its emergency or radiology departments. Furthermore, the use of the emergency or radiology departments for routine paracentesis may not be feasible due to the acuity of care being provided, as these procedures can be time consuming and can draw away critical resources and time from patients that need emergent care. The paracentesis clinic was then formed to provide veterans access to the procedural care they need, while also preparing residents to ably and confidently perform the procedure independently.

Based on our study, most residents were cleared to independently perform paracentesis procedures across all 3 years, with 79% of residents having completed the required 5 supervised procedures to independently practice. A study assessing unsupervised practice standards showed that paracentesis skill declines as soon as 3 months after training. However, retraining was shown to potentially interrupt this skill decline.⁵ Studies have shown that procedure-driven electives or services significantly improved paracentesis certification rates and total logged procedures, with minimal funding or scheduling changes required.⁶ Our clinic showed a significant increase in the number of procedures logged starting with the minimum of 38 procedures in 2015 and ending with 188 procedures logged at the end of 2022.

By allowing residents to routinely return to the paracentesis clinic across all 3 years, residents were more likely to feel comfortable independently performing the procedure, with residents reporting a mean comfort score of 7.9. The spaced repetition and ability to work with the clinic during elective time allows regular opportunities to undergo supervised training in a controlled environment and created scheduled retraining opportunities. Future studies should evaluate residents prior to each paracentesis clinic to ascertain if skill decline is occurring at a slower rate.

The inpatient effect of the clinic is also multifocal. Pham and colleagues showed that integrating paracentesis into timely training can reduce paracentesis delay and delays in care.⁷ By increasing the volume of procedures each resident performs and creating a sense of confidence amongst residents, the clinic increases the number of residents able and willing to perform inpatient procedures, thus reducing the number of unnecessary consultations and hospital resources. One of the reasons the paracentesis clinic was started was to allow patients to have scheduled times to remove fluid from their abdomen, thus cutting down on emergency department procedures and unnecessary admissions. Additionally, the benefits of early paracentesis procedural performance by residents and internal medicine physicians have been demonstrated in the literature. A study by Gaetano and colleagues noted that patients undergoing early paracentesis had reduced mortality of 5.5% vs 7.5% in those undergoing late paracentesis.⁸ This study also showed the in-hospital mortality rate was decreased with paracentesis (6.3%) vs without paracentesis (8.9%).⁸ By offering residents a chance to participate in the clinic, we have shown that regular opportunities to perform paracentesis may increase the number of physicians capable of independently practicing, improve procedural competency, and improve patient access to this procedure.

Limitations

Our study was not free of bias and has potential weaknesses. The survey was sent to all current residents who have participated in the paracentesis clinic, but not every resident filled out the survey (55% of all residents across 3 years completed the survey, 68.7% who had done clinic that year completed the survey). There is a possibility that those not signed off avoided doing the survey, but we are unable to confirm this. The survey also depended on resident recall of the number of paracenteses completed or looking at their procedure log. It is possible that some procedures were not documented, changing the true number. Additionally, rating comfortability with procedures is subjective, which may also create a source of potential weakness. Future projects should include a baseline survey for residents, followed by a repeat survey a year later to show changes from baseline competency.

Conclusions

A dedicated paracentesis clinic with internal medicine resident involvement may increase resident paracentesis procedural independence, the number of procedures available and performed, and procedural comfort level.

Competency in paracentesis is an important procedural skill for medical practitioners caring for patients with decompensated liver cirrhosis. Paracentesis is performed to drain ascitic fluid for both diagnosis and/or therapeutic purposes.¹ While this procedure can be performed without the use of ultrasound, it is preferable to use ultrasound to identify an area of fluid that is away from dangerous anatomy including bowel loops, the liver, and spleen. After prepping the area, lidocaine is administered locally. A catheter is then inserted until fluid begins flowing freely. The catheter is connected to a suction canister or collection kit, and the patient is monitored until the flow ceases. Samples can be sent for analysis to determine the etiology of ascites, identify concerns for infection, and more.

Paracentesis is a very common procedure. Barsuk and colleagues noted that between 2010 and 2012, 97,577 procedures were performed across 120 academic medical centers and 290 affiliated hospitals.² Patients undergo paracentesis in a variety of settings including the emergency department, inpatient hospitalizations, and clinics. Some patients may require only 1 paracentesis procedure while others may require it regularly.

Due to the rising need for paracentesis in the Central Texas Veterans Affairs Hospital (CTVAH) in Temple, a paracentesis clinic was started in February 2018. The goal of the paracentesis clinic was multifocal—to reduce hospital admissions, improve access to regularly scheduled procedures, decrease wait times, and increase patient satisfaction.³ Through the CTVAH affiliation with the Texas A&M internal medicine residency program, the paracentesis clinic started involving and training residents on this procedure. Up to 3 residents are on weekly rotation and can perform up to 6 paracentesis procedures in a week. The purpose of this article was to evaluate resident competency in paracentesis after completion of the paracentesis clinic.

Methods

The paracentesis clinic schedules up to 3 patients on Tuesdays and Thursdays between 8 am and noon. All the necessary equipment is readily available and includes the paracentesis kit, lidocaine, sterile gloves, ultrasound, and albumin if needed. Because this procedure is performed at the hospital, direct access to the emergency department is available. Residents are scheduled weekly. Up to 2 residents are scheduled for the paracentesis clinic during their dedicated clinic week. They are expected to practice obtaining consent, performing the procedure, and documenting the encounter under staff supervision. Additionally, 1 or 2 residents participate in the paracentesis clinic as part of an ultrasound elective twice per year. In this elective, they practice ultrasound skills using a simulation and translate that information in the paracentesis clinic while identifying anatomy and performing the paracentesis procedure under staff supervision.

A survey was sent via email to all categorical internal medicine residents across all 3 program years at the time of data collection. Competency for paracentesis sign-off was defined as completing and logging 5 procedures supervised by a competent physician who confirmed that all portions of the procedure were performed correctly. Residents were also asked to answer questions on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 representing no confidence and 10 representing strong confidence to practice independently (Table).

We also evaluated the number of procedures performed by internal medicine residents 3 years before the clinic was started in 2015 up to the completion of 2022. The numbers were obtained by examining procedural log data for each year for all internal medicine residents.

Results

Thirty-three residents completed the survey: 10 first-year internal medicine residents (PGY1), 12 second-year residents (PGY2), and 11 third-year residents (PGY3). The mean participation was 4.8 paracentesis sessions per person for the duration of the study. The range of paracentesis procedures performed varied based on PGY year: PGY1s performed 1 to > 10 procedures, PGY2s performed 2 to > 10 procedures, and PGY3s performed 5 to > 10 procedures. Thirty-six percent of residents completed > 10 procedures in the paracentesis clinic; 82% of PGY3s had completed > 10 procedures by December of their third year. Twenty-six residents (79%) were credentialed to perform paracentesis procedures independently after performing > 5 procedures, and 7 residents were not yet cleared for procedural independence.

In the survey, residents rated their comfort with performing paracentesis procedures independently at a mean of 7.9. The mean comfort reported by PGY1s was 7.2, PGY2s was 7.3, and PGY3s was 9.3. Residents also rated their opinion on whether or not the paracentesis clinic adequately prepared them for paracentesis procedural independence; the mean was 8.9 across all residents.

The total number of procedures performed by residents at CTVAH also increased. Starting in 2015, 3 years before the clinic was started, 38 procedures were performed by internal medicine residents, followed by 72 procedures in 2016; 76 in 2017; 58 in 2018; 94 in 2019; 88 in 2020; 136 in 2021; and 188 in 2022.

 

 

Discussion

Paracentesis is a simple but invasive procedure to relieve ascites, often relieving patients’ symptoms, preventing hospital admission, and increasing patient satisfaction.⁴ The CTVAH does not have the capacity to perform outpatient paracentesis effectively in its emergency or radiology departments. Furthermore, the use of the emergency or radiology departments for routine paracentesis may not be feasible due to the acuity of care being provided, as these procedures can be time consuming and can draw away critical resources and time from patients that need emergent care. The paracentesis clinic was then formed to provide veterans access to the procedural care they need, while also preparing residents to ably and confidently perform the procedure independently.

Based on our study, most residents were cleared to independently perform paracentesis procedures across all 3 years, with 79% of residents having completed the required 5 supervised procedures to independently practice. A study assessing unsupervised practice standards showed that paracentesis skill declines as soon as 3 months after training. However, retraining was shown to potentially interrupt this skill decline.⁵ Studies have shown that procedure-driven electives or services significantly improved paracentesis certification rates and total logged procedures, with minimal funding or scheduling changes required.⁶ Our clinic showed a significant increase in the number of procedures logged starting with the minimum of 38 procedures in 2015 and ending with 188 procedures logged at the end of 2022.

By allowing residents to routinely return to the paracentesis clinic across all 3 years, residents were more likely to feel comfortable independently performing the procedure, with residents reporting a mean comfort score of 7.9. The spaced repetition and ability to work with the clinic during elective time allows regular opportunities to undergo supervised training in a controlled environment and created scheduled retraining opportunities. Future studies should evaluate residents prior to each paracentesis clinic to ascertain if skill decline is occurring at a slower rate.

The inpatient effect of the clinic is also multifocal. Pham and colleagues showed that integrating paracentesis into timely training can reduce paracentesis delay and delays in care.⁷ By increasing the volume of procedures each resident performs and creating a sense of confidence amongst residents, the clinic increases the number of residents able and willing to perform inpatient procedures, thus reducing the number of unnecessary consultations and hospital resources. One of the reasons the paracentesis clinic was started was to allow patients to have scheduled times to remove fluid from their abdomen, thus cutting down on emergency department procedures and unnecessary admissions. Additionally, the benefits of early paracentesis procedural performance by residents and internal medicine physicians have been demonstrated in the literature. A study by Gaetano and colleagues noted that patients undergoing early paracentesis had reduced mortality of 5.5% vs 7.5% in those undergoing late paracentesis.⁸ This study also showed the in-hospital mortality rate was decreased with paracentesis (6.3%) vs without paracentesis (8.9%).⁸ By offering residents a chance to participate in the clinic, we have shown that regular opportunities to perform paracentesis may increase the number of physicians capable of independently practicing, improve procedural competency, and improve patient access to this procedure.

Limitations

Our study was not free of bias and has potential weaknesses. The survey was sent to all current residents who have participated in the paracentesis clinic, but not every resident filled out the survey (55% of all residents across 3 years completed the survey, 68.7% who had done clinic that year completed the survey). There is a possibility that those not signed off avoided doing the survey, but we are unable to confirm this. The survey also depended on resident recall of the number of paracenteses completed or looking at their procedure log. It is possible that some procedures were not documented, changing the true number. Additionally, rating comfortability with procedures is subjective, which may also create a source of potential weakness. Future projects should include a baseline survey for residents, followed by a repeat survey a year later to show changes from baseline competency.

Conclusions

A dedicated paracentesis clinic with internal medicine resident involvement may increase resident paracentesis procedural independence, the number of procedures available and performed, and procedural comfort level.

Piperacillin/tazobactam (PTZ) is a combination IV antibiotic comprised of the semisynthetic antipseudomonal β-lactam, piperacillin sodium, and the β-lactamase inhibitor, tazobactam sodium.¹ PTZ is extensively prescribed in the hospital setting for a multitude of infections including but not limited to the US Food and Drug Administration–approved indications: intra-abdominal infection, skin and skin structure infection (SSTI), urinary tract infection (UTI), and pneumonia. Given its broad spectrum of activity and relative safety profile, PTZ is a mainstay of many empiric IV antibiotic regimens. The primary elimination pathway for PTZ is renal excretion, and dosage adjustments are recommended with reduced creatinine clearance. Additionally, PTZ use has been associated with acute renal injury and delayed renal recovery.^1-3

There are various mechanisms through which medications can contribute to acute decomopensated heart failure (ADHF).⁴ These mechanisms include direct cardiotoxicity; negative inotropic, lusitropic, or chronotropic effects; exacerbating hypertension; sodium loading; and drug-drug interactions that limit the benefits of heart failure (HF) medications. One potentially overlooked constituent of PTZ is the sodium content, with the standard formulation containing 65 mg of sodium per gram of piperacillin.^1-3 Furthermore, PTZ must be diluted in 50 to 150 mL of diluent, commonly 0.9% sodium chloride, which can contribute an additional 177 to 531 mg of sodium per dose. PTZ prescribing information advises caution for use in patients with decreased renal, hepatic, and/or cardiac function and notes that geriatric patients, particularly with HF, may be at risk of impaired natriuresis in the setting of large sodium doses.

It is estimated that roughly 6.2 million adults in the United States have HF and prevalence continues to rise.^5,6 Mortality rates after hospitalization due to HF are 20% to 25% at 1 year. Health care expenditures for the management of HF surpass $30 billion per year in the US, with most of this cost attributed to hospitalizations. Consequently, it is important to continue to identify and practice preventative strategies when managing patients with HF.

Methods

This single-center, retrospective, cohort study was conducted at James H. Quillen Veterans Affairs Medical Center (JHQVAMC) in Mountain Home, Tennessee, a 174-bed tertiary medical center. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of ADHF in patients who received PTZ vs cefepime (CFP). This project was reviewed by the JHQVAMC Institutional Review Board and deemed exempt as a clinical process improvement operations activity.

The antimicrobial stewardship team at JHQVAMC reviewed the use of PTZ in veterans between January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, and compared baseline demographics, history of HF, and outcomes in patients receiving analogous broad-spectrum empiric antibiotic therapy with CFP. Patients were included if they received at least 24 hours of PTZ or CFP. Patients were excluded if they were diagnosed with ADHF before initiation of antibiotic therapy. Patients with ADHF were identified by clinical diagnosis of ADHF documented by the treating clinician and reaffirmed by the study clinician during retrospective chart review. Clinical information used to determine ADHF included clinical presentation, imaging (ie, chest X-ray, echocardiograms), and laboratory parameters, such as B-type natriuretic peptide. The primary endpoint of this study was the incidence of ADHF during the current hospitalization. Secondary endpoints included the length of hospital stay, hospital readmission, and overall mortality. Patient chart reviews were performed using the JHQVAMC Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS).

Statistical Analysis

Analysis was conducted with R Software. Pearson χ² and t tests were used to compare baseline demographics, length of stay, readmission, and mortality. Significance used was α = .05.

 

 

Results

A retrospective chart review was performed on 389 veterans. Of the 389, 204 patients received at least 24 hours of PTZ, and 185 patients received CFP. The mean age in both groups was 75 years. Patients in the PTZ group were more likely to have been admitted with the diagnosis of pneumonia (105 vs 49, P < .001). However, 29 patients (15.7%) in the CFP group were admitted with a UTI diagnosis compared with 6 patients (2.9%) in the PTZ group (P < .001) and 62 patients (33.5%) in the CFP group were admitted with a SSTI diagnosis compared with 48 patients (23.5%) in the PTZ group (P = .03). Otherwise, there were no differences between other admitting diagnoses. Additionally, there was no difference in prior history of HF between groups (Table 1).

Twenty-five patients (12.3%) in the PTZ group and 4 patients (2.2%) in the CFP group were subsequently diagnosed with ADHF (P < .001). Hospital readmissions due to HF were higher in the PTZ group compared with the CFP group (11 vs 2, P = .02). Hospital readmission due to other causes was not significantly different between groups. Hospital readmission due to infection occurred in 18 patients who received PTZ and 25 who received CFP (8.8% vs 13.5%, P = .14). Hospital readmission due to any other indication occurred in 24 patients who received PTZ and 24 who received CFP (11.8% vs 13.0%, P = .72). There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality during the associated admission or within 6 months of discharge between groups, with 59 total deaths in the PTZ group and 50 in the CFP group (28.9% vs 27.0%, P = .63).

There was no difference in length of stay outcomes between patients receiving PTZ compared with CFP. Twenty-eight patients in the PTZ group and 20 in the CFP group had a length of stay duration of < 3 days (13.7% vs 10.8%, P = .46). Seventy-three patients in the PTZ group and 76 in the CFP group had a length of stay duration of 4 to 6 days (36.3% vs 41.1%, P = .28). One hundred three patients in the PTZ group and 89 in the CFP group had a length of stay duration ≥ 7 days (50.5% vs 48.1%, P = .78). Table 2 includes a complete overview of primary and secondary endpoint results.

Discussion

The American Heart Association (AHA) lists PTZ as a medication that may cause or exacerbate HF, though no studies have identified a clear association between PTZ use and ADHF.⁴ Sodium restriction is consistently recommended as an important strategy for the prevention of ADHF. Accordingly, PTZ prescribing information and the AHA advise careful consideration with PTZ use in this patient population.^1,4

The specific mechanism responsible for the association of PTZ with cardiac-related adverse outcomes is unclear. It is easy to presume that the sodium content of PTZ is solely responsible; however, other antibiotic regimens not included as agents of concern by the AHA, such as meropenem, can approach similar overall daily sodium amounts.^4,7 Additionally, total sodium and volume can also be contributed by various IV medications and fluids. This study did not evaluate total sodium intake from all sources, but it is notable that this study identified a possible trend toward the risk of ADHF with PTZ use in a routine practice environment. It is reasonable to postulate additional intrinsic properties of PTZ may be contributing to the development of ADHF, such as its association with renal injury possibly resulting in increased fluid retainment and subsequent fluid volume overload.^1,2,4 Other hypothesized mechanisms may include those previously described, such as direct myocardial toxicity; negative inotropic, lusitropic, or chronotropic effects; exacerbating hypertension; and drug-drug interactions that limit the benefits of HF medications, although these have not been overtly associated with PTZ in the literature to date.^4,8

ADHF can present similarly to other acute pulmonary conditions, including pneumonia.^9,10 It is important to acknowledge the challenge this creates for diagnosticians to differentiate between these conditions rapidly and precisely. As a result, this patient population is likely at increased risk of IV antibiotic exposure. Other studies have identified worse outcomes in patients who receive potentially unwarranted IV antibiotics in patients with ADHF.^9,10 The results of this study further emphasize the importance of careful considerate antibiotic selection and overall avoidance of unnecessary antibiotic exposure to limit potential adverse outcomes.

Limitations

There are various limitations to this study. Firstly, no women were included due to the predominantly male population within the Veterans Health Administration system. Secondly, this study was retrospective in design and was therefore limited to the completeness and accuracy of the available data collected. Additionally, this study evaluated any ADHF episode during the associated hospitalization as the primary endpoint. The time to diagnosis of ADHF in relation to PTZ initiation was not evaluated, which may have helped better elucidate this possible association. Furthermore, while a significant statistical difference was identified, the smaller sample size may have limited the ability to accurately identify differences in lower event rate outcomes.

Conclusions

This study identifies an association between PTZ use and significant cardiac-related adverse outcomes, including increased incidence of ADHF and readmission due to HF exacerbation. While more research is needed to define the exact mechanisms by which PTZ may precipitate acute decompensation in patients with HF, it is judicious to consider close monitoring or the avoidance of PTZ when appropriate antibiotic alternatives are available in patients with a known history of HF.

Piperacillin/tazobactam (PTZ) is a combination IV antibiotic comprised of the semisynthetic antipseudomonal β-lactam, piperacillin sodium, and the β-lactamase inhibitor, tazobactam sodium.¹ PTZ is extensively prescribed in the hospital setting for a multitude of infections including but not limited to the US Food and Drug Administration–approved indications: intra-abdominal infection, skin and skin structure infection (SSTI), urinary tract infection (UTI), and pneumonia. Given its broad spectrum of activity and relative safety profile, PTZ is a mainstay of many empiric IV antibiotic regimens. The primary elimination pathway for PTZ is renal excretion, and dosage adjustments are recommended with reduced creatinine clearance. Additionally, PTZ use has been associated with acute renal injury and delayed renal recovery.^1-3

There are various mechanisms through which medications can contribute to acute decomopensated heart failure (ADHF).⁴ These mechanisms include direct cardiotoxicity; negative inotropic, lusitropic, or chronotropic effects; exacerbating hypertension; sodium loading; and drug-drug interactions that limit the benefits of heart failure (HF) medications. One potentially overlooked constituent of PTZ is the sodium content, with the standard formulation containing 65 mg of sodium per gram of piperacillin.^1-3 Furthermore, PTZ must be diluted in 50 to 150 mL of diluent, commonly 0.9% sodium chloride, which can contribute an additional 177 to 531 mg of sodium per dose. PTZ prescribing information advises caution for use in patients with decreased renal, hepatic, and/or cardiac function and notes that geriatric patients, particularly with HF, may be at risk of impaired natriuresis in the setting of large sodium doses.

It is estimated that roughly 6.2 million adults in the United States have HF and prevalence continues to rise.^5,6 Mortality rates after hospitalization due to HF are 20% to 25% at 1 year. Health care expenditures for the management of HF surpass $30 billion per year in the US, with most of this cost attributed to hospitalizations. Consequently, it is important to continue to identify and practice preventative strategies when managing patients with HF.

Methods

This single-center, retrospective, cohort study was conducted at James H. Quillen Veterans Affairs Medical Center (JHQVAMC) in Mountain Home, Tennessee, a 174-bed tertiary medical center. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of ADHF in patients who received PTZ vs cefepime (CFP). This project was reviewed by the JHQVAMC Institutional Review Board and deemed exempt as a clinical process improvement operations activity.

The antimicrobial stewardship team at JHQVAMC reviewed the use of PTZ in veterans between January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, and compared baseline demographics, history of HF, and outcomes in patients receiving analogous broad-spectrum empiric antibiotic therapy with CFP. Patients were included if they received at least 24 hours of PTZ or CFP. Patients were excluded if they were diagnosed with ADHF before initiation of antibiotic therapy. Patients with ADHF were identified by clinical diagnosis of ADHF documented by the treating clinician and reaffirmed by the study clinician during retrospective chart review. Clinical information used to determine ADHF included clinical presentation, imaging (ie, chest X-ray, echocardiograms), and laboratory parameters, such as B-type natriuretic peptide. The primary endpoint of this study was the incidence of ADHF during the current hospitalization. Secondary endpoints included the length of hospital stay, hospital readmission, and overall mortality. Patient chart reviews were performed using the JHQVAMC Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS).

Statistical Analysis

Analysis was conducted with R Software. Pearson χ² and t tests were used to compare baseline demographics, length of stay, readmission, and mortality. Significance used was α = .05.

 

 

Results

A retrospective chart review was performed on 389 veterans. Of the 389, 204 patients received at least 24 hours of PTZ, and 185 patients received CFP. The mean age in both groups was 75 years. Patients in the PTZ group were more likely to have been admitted with the diagnosis of pneumonia (105 vs 49, P < .001). However, 29 patients (15.7%) in the CFP group were admitted with a UTI diagnosis compared with 6 patients (2.9%) in the PTZ group (P < .001) and 62 patients (33.5%) in the CFP group were admitted with a SSTI diagnosis compared with 48 patients (23.5%) in the PTZ group (P = .03). Otherwise, there were no differences between other admitting diagnoses. Additionally, there was no difference in prior history of HF between groups (Table 1).

Twenty-five patients (12.3%) in the PTZ group and 4 patients (2.2%) in the CFP group were subsequently diagnosed with ADHF (P < .001). Hospital readmissions due to HF were higher in the PTZ group compared with the CFP group (11 vs 2, P = .02). Hospital readmission due to other causes was not significantly different between groups. Hospital readmission due to infection occurred in 18 patients who received PTZ and 25 who received CFP (8.8% vs 13.5%, P = .14). Hospital readmission due to any other indication occurred in 24 patients who received PTZ and 24 who received CFP (11.8% vs 13.0%, P = .72). There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality during the associated admission or within 6 months of discharge between groups, with 59 total deaths in the PTZ group and 50 in the CFP group (28.9% vs 27.0%, P = .63).

There was no difference in length of stay outcomes between patients receiving PTZ compared with CFP. Twenty-eight patients in the PTZ group and 20 in the CFP group had a length of stay duration of < 3 days (13.7% vs 10.8%, P = .46). Seventy-three patients in the PTZ group and 76 in the CFP group had a length of stay duration of 4 to 6 days (36.3% vs 41.1%, P = .28). One hundred three patients in the PTZ group and 89 in the CFP group had a length of stay duration ≥ 7 days (50.5% vs 48.1%, P = .78). Table 2 includes a complete overview of primary and secondary endpoint results.

Discussion

The American Heart Association (AHA) lists PTZ as a medication that may cause or exacerbate HF, though no studies have identified a clear association between PTZ use and ADHF.⁴ Sodium restriction is consistently recommended as an important strategy for the prevention of ADHF. Accordingly, PTZ prescribing information and the AHA advise careful consideration with PTZ use in this patient population.^1,4

The specific mechanism responsible for the association of PTZ with cardiac-related adverse outcomes is unclear. It is easy to presume that the sodium content of PTZ is solely responsible; however, other antibiotic regimens not included as agents of concern by the AHA, such as meropenem, can approach similar overall daily sodium amounts.^4,7 Additionally, total sodium and volume can also be contributed by various IV medications and fluids. This study did not evaluate total sodium intake from all sources, but it is notable that this study identified a possible trend toward the risk of ADHF with PTZ use in a routine practice environment. It is reasonable to postulate additional intrinsic properties of PTZ may be contributing to the development of ADHF, such as its association with renal injury possibly resulting in increased fluid retainment and subsequent fluid volume overload.^1,2,4 Other hypothesized mechanisms may include those previously described, such as direct myocardial toxicity; negative inotropic, lusitropic, or chronotropic effects; exacerbating hypertension; and drug-drug interactions that limit the benefits of HF medications, although these have not been overtly associated with PTZ in the literature to date.^4,8

ADHF can present similarly to other acute pulmonary conditions, including pneumonia.^9,10 It is important to acknowledge the challenge this creates for diagnosticians to differentiate between these conditions rapidly and precisely. As a result, this patient population is likely at increased risk of IV antibiotic exposure. Other studies have identified worse outcomes in patients who receive potentially unwarranted IV antibiotics in patients with ADHF.^9,10 The results of this study further emphasize the importance of careful considerate antibiotic selection and overall avoidance of unnecessary antibiotic exposure to limit potential adverse outcomes.

Limitations

There are various limitations to this study. Firstly, no women were included due to the predominantly male population within the Veterans Health Administration system. Secondly, this study was retrospective in design and was therefore limited to the completeness and accuracy of the available data collected. Additionally, this study evaluated any ADHF episode during the associated hospitalization as the primary endpoint. The time to diagnosis of ADHF in relation to PTZ initiation was not evaluated, which may have helped better elucidate this possible association. Furthermore, while a significant statistical difference was identified, the smaller sample size may have limited the ability to accurately identify differences in lower event rate outcomes.

Conclusions

This study identifies an association between PTZ use and significant cardiac-related adverse outcomes, including increased incidence of ADHF and readmission due to HF exacerbation. While more research is needed to define the exact mechanisms by which PTZ may precipitate acute decompensation in patients with HF, it is judicious to consider close monitoring or the avoidance of PTZ when appropriate antibiotic alternatives are available in patients with a known history of HF.

Piperacillin/tazobactam (PTZ) is a combination IV antibiotic comprised of the semisynthetic antipseudomonal β-lactam, piperacillin sodium, and the β-lactamase inhibitor, tazobactam sodium.¹ PTZ is extensively prescribed in the hospital setting for a multitude of infections including but not limited to the US Food and Drug Administration–approved indications: intra-abdominal infection, skin and skin structure infection (SSTI), urinary tract infection (UTI), and pneumonia. Given its broad spectrum of activity and relative safety profile, PTZ is a mainstay of many empiric IV antibiotic regimens. The primary elimination pathway for PTZ is renal excretion, and dosage adjustments are recommended with reduced creatinine clearance. Additionally, PTZ use has been associated with acute renal injury and delayed renal recovery.^1-3

There are various mechanisms through which medications can contribute to acute decomopensated heart failure (ADHF).⁴ These mechanisms include direct cardiotoxicity; negative inotropic, lusitropic, or chronotropic effects; exacerbating hypertension; sodium loading; and drug-drug interactions that limit the benefits of heart failure (HF) medications. One potentially overlooked constituent of PTZ is the sodium content, with the standard formulation containing 65 mg of sodium per gram of piperacillin.^1-3 Furthermore, PTZ must be diluted in 50 to 150 mL of diluent, commonly 0.9% sodium chloride, which can contribute an additional 177 to 531 mg of sodium per dose. PTZ prescribing information advises caution for use in patients with decreased renal, hepatic, and/or cardiac function and notes that geriatric patients, particularly with HF, may be at risk of impaired natriuresis in the setting of large sodium doses.

It is estimated that roughly 6.2 million adults in the United States have HF and prevalence continues to rise.^5,6 Mortality rates after hospitalization due to HF are 20% to 25% at 1 year. Health care expenditures for the management of HF surpass $30 billion per year in the US, with most of this cost attributed to hospitalizations. Consequently, it is important to continue to identify and practice preventative strategies when managing patients with HF.

Methods

This single-center, retrospective, cohort study was conducted at James H. Quillen Veterans Affairs Medical Center (JHQVAMC) in Mountain Home, Tennessee, a 174-bed tertiary medical center. The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of ADHF in patients who received PTZ vs cefepime (CFP). This project was reviewed by the JHQVAMC Institutional Review Board and deemed exempt as a clinical process improvement operations activity.

The antimicrobial stewardship team at JHQVAMC reviewed the use of PTZ in veterans between January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, and compared baseline demographics, history of HF, and outcomes in patients receiving analogous broad-spectrum empiric antibiotic therapy with CFP. Patients were included if they received at least 24 hours of PTZ or CFP. Patients were excluded if they were diagnosed with ADHF before initiation of antibiotic therapy. Patients with ADHF were identified by clinical diagnosis of ADHF documented by the treating clinician and reaffirmed by the study clinician during retrospective chart review. Clinical information used to determine ADHF included clinical presentation, imaging (ie, chest X-ray, echocardiograms), and laboratory parameters, such as B-type natriuretic peptide. The primary endpoint of this study was the incidence of ADHF during the current hospitalization. Secondary endpoints included the length of hospital stay, hospital readmission, and overall mortality. Patient chart reviews were performed using the JHQVAMC Computerized Patient Record System (CPRS).

Statistical Analysis

Analysis was conducted with R Software. Pearson χ² and t tests were used to compare baseline demographics, length of stay, readmission, and mortality. Significance used was α = .05.

 

 

Results

A retrospective chart review was performed on 389 veterans. Of the 389, 204 patients received at least 24 hours of PTZ, and 185 patients received CFP. The mean age in both groups was 75 years. Patients in the PTZ group were more likely to have been admitted with the diagnosis of pneumonia (105 vs 49, P < .001). However, 29 patients (15.7%) in the CFP group were admitted with a UTI diagnosis compared with 6 patients (2.9%) in the PTZ group (P < .001) and 62 patients (33.5%) in the CFP group were admitted with a SSTI diagnosis compared with 48 patients (23.5%) in the PTZ group (P = .03). Otherwise, there were no differences between other admitting diagnoses. Additionally, there was no difference in prior history of HF between groups (Table 1).

Twenty-five patients (12.3%) in the PTZ group and 4 patients (2.2%) in the CFP group were subsequently diagnosed with ADHF (P < .001). Hospital readmissions due to HF were higher in the PTZ group compared with the CFP group (11 vs 2, P = .02). Hospital readmission due to other causes was not significantly different between groups. Hospital readmission due to infection occurred in 18 patients who received PTZ and 25 who received CFP (8.8% vs 13.5%, P = .14). Hospital readmission due to any other indication occurred in 24 patients who received PTZ and 24 who received CFP (11.8% vs 13.0%, P = .72). There was no statistically significant difference in all-cause mortality during the associated admission or within 6 months of discharge between groups, with 59 total deaths in the PTZ group and 50 in the CFP group (28.9% vs 27.0%, P = .63).

There was no difference in length of stay outcomes between patients receiving PTZ compared with CFP. Twenty-eight patients in the PTZ group and 20 in the CFP group had a length of stay duration of < 3 days (13.7% vs 10.8%, P = .46). Seventy-three patients in the PTZ group and 76 in the CFP group had a length of stay duration of 4 to 6 days (36.3% vs 41.1%, P = .28). One hundred three patients in the PTZ group and 89 in the CFP group had a length of stay duration ≥ 7 days (50.5% vs 48.1%, P = .78). Table 2 includes a complete overview of primary and secondary endpoint results.

Discussion

The American Heart Association (AHA) lists PTZ as a medication that may cause or exacerbate HF, though no studies have identified a clear association between PTZ use and ADHF.⁴ Sodium restriction is consistently recommended as an important strategy for the prevention of ADHF. Accordingly, PTZ prescribing information and the AHA advise careful consideration with PTZ use in this patient population.^1,4

The specific mechanism responsible for the association of PTZ with cardiac-related adverse outcomes is unclear. It is easy to presume that the sodium content of PTZ is solely responsible; however, other antibiotic regimens not included as agents of concern by the AHA, such as meropenem, can approach similar overall daily sodium amounts.^4,7 Additionally, total sodium and volume can also be contributed by various IV medications and fluids. This study did not evaluate total sodium intake from all sources, but it is notable that this study identified a possible trend toward the risk of ADHF with PTZ use in a routine practice environment. It is reasonable to postulate additional intrinsic properties of PTZ may be contributing to the development of ADHF, such as its association with renal injury possibly resulting in increased fluid retainment and subsequent fluid volume overload.^1,2,4 Other hypothesized mechanisms may include those previously described, such as direct myocardial toxicity; negative inotropic, lusitropic, or chronotropic effects; exacerbating hypertension; and drug-drug interactions that limit the benefits of HF medications, although these have not been overtly associated with PTZ in the literature to date.^4,8

ADHF can present similarly to other acute pulmonary conditions, including pneumonia.^9,10 It is important to acknowledge the challenge this creates for diagnosticians to differentiate between these conditions rapidly and precisely. As a result, this patient population is likely at increased risk of IV antibiotic exposure. Other studies have identified worse outcomes in patients who receive potentially unwarranted IV antibiotics in patients with ADHF.^9,10 The results of this study further emphasize the importance of careful considerate antibiotic selection and overall avoidance of unnecessary antibiotic exposure to limit potential adverse outcomes.

Limitations

There are various limitations to this study. Firstly, no women were included due to the predominantly male population within the Veterans Health Administration system. Secondly, this study was retrospective in design and was therefore limited to the completeness and accuracy of the available data collected. Additionally, this study evaluated any ADHF episode during the associated hospitalization as the primary endpoint. The time to diagnosis of ADHF in relation to PTZ initiation was not evaluated, which may have helped better elucidate this possible association. Furthermore, while a significant statistical difference was identified, the smaller sample size may have limited the ability to accurately identify differences in lower event rate outcomes.

Conclusions

This study identifies an association between PTZ use and significant cardiac-related adverse outcomes, including increased incidence of ADHF and readmission due to HF exacerbation. While more research is needed to define the exact mechanisms by which PTZ may precipitate acute decompensation in patients with HF, it is judicious to consider close monitoring or the avoidance of PTZ when appropriate antibiotic alternatives are available in patients with a known history of HF.

To the Editor:

Female pattern hair loss (FPHL), or androgenetic alopecia (AGA), is the most common form of alopecia worldwide and is characterized by a reduction of hair follicles spent in the anagen phase of growth as well as progressive terminal hair loss.¹ It is caused by an excessive response to androgens and leads to the characteristic distribution of hair loss in both sexes. Studies have shown a notable association between AGA and markers of metabolic syndrome such as dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, and obesity in age- and sex-matched controls.^2,3 However, research describing the relationship between AGA severity and these markers is scarce.

To understand the relationship between FPHL severity and abnormal cholesterol levels, we performed a retrospective chart review of patients diagnosed with FPHL at a specialty alopecia clinic from June 2022 to December 2022. Patient age and age at onset of FPHL were collected. The severity of FPHL was measured using the Sinclair scale (score range, 1–5) and unidentifiable patient photographs. Laboratory values were collected; abnormal cholesterol was defined by the American Heart Association as having a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level of 100 mg/dL or higher.⁴ Finally, data on medication use were noted to understand patient treatment status (Table).

We identified 54 female patients with FPHL with an average age of 59 years (range, 34–80 years). Thirty-three females (61.11%) had a normal LDL-C level and 21 (38.89%) had an abnormal level. The mean (SD) LDL-C level was 66.02 (15.20) mg/dL (range, 29–92 mg/dL) in the group with normal levels and 138.81 (29.90) mg/dL (range, 100–193 mg/dL) in the group with abnormal levels. Patients with abnormal LDL-C had significantly higher Sinclair scale scores compared to those with normal levels (2.43 vs 1.91; P=.01). There were no significant differences in patient age (58.71 vs 59.70 years; P=.39), age at onset of AGA (47.75 vs 47.65 years; P=.49), history of polycystic ovary syndrome (9.52% vs 6.06%; P=.64), or statin use (38.09% vs 36.36%; P=.89) between patients with abnormal and normal LDL-C levels, respectively. There also were no significant differences in ferritin (96.42 vs 91.54 ng/mL; P=.40), vitamin D (42.35 vs 48.96 ng/mL; P=.09), or hemoglobin A_1c levels (5.60 ng/mL vs 5.38 ng/mL; P=.06)—variables that could have confounded this relationship. Triglycerides were within reference range in both groups (121.36 vs 116.16 mg/dL; P=.32), while total cholesterol was mildly elevated in both groups but not significantly different (213.19 vs 201.21 mg/dL; P=.13). Use of hair loss treatments such as topical minoxidil (14.29% vs 21.21%; P=.53), oral low-dose minoxidil (57.14% vs 66.67%; P=.48), oral spironolactone (47.62% vs 57.58%; P=.47), and platelet-rich plasma injections (47.62% vs 27.27%; P=.90) were not significantly different across both groups.

The data suggest a significant (P<.05) association between abnormal LDL-C and hair loss severity in FPHL patients. Our study was limited by its small sample size and lack of causality; however, it coincides with and reiterates the findings established in the literature. The mechanism of the association between hyperlipidemia and AGA is not well understood but is thought to stem from the homology between cholesterol and androgens. Increased cholesterol release from dermal adipocytes and subsequent absorption into hair follicle cell populations may increase hair follicle steroidogenesis, thereby accelerating the anagen-catagen transition and inducing AGA. Alternatively, impaired cholesterol homeostasis may disrupt normal hair follicle cycling by interrupting signaling pathways in follicle proliferation and differentiation.⁵ Adequate control and monitoring of LDL-C levels may be important, particularly in patients with more severe FPHL.

To the Editor:

Female pattern hair loss (FPHL), or androgenetic alopecia (AGA), is the most common form of alopecia worldwide and is characterized by a reduction of hair follicles spent in the anagen phase of growth as well as progressive terminal hair loss.¹ It is caused by an excessive response to androgens and leads to the characteristic distribution of hair loss in both sexes. Studies have shown a notable association between AGA and markers of metabolic syndrome such as dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, and obesity in age- and sex-matched controls.^2,3 However, research describing the relationship between AGA severity and these markers is scarce.

To understand the relationship between FPHL severity and abnormal cholesterol levels, we performed a retrospective chart review of patients diagnosed with FPHL at a specialty alopecia clinic from June 2022 to December 2022. Patient age and age at onset of FPHL were collected. The severity of FPHL was measured using the Sinclair scale (score range, 1–5) and unidentifiable patient photographs. Laboratory values were collected; abnormal cholesterol was defined by the American Heart Association as having a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level of 100 mg/dL or higher.⁴ Finally, data on medication use were noted to understand patient treatment status (Table).

We identified 54 female patients with FPHL with an average age of 59 years (range, 34–80 years). Thirty-three females (61.11%) had a normal LDL-C level and 21 (38.89%) had an abnormal level. The mean (SD) LDL-C level was 66.02 (15.20) mg/dL (range, 29–92 mg/dL) in the group with normal levels and 138.81 (29.90) mg/dL (range, 100–193 mg/dL) in the group with abnormal levels. Patients with abnormal LDL-C had significantly higher Sinclair scale scores compared to those with normal levels (2.43 vs 1.91; P=.01). There were no significant differences in patient age (58.71 vs 59.70 years; P=.39), age at onset of AGA (47.75 vs 47.65 years; P=.49), history of polycystic ovary syndrome (9.52% vs 6.06%; P=.64), or statin use (38.09% vs 36.36%; P=.89) between patients with abnormal and normal LDL-C levels, respectively. There also were no significant differences in ferritin (96.42 vs 91.54 ng/mL; P=.40), vitamin D (42.35 vs 48.96 ng/mL; P=.09), or hemoglobin A_1c levels (5.60 ng/mL vs 5.38 ng/mL; P=.06)—variables that could have confounded this relationship. Triglycerides were within reference range in both groups (121.36 vs 116.16 mg/dL; P=.32), while total cholesterol was mildly elevated in both groups but not significantly different (213.19 vs 201.21 mg/dL; P=.13). Use of hair loss treatments such as topical minoxidil (14.29% vs 21.21%; P=.53), oral low-dose minoxidil (57.14% vs 66.67%; P=.48), oral spironolactone (47.62% vs 57.58%; P=.47), and platelet-rich plasma injections (47.62% vs 27.27%; P=.90) were not significantly different across both groups.

The data suggest a significant (P<.05) association between abnormal LDL-C and hair loss severity in FPHL patients. Our study was limited by its small sample size and lack of causality; however, it coincides with and reiterates the findings established in the literature. The mechanism of the association between hyperlipidemia and AGA is not well understood but is thought to stem from the homology between cholesterol and androgens. Increased cholesterol release from dermal adipocytes and subsequent absorption into hair follicle cell populations may increase hair follicle steroidogenesis, thereby accelerating the anagen-catagen transition and inducing AGA. Alternatively, impaired cholesterol homeostasis may disrupt normal hair follicle cycling by interrupting signaling pathways in follicle proliferation and differentiation.⁵ Adequate control and monitoring of LDL-C levels may be important, particularly in patients with more severe FPHL.

To the Editor:

Female pattern hair loss (FPHL), or androgenetic alopecia (AGA), is the most common form of alopecia worldwide and is characterized by a reduction of hair follicles spent in the anagen phase of growth as well as progressive terminal hair loss.¹ It is caused by an excessive response to androgens and leads to the characteristic distribution of hair loss in both sexes. Studies have shown a notable association between AGA and markers of metabolic syndrome such as dyslipidemia, insulin resistance, and obesity in age- and sex-matched controls.^2,3 However, research describing the relationship between AGA severity and these markers is scarce.

To understand the relationship between FPHL severity and abnormal cholesterol levels, we performed a retrospective chart review of patients diagnosed with FPHL at a specialty alopecia clinic from June 2022 to December 2022. Patient age and age at onset of FPHL were collected. The severity of FPHL was measured using the Sinclair scale (score range, 1–5) and unidentifiable patient photographs. Laboratory values were collected; abnormal cholesterol was defined by the American Heart Association as having a low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) level of 100 mg/dL or higher.⁴ Finally, data on medication use were noted to understand patient treatment status (Table).

We identified 54 female patients with FPHL with an average age of 59 years (range, 34–80 years). Thirty-three females (61.11%) had a normal LDL-C level and 21 (38.89%) had an abnormal level. The mean (SD) LDL-C level was 66.02 (15.20) mg/dL (range, 29–92 mg/dL) in the group with normal levels and 138.81 (29.90) mg/dL (range, 100–193 mg/dL) in the group with abnormal levels. Patients with abnormal LDL-C had significantly higher Sinclair scale scores compared to those with normal levels (2.43 vs 1.91; P=.01). There were no significant differences in patient age (58.71 vs 59.70 years; P=.39), age at onset of AGA (47.75 vs 47.65 years; P=.49), history of polycystic ovary syndrome (9.52% vs 6.06%; P=.64), or statin use (38.09% vs 36.36%; P=.89) between patients with abnormal and normal LDL-C levels, respectively. There also were no significant differences in ferritin (96.42 vs 91.54 ng/mL; P=.40), vitamin D (42.35 vs 48.96 ng/mL; P=.09), or hemoglobin A_1c levels (5.60 ng/mL vs 5.38 ng/mL; P=.06)—variables that could have confounded this relationship. Triglycerides were within reference range in both groups (121.36 vs 116.16 mg/dL; P=.32), while total cholesterol was mildly elevated in both groups but not significantly different (213.19 vs 201.21 mg/dL; P=.13). Use of hair loss treatments such as topical minoxidil (14.29% vs 21.21%; P=.53), oral low-dose minoxidil (57.14% vs 66.67%; P=.48), oral spironolactone (47.62% vs 57.58%; P=.47), and platelet-rich plasma injections (47.62% vs 27.27%; P=.90) were not significantly different across both groups.

The data suggest a significant (P<.05) association between abnormal LDL-C and hair loss severity in FPHL patients. Our study was limited by its small sample size and lack of causality; however, it coincides with and reiterates the findings established in the literature. The mechanism of the association between hyperlipidemia and AGA is not well understood but is thought to stem from the homology between cholesterol and androgens. Increased cholesterol release from dermal adipocytes and subsequent absorption into hair follicle cell populations may increase hair follicle steroidogenesis, thereby accelerating the anagen-catagen transition and inducing AGA. Alternatively, impaired cholesterol homeostasis may disrupt normal hair follicle cycling by interrupting signaling pathways in follicle proliferation and differentiation.⁵ Adequate control and monitoring of LDL-C levels may be important, particularly in patients with more severe FPHL.

To the Editor:

Partial or total nail plate excisions commonly are used for the treatment of onychocryptosis and nail spicules. Procedures involving the nail unit require advanced technical skills to achieve optimal functional and aesthetic outcomes, avoid complications, and minimize health care costs. Data on the frequency of nail plate excisions performed by dermatologists and their relative frequency compared to other medical providers are limited. The objective of our study was to analyze trends in nail excision practice patterns among medical providers in the United States.

A retrospective analysis on nail excisions using the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 11750 (excision of nail and nail matrix, partial or complete [eg, ingrown or deformed nail] for permanent removal), which is distinct from code 11755 (biopsy of nail unit [eg, plate, bed, matrix, hyponychium, proximal and lateral nail folds][separate procedure]), was performed using data from the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Database 2012-2017.^1,2 This file also is used by Peck et al³ in an article submitted to the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association and currently under consideration for publication. Procedures were recorded by year and provider type—dermatologist, podiatrist, physician assistant (PA)/nurse practitioner (NP), nondermatologist physician—and subcategorized by provider specialty (Table). Practice locations subcategorized by provider type were mapped using Tableau Software (Salesforce)(Figure). Descriptive statistics including number of providers, mean and median excisions per provider, and minimum/maximum nail excisions were calculated (Table). Practice types of PAs/NPs and specialization of nondermatologist physicians were determined using provider name, identification number, and practice address. This study did not require institutional review board review, as only publicly available data were utilized in our analysis.

A total of 6936 podiatrists, 58 nondermatologist physicians, 25 PAs/NPs, and 4 dermatologists performed 10 or more nail excisions annually under CPT code 11750 from January 2012 to December 2017 with annual means of 31, 31, 25, and 34, respectively (Table). No PAs/NPs included in the dataset worked in dermatology practices during the study period. Physician assistants and NPs most often practiced in podiatry and family medicine (FM) settings (both 40% [10/25]). Nondermatologist physicians most often specialized in FM (40% [23/58])(Table). The greatest number of providers practiced in 3 of the 4 most-populous states: California, Texas, and Florida; the fewest number practiced in 3 of the 10 least-populous states: Alaska, Hawaii, and Vermont. Vermont, Wyoming, and North Dakota—3 of the 5 least-populous states—had the fewest practitioners among the contiguous United States (Figure).

Figure generated using Tableau, which integrates with Mapbox. © Mapbox (https://www.mapbox.com/about/maps/), © OpenStreetMap (http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright).

Our study showed that from January 2012 to December 2017, fewer dermatologists performed nail excisions than any other provider type (0.06%, 4 dermatologists of 7023 total providers), and dermatologists performed 1734-fold fewer nail excisions than podiatrists (99%, 6936 podiatrists of 7023 total providers). Only dermatologists practicing in California, Georgia, Indiana, and Oklahoma performed nail excisions. Conversely, podiatrists were more geographically distributed across the United States and other territories, with representation in all 50 states as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Reasons for these large discrepancies in practice between dermatologists and other providers likely are multifactorial, encompassing a lack of emphasis on nail procedures in dermatology training, patient perception of the scope of dermatologic practice, and nail excision reimbursement patterns. Most dermatologists likely lack experience in performing nail procedures. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirements mandate that dermatology residents observe or perform 3 nail procedures over 3 years of residency, including 1 that may be performed on a human cadaver.⁴ In contrast, podiatry trainees must gain competency in toenail avulsion (both partial and complete), participate in anesthesia workshops, and become proficient in administering lower extremity blocks by the end of their training.⁵ Therefore, incorporating aspects of podiatric surgical training into dermatology residency requirements may increase the competency and comfort of dermatologists in performing nail excisions and practicing as nail experts as attending physicians.

It is likely that US patients do not perceive dermatologists as nail specialists and instead primarily consult podiatrists or FM and/or internal medicine physicians for treatment; for example, nail disease was one of the least common reasons for consulting a dermatologist (5%) in a German nationwide survey-based study (N=1015).⁶ Therefore, increased efforts are needed to educate the general public about the expertise of dermatologists in the diagnosis and management of nail conditions.

Reimbursement also may be a barrier to dermatologists performing nail procedures as part of their scope of practice; for example, in a retrospective study of nail biopsies using the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Database, there was no statistically significant difference in reimbursements for nail biopsies vs skin biopsies from 2012 to 2017 (P=0.69).⁷ Similar to nail biopsies, nail excisions typically are much more time consuming and technically demanding than skin biopsies, which may discourage dermatologists from routinely performing nail excision procedures.

Our study is subject to a number of limitations. The data reflected only US-based practice patterns and may not be applicable to nail procedures globally. There also is the potential for miscoding of procedures in the Medicare database. The data included only Part B Medicare fee-for-service and excludes non-Medicare insured, uninsured, and self-pay patients, as well as aggregated records from 10 or fewer Medicare beneficiaries.

Dermatologists rarely perform nail excisions and perform fewer nail excisions than any other provider type in the United States. There currently is an unmet need for comprehensive nail surgery education in US-based dermatology residency programs. We hope that our study fosters interdisciplinary collegiality and training between podiatrists and dermatologists and promotes expanded access to care across the United States to serve patients with nail disorders.

To the Editor:

Partial or total nail plate excisions commonly are used for the treatment of onychocryptosis and nail spicules. Procedures involving the nail unit require advanced technical skills to achieve optimal functional and aesthetic outcomes, avoid complications, and minimize health care costs. Data on the frequency of nail plate excisions performed by dermatologists and their relative frequency compared to other medical providers are limited. The objective of our study was to analyze trends in nail excision practice patterns among medical providers in the United States.

A retrospective analysis on nail excisions using the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 11750 (excision of nail and nail matrix, partial or complete [eg, ingrown or deformed nail] for permanent removal), which is distinct from code 11755 (biopsy of nail unit [eg, plate, bed, matrix, hyponychium, proximal and lateral nail folds][separate procedure]), was performed using data from the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Database 2012-2017.^1,2 This file also is used by Peck et al³ in an article submitted to the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association and currently under consideration for publication. Procedures were recorded by year and provider type—dermatologist, podiatrist, physician assistant (PA)/nurse practitioner (NP), nondermatologist physician—and subcategorized by provider specialty (Table). Practice locations subcategorized by provider type were mapped using Tableau Software (Salesforce)(Figure). Descriptive statistics including number of providers, mean and median excisions per provider, and minimum/maximum nail excisions were calculated (Table). Practice types of PAs/NPs and specialization of nondermatologist physicians were determined using provider name, identification number, and practice address. This study did not require institutional review board review, as only publicly available data were utilized in our analysis.

A total of 6936 podiatrists, 58 nondermatologist physicians, 25 PAs/NPs, and 4 dermatologists performed 10 or more nail excisions annually under CPT code 11750 from January 2012 to December 2017 with annual means of 31, 31, 25, and 34, respectively (Table). No PAs/NPs included in the dataset worked in dermatology practices during the study period. Physician assistants and NPs most often practiced in podiatry and family medicine (FM) settings (both 40% [10/25]). Nondermatologist physicians most often specialized in FM (40% [23/58])(Table). The greatest number of providers practiced in 3 of the 4 most-populous states: California, Texas, and Florida; the fewest number practiced in 3 of the 10 least-populous states: Alaska, Hawaii, and Vermont. Vermont, Wyoming, and North Dakota—3 of the 5 least-populous states—had the fewest practitioners among the contiguous United States (Figure).

Figure generated using Tableau, which integrates with Mapbox. © Mapbox (https://www.mapbox.com/about/maps/), © OpenStreetMap (http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright).

Our study showed that from January 2012 to December 2017, fewer dermatologists performed nail excisions than any other provider type (0.06%, 4 dermatologists of 7023 total providers), and dermatologists performed 1734-fold fewer nail excisions than podiatrists (99%, 6936 podiatrists of 7023 total providers). Only dermatologists practicing in California, Georgia, Indiana, and Oklahoma performed nail excisions. Conversely, podiatrists were more geographically distributed across the United States and other territories, with representation in all 50 states as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Reasons for these large discrepancies in practice between dermatologists and other providers likely are multifactorial, encompassing a lack of emphasis on nail procedures in dermatology training, patient perception of the scope of dermatologic practice, and nail excision reimbursement patterns. Most dermatologists likely lack experience in performing nail procedures. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirements mandate that dermatology residents observe or perform 3 nail procedures over 3 years of residency, including 1 that may be performed on a human cadaver.⁴ In contrast, podiatry trainees must gain competency in toenail avulsion (both partial and complete), participate in anesthesia workshops, and become proficient in administering lower extremity blocks by the end of their training.⁵ Therefore, incorporating aspects of podiatric surgical training into dermatology residency requirements may increase the competency and comfort of dermatologists in performing nail excisions and practicing as nail experts as attending physicians.

It is likely that US patients do not perceive dermatologists as nail specialists and instead primarily consult podiatrists or FM and/or internal medicine physicians for treatment; for example, nail disease was one of the least common reasons for consulting a dermatologist (5%) in a German nationwide survey-based study (N=1015).⁶ Therefore, increased efforts are needed to educate the general public about the expertise of dermatologists in the diagnosis and management of nail conditions.

Reimbursement also may be a barrier to dermatologists performing nail procedures as part of their scope of practice; for example, in a retrospective study of nail biopsies using the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Database, there was no statistically significant difference in reimbursements for nail biopsies vs skin biopsies from 2012 to 2017 (P=0.69).⁷ Similar to nail biopsies, nail excisions typically are much more time consuming and technically demanding than skin biopsies, which may discourage dermatologists from routinely performing nail excision procedures.

Our study is subject to a number of limitations. The data reflected only US-based practice patterns and may not be applicable to nail procedures globally. There also is the potential for miscoding of procedures in the Medicare database. The data included only Part B Medicare fee-for-service and excludes non-Medicare insured, uninsured, and self-pay patients, as well as aggregated records from 10 or fewer Medicare beneficiaries.

Dermatologists rarely perform nail excisions and perform fewer nail excisions than any other provider type in the United States. There currently is an unmet need for comprehensive nail surgery education in US-based dermatology residency programs. We hope that our study fosters interdisciplinary collegiality and training between podiatrists and dermatologists and promotes expanded access to care across the United States to serve patients with nail disorders.

To the Editor:

Partial or total nail plate excisions commonly are used for the treatment of onychocryptosis and nail spicules. Procedures involving the nail unit require advanced technical skills to achieve optimal functional and aesthetic outcomes, avoid complications, and minimize health care costs. Data on the frequency of nail plate excisions performed by dermatologists and their relative frequency compared to other medical providers are limited. The objective of our study was to analyze trends in nail excision practice patterns among medical providers in the United States.

A retrospective analysis on nail excisions using the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) code 11750 (excision of nail and nail matrix, partial or complete [eg, ingrown or deformed nail] for permanent removal), which is distinct from code 11755 (biopsy of nail unit [eg, plate, bed, matrix, hyponychium, proximal and lateral nail folds][separate procedure]), was performed using data from the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Database 2012-2017.^1,2 This file also is used by Peck et al³ in an article submitted to the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association and currently under consideration for publication. Procedures were recorded by year and provider type—dermatologist, podiatrist, physician assistant (PA)/nurse practitioner (NP), nondermatologist physician—and subcategorized by provider specialty (Table). Practice locations subcategorized by provider type were mapped using Tableau Software (Salesforce)(Figure). Descriptive statistics including number of providers, mean and median excisions per provider, and minimum/maximum nail excisions were calculated (Table). Practice types of PAs/NPs and specialization of nondermatologist physicians were determined using provider name, identification number, and practice address. This study did not require institutional review board review, as only publicly available data were utilized in our analysis.

A total of 6936 podiatrists, 58 nondermatologist physicians, 25 PAs/NPs, and 4 dermatologists performed 10 or more nail excisions annually under CPT code 11750 from January 2012 to December 2017 with annual means of 31, 31, 25, and 34, respectively (Table). No PAs/NPs included in the dataset worked in dermatology practices during the study period. Physician assistants and NPs most often practiced in podiatry and family medicine (FM) settings (both 40% [10/25]). Nondermatologist physicians most often specialized in FM (40% [23/58])(Table). The greatest number of providers practiced in 3 of the 4 most-populous states: California, Texas, and Florida; the fewest number practiced in 3 of the 10 least-populous states: Alaska, Hawaii, and Vermont. Vermont, Wyoming, and North Dakota—3 of the 5 least-populous states—had the fewest practitioners among the contiguous United States (Figure).

Figure generated using Tableau, which integrates with Mapbox. © Mapbox (https://www.mapbox.com/about/maps/), © OpenStreetMap (http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright).

Our study showed that from January 2012 to December 2017, fewer dermatologists performed nail excisions than any other provider type (0.06%, 4 dermatologists of 7023 total providers), and dermatologists performed 1734-fold fewer nail excisions than podiatrists (99%, 6936 podiatrists of 7023 total providers). Only dermatologists practicing in California, Georgia, Indiana, and Oklahoma performed nail excisions. Conversely, podiatrists were more geographically distributed across the United States and other territories, with representation in all 50 states as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

Reasons for these large discrepancies in practice between dermatologists and other providers likely are multifactorial, encompassing a lack of emphasis on nail procedures in dermatology training, patient perception of the scope of dermatologic practice, and nail excision reimbursement patterns. Most dermatologists likely lack experience in performing nail procedures. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requirements mandate that dermatology residents observe or perform 3 nail procedures over 3 years of residency, including 1 that may be performed on a human cadaver.⁴ In contrast, podiatry trainees must gain competency in toenail avulsion (both partial and complete), participate in anesthesia workshops, and become proficient in administering lower extremity blocks by the end of their training.⁵ Therefore, incorporating aspects of podiatric surgical training into dermatology residency requirements may increase the competency and comfort of dermatologists in performing nail excisions and practicing as nail experts as attending physicians.

It is likely that US patients do not perceive dermatologists as nail specialists and instead primarily consult podiatrists or FM and/or internal medicine physicians for treatment; for example, nail disease was one of the least common reasons for consulting a dermatologist (5%) in a German nationwide survey-based study (N=1015).⁶ Therefore, increased efforts are needed to educate the general public about the expertise of dermatologists in the diagnosis and management of nail conditions.

Reimbursement also may be a barrier to dermatologists performing nail procedures as part of their scope of practice; for example, in a retrospective study of nail biopsies using the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Database, there was no statistically significant difference in reimbursements for nail biopsies vs skin biopsies from 2012 to 2017 (P=0.69).⁷ Similar to nail biopsies, nail excisions typically are much more time consuming and technically demanding than skin biopsies, which may discourage dermatologists from routinely performing nail excision procedures.

Our study is subject to a number of limitations. The data reflected only US-based practice patterns and may not be applicable to nail procedures globally. There also is the potential for miscoding of procedures in the Medicare database. The data included only Part B Medicare fee-for-service and excludes non-Medicare insured, uninsured, and self-pay patients, as well as aggregated records from 10 or fewer Medicare beneficiaries.

Dermatologists rarely perform nail excisions and perform fewer nail excisions than any other provider type in the United States. There currently is an unmet need for comprehensive nail surgery education in US-based dermatology residency programs. We hope that our study fosters interdisciplinary collegiality and training between podiatrists and dermatologists and promotes expanded access to care across the United States to serve patients with nail disorders.

The assessment and diagnosis of melanocytic lesions can present a formidable challenge to even a seasoned pathologist, which is especially true when dealing with the subset of nevi occurring at special sites—where baseline variations inherent to particular locations on the body can preclude the use of features routinely used to diagnose malignancy elsewhere. These so-called special-site nevi previously have been described in the literature along with suggested criteria for differentiating malignant lesions from their benign counterparts.¹ Locations generally considered to be special sites include the acral skin, anogenital region, breast, ear, and flexural regions.^1,2

When evaluating non–special-site melanocytic lesions, general characteristics associated with a malignant diagnosis include confluence or pagetoid spread of melanocytes, nuclear pleomorphism, cytologic atypia, and irregular architecture³; however, these features can be compatible with a benign diagnosis in special-site nevi depending on their extent and the site in question. Although they can be atypical, special-site nevi tend to have the bulk of their architectural distortion and cytologic atypia in the center of the lesion as opposed to the edges.¹ If a given lesion is from a special site but lacks this reassuring feature, special care should be taken to rule out malignancy.

Preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) is an antigen first identified in tumor-reactive T-cell populations in patients with malignant melanoma. It is the product of an oncogene that frequently is overexpressed in melanomas, lung squamous cell carcinomas, sarcomas, and acute leukemias.⁴ It functions as an antagonist of the retinoic acid signaling pathway, which normally serves to induce further cell differentiation, senescence, or apoptosis.⁵ PRAME inhibits retinoid signaling by forming a complex with both the ligand-bound retinoic acid holoreceptor and the polycomb protein EZH2, which blocks retinoid-dependent gene expression by encouraging chromatin condensation at the RARβ promoter site⁵; therefore, expressing PRAME allows lesional cells a substantial growth advantage.

PRAME expression has been extensively characterized in non–special-site nevi and has filled the need for a rather specific marker of melanoma.^6-10 Although PRAME has been studied in acral nevi,¹¹ the expression pattern in nevi of special sites has yet to be elucidated. Herein, we present a dataset characterizing PRAME expression in these challenging lesions.

Methods

We performed a retrospective case review at the University of Virginia (Charlottesville, Virginia) and collected a panel of 36 special-site nevi that previously were diagnosed as benign by a trained dermatopathologist from January 2020 through December 2022. Special-site nevi were identified using a natural language filter for the following terms: acral, palm, sole, ear, auricular, lip, axilla, armpit, breast, groin, labia, vulva, umbilicus, and penis. This study was approved by the University of Virginia institutional review board.

The original hematoxylin and eosin slides used for primary diagnosis were re-examined to verify the prior diagnosis of benign nevus at a special site. We performed a detailed microscopic examination of all benign nevi in our cohort to determine the frequency of various characteristics at each special site. Sections were prepared from the formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissue blocks and stained with a commercial PRAME antibody (#219650 [Abcam] at a 1:50 dilution) and counterstain. A trained dermatopathologist (S.S.R.) examined the stained sections and recorded the percentage of tumor cells with nuclear PRAME staining. We reported our results using previously established criteria for scoring PRAME immunohistochemistry⁷: 0 for no expression, 1+ for 1% to 25% expression, 2+ for 26% to 50% expression, 3+ for 51% to 75% expression, and 4+ for diffuse or 76% to 100% expression. Only strong clonal expression within a population of cells was graded.

Data handling and statistical testing were performed using the R Project for Statistical Computing (https://www.r-project.org/). Significance testing was performed using the Fisher exact test. Plot construction was performed using ggplot2 (https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org/).

 

 

Results

Our study cohort included 36 special-site nevi, and the control cohort comprised 25 melanoma in situ (MIS) or invasive melanoma (IM) lesions occurring at special sites. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the study and control cohorts by lesion site. Table 2 details the results of our microscopic examination, describing frequency of various characteristics of special-site nevi stratified by site.

Of the 36 special-site nevi in our cohort, 20 (56%) had no staining (0) for PRAME, 11 (31%) demonstrated 1+ PRAME expression, 3 (8%) demonstrated 2+ PRAME expression, and 2 (6%) demonstrated 3+ PRAME expression. No nevi showed 4+ expression. In the control cohort, 24 of 25 (96%) MIS and IM showed 3+ or 4+ expression, with 21 (84%) demonstrating ­diffuse/4+ expression. One control case (4%) demonstrated 0 PRAME expression. These data are summarized in Table 3 and Figure 1. There is a significant difference in diffuse (4+) PRAME expression between special-site nevi and MIS/IM occurring at special sites (P=1.039×10^-12).

Based on our cohort, a positivity threshold of 3+ for PRAME expression for the diagnosis of melanoma in a special-site lesion would have a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 94%, while a positivity threshold of 4+ for PRAME expression would have a sensitivity of 84% and a specificity of 100%. Figures 2 through 4 show photomicrographs of a special-site nevus of the breast, which appropriately does not stain for PRAME; Figures 5 and 6 show an MIS at a special site that appropriately stains for PRAME.

Comment

The distinction between benign and malignant pigmented lesions at special sites presents a fair challenge for pathologists due to the larger degree of leniency for architectural distortion and cytologic atypia in benign lesions at these sites. The presence of architectural distortion or cytologic atypia at the lesion’s edge makes rendering a benign diagnosis especially difficult, and the need for a validated immunohistochemical stain is apparent. In our cohort, strong clonal PRAME expression provided a reliable immunohistochemical marker, allowing for the distinction of malignant lesions from benign nevi at special sites. Diffuse faint PRAME expression was present in several benign nevi within our cohort, and these lesions were considered negative (0) in our analysis.

Given the described test characteristics, we support the implementation of PRAME immunohistochemistry with a positivity threshold of 4+ expression as an ancillary test supporting the diagnosis of IM or MIS in special sites, which would allow clinicians to leverage the high specificity of 4+ PRAME expression to distinguish an IM or MIS from a benign nevus occurring at a special site. We do not recommend the use of 4+ PRAME expression as a screening test for melanoma or MIS among special-site nevi due to its comparatively low sensitivity; however, no one marker is always reliable, and we recommend continued clinicopathologic correlation for all cases. Although PRAME can assist in the delineation of malignant lesions from benign ones, microscopic examination of hematoxylin and eosin–stained section remains the gold standard for diagnosing malignant melanoma and MIS.

Although our case series included nevi and MIS/IM from all special sites, we were limited in the number of acrogenital and ear nevi included due to a relative paucity of biopsied benign nevi from these locations at the University of Virginia. Additionally, although the magnitude of the difference in PRAME expression between the study and control groups is sufficient to demonstrate statistical significance, the overall strength of our argument would be increased with a larger study group. We were limited by the number of cases available at our institution, which did not utilize PRAME during the initial diagnosis of the case; including these cases in the study group would have undermined the integrity of our argument because the differentiation of benign vs malignant initially was made using PRAME immunohistochemistry.

Conclusion

Due to their atypical features, special-site nevi can be challenging to assess. In this study, we showed that PRAME expression can be a reliable marker to distinguish benign from malignant lesions. Our results showed that 100% of benign special-site nevi demonstrated 3+ expression or less, with 56% (20/36) demonstrating no expression at all. The presence of diffuse PRAME expression (4+ PRAME staining) appears to be a specific indicator of a malignant lesion, but results should always be interpreted with respect to the patient’s clinical history and the lesion’s histomorphologic features. Further study of a larger sample size would allow refinement of the sensitivity and specificity of diffuse PRAME expression in the determination of malignancy for special-site lesions.

Acknowledgment—The authors thank the pathologistsat the University of Virginia Biorepository and Tissue Research Facility (Charlottesville, Virginia) for their skill and expertise in performing immunohistochemical staining for this study.

The assessment and diagnosis of melanocytic lesions can present a formidable challenge to even a seasoned pathologist, which is especially true when dealing with the subset of nevi occurring at special sites—where baseline variations inherent to particular locations on the body can preclude the use of features routinely used to diagnose malignancy elsewhere. These so-called special-site nevi previously have been described in the literature along with suggested criteria for differentiating malignant lesions from their benign counterparts.¹ Locations generally considered to be special sites include the acral skin, anogenital region, breast, ear, and flexural regions.^1,2

When evaluating non–special-site melanocytic lesions, general characteristics associated with a malignant diagnosis include confluence or pagetoid spread of melanocytes, nuclear pleomorphism, cytologic atypia, and irregular architecture³; however, these features can be compatible with a benign diagnosis in special-site nevi depending on their extent and the site in question. Although they can be atypical, special-site nevi tend to have the bulk of their architectural distortion and cytologic atypia in the center of the lesion as opposed to the edges.¹ If a given lesion is from a special site but lacks this reassuring feature, special care should be taken to rule out malignancy.

Preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) is an antigen first identified in tumor-reactive T-cell populations in patients with malignant melanoma. It is the product of an oncogene that frequently is overexpressed in melanomas, lung squamous cell carcinomas, sarcomas, and acute leukemias.⁴ It functions as an antagonist of the retinoic acid signaling pathway, which normally serves to induce further cell differentiation, senescence, or apoptosis.⁵ PRAME inhibits retinoid signaling by forming a complex with both the ligand-bound retinoic acid holoreceptor and the polycomb protein EZH2, which blocks retinoid-dependent gene expression by encouraging chromatin condensation at the RARβ promoter site⁵; therefore, expressing PRAME allows lesional cells a substantial growth advantage.

PRAME expression has been extensively characterized in non–special-site nevi and has filled the need for a rather specific marker of melanoma.^6-10 Although PRAME has been studied in acral nevi,¹¹ the expression pattern in nevi of special sites has yet to be elucidated. Herein, we present a dataset characterizing PRAME expression in these challenging lesions.

Methods

We performed a retrospective case review at the University of Virginia (Charlottesville, Virginia) and collected a panel of 36 special-site nevi that previously were diagnosed as benign by a trained dermatopathologist from January 2020 through December 2022. Special-site nevi were identified using a natural language filter for the following terms: acral, palm, sole, ear, auricular, lip, axilla, armpit, breast, groin, labia, vulva, umbilicus, and penis. This study was approved by the University of Virginia institutional review board.

The original hematoxylin and eosin slides used for primary diagnosis were re-examined to verify the prior diagnosis of benign nevus at a special site. We performed a detailed microscopic examination of all benign nevi in our cohort to determine the frequency of various characteristics at each special site. Sections were prepared from the formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissue blocks and stained with a commercial PRAME antibody (#219650 [Abcam] at a 1:50 dilution) and counterstain. A trained dermatopathologist (S.S.R.) examined the stained sections and recorded the percentage of tumor cells with nuclear PRAME staining. We reported our results using previously established criteria for scoring PRAME immunohistochemistry⁷: 0 for no expression, 1+ for 1% to 25% expression, 2+ for 26% to 50% expression, 3+ for 51% to 75% expression, and 4+ for diffuse or 76% to 100% expression. Only strong clonal expression within a population of cells was graded.

Data handling and statistical testing were performed using the R Project for Statistical Computing (https://www.r-project.org/). Significance testing was performed using the Fisher exact test. Plot construction was performed using ggplot2 (https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org/).

 

 

Results

Our study cohort included 36 special-site nevi, and the control cohort comprised 25 melanoma in situ (MIS) or invasive melanoma (IM) lesions occurring at special sites. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the study and control cohorts by lesion site. Table 2 details the results of our microscopic examination, describing frequency of various characteristics of special-site nevi stratified by site.

Of the 36 special-site nevi in our cohort, 20 (56%) had no staining (0) for PRAME, 11 (31%) demonstrated 1+ PRAME expression, 3 (8%) demonstrated 2+ PRAME expression, and 2 (6%) demonstrated 3+ PRAME expression. No nevi showed 4+ expression. In the control cohort, 24 of 25 (96%) MIS and IM showed 3+ or 4+ expression, with 21 (84%) demonstrating ­diffuse/4+ expression. One control case (4%) demonstrated 0 PRAME expression. These data are summarized in Table 3 and Figure 1. There is a significant difference in diffuse (4+) PRAME expression between special-site nevi and MIS/IM occurring at special sites (P=1.039×10^-12).

Based on our cohort, a positivity threshold of 3+ for PRAME expression for the diagnosis of melanoma in a special-site lesion would have a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 94%, while a positivity threshold of 4+ for PRAME expression would have a sensitivity of 84% and a specificity of 100%. Figures 2 through 4 show photomicrographs of a special-site nevus of the breast, which appropriately does not stain for PRAME; Figures 5 and 6 show an MIS at a special site that appropriately stains for PRAME.

Comment

The distinction between benign and malignant pigmented lesions at special sites presents a fair challenge for pathologists due to the larger degree of leniency for architectural distortion and cytologic atypia in benign lesions at these sites. The presence of architectural distortion or cytologic atypia at the lesion’s edge makes rendering a benign diagnosis especially difficult, and the need for a validated immunohistochemical stain is apparent. In our cohort, strong clonal PRAME expression provided a reliable immunohistochemical marker, allowing for the distinction of malignant lesions from benign nevi at special sites. Diffuse faint PRAME expression was present in several benign nevi within our cohort, and these lesions were considered negative (0) in our analysis.

Given the described test characteristics, we support the implementation of PRAME immunohistochemistry with a positivity threshold of 4+ expression as an ancillary test supporting the diagnosis of IM or MIS in special sites, which would allow clinicians to leverage the high specificity of 4+ PRAME expression to distinguish an IM or MIS from a benign nevus occurring at a special site. We do not recommend the use of 4+ PRAME expression as a screening test for melanoma or MIS among special-site nevi due to its comparatively low sensitivity; however, no one marker is always reliable, and we recommend continued clinicopathologic correlation for all cases. Although PRAME can assist in the delineation of malignant lesions from benign ones, microscopic examination of hematoxylin and eosin–stained section remains the gold standard for diagnosing malignant melanoma and MIS.

Although our case series included nevi and MIS/IM from all special sites, we were limited in the number of acrogenital and ear nevi included due to a relative paucity of biopsied benign nevi from these locations at the University of Virginia. Additionally, although the magnitude of the difference in PRAME expression between the study and control groups is sufficient to demonstrate statistical significance, the overall strength of our argument would be increased with a larger study group. We were limited by the number of cases available at our institution, which did not utilize PRAME during the initial diagnosis of the case; including these cases in the study group would have undermined the integrity of our argument because the differentiation of benign vs malignant initially was made using PRAME immunohistochemistry.

Conclusion

Due to their atypical features, special-site nevi can be challenging to assess. In this study, we showed that PRAME expression can be a reliable marker to distinguish benign from malignant lesions. Our results showed that 100% of benign special-site nevi demonstrated 3+ expression or less, with 56% (20/36) demonstrating no expression at all. The presence of diffuse PRAME expression (4+ PRAME staining) appears to be a specific indicator of a malignant lesion, but results should always be interpreted with respect to the patient’s clinical history and the lesion’s histomorphologic features. Further study of a larger sample size would allow refinement of the sensitivity and specificity of diffuse PRAME expression in the determination of malignancy for special-site lesions.

Acknowledgment—The authors thank the pathologistsat the University of Virginia Biorepository and Tissue Research Facility (Charlottesville, Virginia) for their skill and expertise in performing immunohistochemical staining for this study.

The assessment and diagnosis of melanocytic lesions can present a formidable challenge to even a seasoned pathologist, which is especially true when dealing with the subset of nevi occurring at special sites—where baseline variations inherent to particular locations on the body can preclude the use of features routinely used to diagnose malignancy elsewhere. These so-called special-site nevi previously have been described in the literature along with suggested criteria for differentiating malignant lesions from their benign counterparts.¹ Locations generally considered to be special sites include the acral skin, anogenital region, breast, ear, and flexural regions.^1,2

When evaluating non–special-site melanocytic lesions, general characteristics associated with a malignant diagnosis include confluence or pagetoid spread of melanocytes, nuclear pleomorphism, cytologic atypia, and irregular architecture³; however, these features can be compatible with a benign diagnosis in special-site nevi depending on their extent and the site in question. Although they can be atypical, special-site nevi tend to have the bulk of their architectural distortion and cytologic atypia in the center of the lesion as opposed to the edges.¹ If a given lesion is from a special site but lacks this reassuring feature, special care should be taken to rule out malignancy.

Preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME) is an antigen first identified in tumor-reactive T-cell populations in patients with malignant melanoma. It is the product of an oncogene that frequently is overexpressed in melanomas, lung squamous cell carcinomas, sarcomas, and acute leukemias.⁴ It functions as an antagonist of the retinoic acid signaling pathway, which normally serves to induce further cell differentiation, senescence, or apoptosis.⁵ PRAME inhibits retinoid signaling by forming a complex with both the ligand-bound retinoic acid holoreceptor and the polycomb protein EZH2, which blocks retinoid-dependent gene expression by encouraging chromatin condensation at the RARβ promoter site⁵; therefore, expressing PRAME allows lesional cells a substantial growth advantage.

PRAME expression has been extensively characterized in non–special-site nevi and has filled the need for a rather specific marker of melanoma.^6-10 Although PRAME has been studied in acral nevi,¹¹ the expression pattern in nevi of special sites has yet to be elucidated. Herein, we present a dataset characterizing PRAME expression in these challenging lesions.

Methods

We performed a retrospective case review at the University of Virginia (Charlottesville, Virginia) and collected a panel of 36 special-site nevi that previously were diagnosed as benign by a trained dermatopathologist from January 2020 through December 2022. Special-site nevi were identified using a natural language filter for the following terms: acral, palm, sole, ear, auricular, lip, axilla, armpit, breast, groin, labia, vulva, umbilicus, and penis. This study was approved by the University of Virginia institutional review board.

The original hematoxylin and eosin slides used for primary diagnosis were re-examined to verify the prior diagnosis of benign nevus at a special site. We performed a detailed microscopic examination of all benign nevi in our cohort to determine the frequency of various characteristics at each special site. Sections were prepared from the formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded tissue blocks and stained with a commercial PRAME antibody (#219650 [Abcam] at a 1:50 dilution) and counterstain. A trained dermatopathologist (S.S.R.) examined the stained sections and recorded the percentage of tumor cells with nuclear PRAME staining. We reported our results using previously established criteria for scoring PRAME immunohistochemistry⁷: 0 for no expression, 1+ for 1% to 25% expression, 2+ for 26% to 50% expression, 3+ for 51% to 75% expression, and 4+ for diffuse or 76% to 100% expression. Only strong clonal expression within a population of cells was graded.

Data handling and statistical testing were performed using the R Project for Statistical Computing (https://www.r-project.org/). Significance testing was performed using the Fisher exact test. Plot construction was performed using ggplot2 (https://ggplot2.tidyverse.org/).

 

 

Results

Our study cohort included 36 special-site nevi, and the control cohort comprised 25 melanoma in situ (MIS) or invasive melanoma (IM) lesions occurring at special sites. Table 1 provides a breakdown of the study and control cohorts by lesion site. Table 2 details the results of our microscopic examination, describing frequency of various characteristics of special-site nevi stratified by site.

Of the 36 special-site nevi in our cohort, 20 (56%) had no staining (0) for PRAME, 11 (31%) demonstrated 1+ PRAME expression, 3 (8%) demonstrated 2+ PRAME expression, and 2 (6%) demonstrated 3+ PRAME expression. No nevi showed 4+ expression. In the control cohort, 24 of 25 (96%) MIS and IM showed 3+ or 4+ expression, with 21 (84%) demonstrating ­diffuse/4+ expression. One control case (4%) demonstrated 0 PRAME expression. These data are summarized in Table 3 and Figure 1. There is a significant difference in diffuse (4+) PRAME expression between special-site nevi and MIS/IM occurring at special sites (P=1.039×10^-12).

Based on our cohort, a positivity threshold of 3+ for PRAME expression for the diagnosis of melanoma in a special-site lesion would have a sensitivity of 96% and a specificity of 94%, while a positivity threshold of 4+ for PRAME expression would have a sensitivity of 84% and a specificity of 100%. Figures 2 through 4 show photomicrographs of a special-site nevus of the breast, which appropriately does not stain for PRAME; Figures 5 and 6 show an MIS at a special site that appropriately stains for PRAME.

Comment

The distinction between benign and malignant pigmented lesions at special sites presents a fair challenge for pathologists due to the larger degree of leniency for architectural distortion and cytologic atypia in benign lesions at these sites. The presence of architectural distortion or cytologic atypia at the lesion’s edge makes rendering a benign diagnosis especially difficult, and the need for a validated immunohistochemical stain is apparent. In our cohort, strong clonal PRAME expression provided a reliable immunohistochemical marker, allowing for the distinction of malignant lesions from benign nevi at special sites. Diffuse faint PRAME expression was present in several benign nevi within our cohort, and these lesions were considered negative (0) in our analysis.

Given the described test characteristics, we support the implementation of PRAME immunohistochemistry with a positivity threshold of 4+ expression as an ancillary test supporting the diagnosis of IM or MIS in special sites, which would allow clinicians to leverage the high specificity of 4+ PRAME expression to distinguish an IM or MIS from a benign nevus occurring at a special site. We do not recommend the use of 4+ PRAME expression as a screening test for melanoma or MIS among special-site nevi due to its comparatively low sensitivity; however, no one marker is always reliable, and we recommend continued clinicopathologic correlation for all cases. Although PRAME can assist in the delineation of malignant lesions from benign ones, microscopic examination of hematoxylin and eosin–stained section remains the gold standard for diagnosing malignant melanoma and MIS.

Although our case series included nevi and MIS/IM from all special sites, we were limited in the number of acrogenital and ear nevi included due to a relative paucity of biopsied benign nevi from these locations at the University of Virginia. Additionally, although the magnitude of the difference in PRAME expression between the study and control groups is sufficient to demonstrate statistical significance, the overall strength of our argument would be increased with a larger study group. We were limited by the number of cases available at our institution, which did not utilize PRAME during the initial diagnosis of the case; including these cases in the study group would have undermined the integrity of our argument because the differentiation of benign vs malignant initially was made using PRAME immunohistochemistry.

Conclusion

Due to their atypical features, special-site nevi can be challenging to assess. In this study, we showed that PRAME expression can be a reliable marker to distinguish benign from malignant lesions. Our results showed that 100% of benign special-site nevi demonstrated 3+ expression or less, with 56% (20/36) demonstrating no expression at all. The presence of diffuse PRAME expression (4+ PRAME staining) appears to be a specific indicator of a malignant lesion, but results should always be interpreted with respect to the patient’s clinical history and the lesion’s histomorphologic features. Further study of a larger sample size would allow refinement of the sensitivity and specificity of diffuse PRAME expression in the determination of malignancy for special-site lesions.

Acknowledgment—The authors thank the pathologistsat the University of Virginia Biorepository and Tissue Research Facility (Charlottesville, Virginia) for their skill and expertise in performing immunohistochemical staining for this study.

To the Editor:

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin condition that affects approximately 16.5 million adults in the United States.¹ Atopic dermatitis is associated with skin barrier dysfunction and the activation of type 2 inflammatory cytokines. Multiorgan involvement of AD has been demonstrated, as patients with AD are more prone to asthma, allergic rhinitis, and other systemic diseases.² In 2020, Smirnova et al³ reported a significant association (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.30-1.92) between AD and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in a large Swedish population. Currently, there is a lack of research evaluating the association between AD and COPD in a population of US adults. Therefore, we explored the association between AD and COPD (chronic bronchitis or emphysema) in a population of US adults utilizing the 1999-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), as these were the latest data for AD available in NHANES.⁴

We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional study focused on patients 20 years and older with psoriasis from the 1999-2006 NHANES database. Three outcome variables—emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and COPD—and numerous confounding variables for each participant were extracted from the NHANES database. The original cohort consisted of 13,134 participants, and 43 patients were excluded from our analysis owing to the lack of response to survey questions regarding AD and COPD status. The relationship between AD and COPD was evaluated by multivariable logistic regression analyses utilizing Stata/MP 17 (StataCorp LLC). In our logistic regression models, we controlled for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, income, tobacco usage, diabetes mellitus and asthma status, and body mass index (eTable).

Our study consisted of 13,091 participants. Multivariable logistic regressions were utilized to examine the association between AD and COPD (Table). Approximately 12.5% (weighted) of the patients in our analysis had AD. Additionally, 9.7% (weighted) of patients with AD had received a diagnosis of COPD; conversely, 5.9% (weighted) of patients without AD had received a diagnosis of COPD. More patients with AD reported a diagnosis of chronic bronchitis (9.2%) rather than emphysema (0.9%). Our analysis revealed a significant association between AD and COPD among adults aged 20 to 59 years (AOR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.13-1.80; P=.003) after controlling for potential confounding variables. Subsequently, we performed subgroup analyses, including exclusion of patients with an asthma diagnosis, to further explore the association between AD and COPD. After excluding participants with asthma, there was still a significant association between AD and COPD (AOR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.14-2.16; P=.007). Moreover, the odds of receiving a COPD diagnosis were significantly higher among male patients with AD (AOR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.06-2.25; P=.03).

Our results support the association between AD and COPD, more specifically chronic bronchitis. This finding may be due to similar pathogenic mechanisms in both conditions, including overlapping cytokine production and immune pathways.⁵ Additionally, Harazin et al⁶ discussed the role of a novel gene, collagen 29A1 (COL29A1), in the pathogenesis of AD, COPD, and asthma. Variations in this gene may predispose patients to not only atopic diseases but also COPD.⁶

Limitations of our study include self-reported diagnoses and lack of patients older than 59 years. Self-reported diagnoses could have resulted in some misclassification of COPD, as some individuals may have reported a diagnosis of COPD rather than their true diagnosis of asthma. We mitigated this limitation by constructing a subpopulation model with exclusion of individuals with asthma. Further studies with spirometry-diagnosed COPD are needed to explore this relationship and the potential contributory pathophysiologic mechanisms. Understanding this association may increase awareness of potential comorbidities and assist clinicians with adequate management of patients with AD.

To the Editor:

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin condition that affects approximately 16.5 million adults in the United States.¹ Atopic dermatitis is associated with skin barrier dysfunction and the activation of type 2 inflammatory cytokines. Multiorgan involvement of AD has been demonstrated, as patients with AD are more prone to asthma, allergic rhinitis, and other systemic diseases.² In 2020, Smirnova et al³ reported a significant association (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.30-1.92) between AD and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in a large Swedish population. Currently, there is a lack of research evaluating the association between AD and COPD in a population of US adults. Therefore, we explored the association between AD and COPD (chronic bronchitis or emphysema) in a population of US adults utilizing the 1999-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), as these were the latest data for AD available in NHANES.⁴

We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional study focused on patients 20 years and older with psoriasis from the 1999-2006 NHANES database. Three outcome variables—emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and COPD—and numerous confounding variables for each participant were extracted from the NHANES database. The original cohort consisted of 13,134 participants, and 43 patients were excluded from our analysis owing to the lack of response to survey questions regarding AD and COPD status. The relationship between AD and COPD was evaluated by multivariable logistic regression analyses utilizing Stata/MP 17 (StataCorp LLC). In our logistic regression models, we controlled for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, income, tobacco usage, diabetes mellitus and asthma status, and body mass index (eTable).

Our study consisted of 13,091 participants. Multivariable logistic regressions were utilized to examine the association between AD and COPD (Table). Approximately 12.5% (weighted) of the patients in our analysis had AD. Additionally, 9.7% (weighted) of patients with AD had received a diagnosis of COPD; conversely, 5.9% (weighted) of patients without AD had received a diagnosis of COPD. More patients with AD reported a diagnosis of chronic bronchitis (9.2%) rather than emphysema (0.9%). Our analysis revealed a significant association between AD and COPD among adults aged 20 to 59 years (AOR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.13-1.80; P=.003) after controlling for potential confounding variables. Subsequently, we performed subgroup analyses, including exclusion of patients with an asthma diagnosis, to further explore the association between AD and COPD. After excluding participants with asthma, there was still a significant association between AD and COPD (AOR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.14-2.16; P=.007). Moreover, the odds of receiving a COPD diagnosis were significantly higher among male patients with AD (AOR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.06-2.25; P=.03).

Our results support the association between AD and COPD, more specifically chronic bronchitis. This finding may be due to similar pathogenic mechanisms in both conditions, including overlapping cytokine production and immune pathways.⁵ Additionally, Harazin et al⁶ discussed the role of a novel gene, collagen 29A1 (COL29A1), in the pathogenesis of AD, COPD, and asthma. Variations in this gene may predispose patients to not only atopic diseases but also COPD.⁶

Limitations of our study include self-reported diagnoses and lack of patients older than 59 years. Self-reported diagnoses could have resulted in some misclassification of COPD, as some individuals may have reported a diagnosis of COPD rather than their true diagnosis of asthma. We mitigated this limitation by constructing a subpopulation model with exclusion of individuals with asthma. Further studies with spirometry-diagnosed COPD are needed to explore this relationship and the potential contributory pathophysiologic mechanisms. Understanding this association may increase awareness of potential comorbidities and assist clinicians with adequate management of patients with AD.

To the Editor:

Atopic dermatitis (AD) is an inflammatory skin condition that affects approximately 16.5 million adults in the United States.¹ Atopic dermatitis is associated with skin barrier dysfunction and the activation of type 2 inflammatory cytokines. Multiorgan involvement of AD has been demonstrated, as patients with AD are more prone to asthma, allergic rhinitis, and other systemic diseases.² In 2020, Smirnova et al³ reported a significant association (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.58; 95% CI, 1.30-1.92) between AD and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in a large Swedish population. Currently, there is a lack of research evaluating the association between AD and COPD in a population of US adults. Therefore, we explored the association between AD and COPD (chronic bronchitis or emphysema) in a population of US adults utilizing the 1999-2006 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), as these were the latest data for AD available in NHANES.⁴

We conducted a population-based, cross-sectional study focused on patients 20 years and older with psoriasis from the 1999-2006 NHANES database. Three outcome variables—emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and COPD—and numerous confounding variables for each participant were extracted from the NHANES database. The original cohort consisted of 13,134 participants, and 43 patients were excluded from our analysis owing to the lack of response to survey questions regarding AD and COPD status. The relationship between AD and COPD was evaluated by multivariable logistic regression analyses utilizing Stata/MP 17 (StataCorp LLC). In our logistic regression models, we controlled for age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, income, tobacco usage, diabetes mellitus and asthma status, and body mass index (eTable).

Our study consisted of 13,091 participants. Multivariable logistic regressions were utilized to examine the association between AD and COPD (Table). Approximately 12.5% (weighted) of the patients in our analysis had AD. Additionally, 9.7% (weighted) of patients with AD had received a diagnosis of COPD; conversely, 5.9% (weighted) of patients without AD had received a diagnosis of COPD. More patients with AD reported a diagnosis of chronic bronchitis (9.2%) rather than emphysema (0.9%). Our analysis revealed a significant association between AD and COPD among adults aged 20 to 59 years (AOR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.13-1.80; P=.003) after controlling for potential confounding variables. Subsequently, we performed subgroup analyses, including exclusion of patients with an asthma diagnosis, to further explore the association between AD and COPD. After excluding participants with asthma, there was still a significant association between AD and COPD (AOR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.14-2.16; P=.007). Moreover, the odds of receiving a COPD diagnosis were significantly higher among male patients with AD (AOR, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.06-2.25; P=.03).

Our results support the association between AD and COPD, more specifically chronic bronchitis. This finding may be due to similar pathogenic mechanisms in both conditions, including overlapping cytokine production and immune pathways.⁵ Additionally, Harazin et al⁶ discussed the role of a novel gene, collagen 29A1 (COL29A1), in the pathogenesis of AD, COPD, and asthma. Variations in this gene may predispose patients to not only atopic diseases but also COPD.⁶

Limitations of our study include self-reported diagnoses and lack of patients older than 59 years. Self-reported diagnoses could have resulted in some misclassification of COPD, as some individuals may have reported a diagnosis of COPD rather than their true diagnosis of asthma. We mitigated this limitation by constructing a subpopulation model with exclusion of individuals with asthma. Further studies with spirometry-diagnosed COPD are needed to explore this relationship and the potential contributory pathophysiologic mechanisms. Understanding this association may increase awareness of potential comorbidities and assist clinicians with adequate management of patients with AD.