Clinician Reviews

TOPLINE:

A two-step screening, using a risk score and biomarkers, can identify patients with diabetes at a higher risk for heart failure who will most likely benefit from preventive drugs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers compared screening methods and downstream risk for heart failure in 5 years, particularly those without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
• They pooled data from 4889 patients (age ≥ 40 years, about half women) with diabetes, no heart failure at baseline, and no signs of ASCVD. All patients had undergone screening to determine their heart failure risk level.
• Researchers assessed the heart failure risk for patients without ASCVD with one-step screening strategies:
• —Clinical risk score (WATCH-DM risk score)
• —Biomarker tests (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin [hs-cTn)
• —Echocardiography
• They next assessed a sequential two-step strategy, using the second test only for those deemed low risk by the first, with a combination of two tests (WATCH-DM/NT-proBNP, NT-proBNP/hs-cTn, or NT-proBNP/echocardiography), the second used for those deemed low-risk by the first test.
• The primary outcome was incident heart failure during the 5-year follow-up. The researchers also assessed the cost-effectiveness of screening and subsequent treatment of high-risk patients with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 301 (6.2%) heart failure events occurred among participants without ASCVD.
• Of the heart failure events, 53%-71% occurred among participants deemed high risk by a one-step screening strategy, but 75%-89% occurred among patients assessed as high risk in two steps.
• The risk for incident heart failure was 3.0- to 3.6-fold higher in the high- vs low-risk group identified using a two-step screening approach.
• Among the two-step strategies, the WATCH-DM score first, followed by selective NT-proBNP testing for patients deemed low risk by the first test, was the most efficient, with the fewest tests and lowest screening cost.

IN PRACTICE:

“Matching effective but expensive preventive therapies to the highest-risk individuals who are most likely to benefit would be an efficient and cost-effective strategy for heart failure prevention,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Kershaw Patel of the Houston Methodist Academic Institute, was published online in Circulation.

LIMITATIONS:

The study findings may not be generalized, as the study included older adults with a high burden of comorbidities. This study may have missed some individuals with diabetes by defining it with fasting plasma glucose, which was consistently available across cohort studies, instead of with the limited A1c data. Moreover, the screening strategies used did not consider other important prognostic factors, such as diabetes duration and socioeconomic status.

DISCLOSURES:

Two authors declared receiving research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical device and medical publishing companies in the form of receiving personal fees; serving in various capacities such as consultants, members of advisory boards, steering committees, or executive committees; and other ties.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A two-step screening, using a risk score and biomarkers, can identify patients with diabetes at a higher risk for heart failure who will most likely benefit from preventive drugs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers compared screening methods and downstream risk for heart failure in 5 years, particularly those without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
• They pooled data from 4889 patients (age ≥ 40 years, about half women) with diabetes, no heart failure at baseline, and no signs of ASCVD. All patients had undergone screening to determine their heart failure risk level.
• Researchers assessed the heart failure risk for patients without ASCVD with one-step screening strategies:
• —Clinical risk score (WATCH-DM risk score)
• —Biomarker tests (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin [hs-cTn)
• —Echocardiography
• They next assessed a sequential two-step strategy, using the second test only for those deemed low risk by the first, with a combination of two tests (WATCH-DM/NT-proBNP, NT-proBNP/hs-cTn, or NT-proBNP/echocardiography), the second used for those deemed low-risk by the first test.
• The primary outcome was incident heart failure during the 5-year follow-up. The researchers also assessed the cost-effectiveness of screening and subsequent treatment of high-risk patients with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 301 (6.2%) heart failure events occurred among participants without ASCVD.
• Of the heart failure events, 53%-71% occurred among participants deemed high risk by a one-step screening strategy, but 75%-89% occurred among patients assessed as high risk in two steps.
• The risk for incident heart failure was 3.0- to 3.6-fold higher in the high- vs low-risk group identified using a two-step screening approach.
• Among the two-step strategies, the WATCH-DM score first, followed by selective NT-proBNP testing for patients deemed low risk by the first test, was the most efficient, with the fewest tests and lowest screening cost.

IN PRACTICE:

“Matching effective but expensive preventive therapies to the highest-risk individuals who are most likely to benefit would be an efficient and cost-effective strategy for heart failure prevention,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Kershaw Patel of the Houston Methodist Academic Institute, was published online in Circulation.

LIMITATIONS:

The study findings may not be generalized, as the study included older adults with a high burden of comorbidities. This study may have missed some individuals with diabetes by defining it with fasting plasma glucose, which was consistently available across cohort studies, instead of with the limited A1c data. Moreover, the screening strategies used did not consider other important prognostic factors, such as diabetes duration and socioeconomic status.

DISCLOSURES:

Two authors declared receiving research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical device and medical publishing companies in the form of receiving personal fees; serving in various capacities such as consultants, members of advisory boards, steering committees, or executive committees; and other ties.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A two-step screening, using a risk score and biomarkers, can identify patients with diabetes at a higher risk for heart failure who will most likely benefit from preventive drugs.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers compared screening methods and downstream risk for heart failure in 5 years, particularly those without atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
• They pooled data from 4889 patients (age ≥ 40 years, about half women) with diabetes, no heart failure at baseline, and no signs of ASCVD. All patients had undergone screening to determine their heart failure risk level.
• Researchers assessed the heart failure risk for patients without ASCVD with one-step screening strategies:
• —Clinical risk score (WATCH-DM risk score)
• —Biomarker tests (N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP]) or high-sensitivity cardiac troponin [hs-cTn)
• —Echocardiography
• They next assessed a sequential two-step strategy, using the second test only for those deemed low risk by the first, with a combination of two tests (WATCH-DM/NT-proBNP, NT-proBNP/hs-cTn, or NT-proBNP/echocardiography), the second used for those deemed low-risk by the first test.
• The primary outcome was incident heart failure during the 5-year follow-up. The researchers also assessed the cost-effectiveness of screening and subsequent treatment of high-risk patients with a sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor.

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 301 (6.2%) heart failure events occurred among participants without ASCVD.
• Of the heart failure events, 53%-71% occurred among participants deemed high risk by a one-step screening strategy, but 75%-89% occurred among patients assessed as high risk in two steps.
• The risk for incident heart failure was 3.0- to 3.6-fold higher in the high- vs low-risk group identified using a two-step screening approach.
• Among the two-step strategies, the WATCH-DM score first, followed by selective NT-proBNP testing for patients deemed low risk by the first test, was the most efficient, with the fewest tests and lowest screening cost.

IN PRACTICE:

“Matching effective but expensive preventive therapies to the highest-risk individuals who are most likely to benefit would be an efficient and cost-effective strategy for heart failure prevention,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Kershaw Patel of the Houston Methodist Academic Institute, was published online in Circulation.

LIMITATIONS:

The study findings may not be generalized, as the study included older adults with a high burden of comorbidities. This study may have missed some individuals with diabetes by defining it with fasting plasma glucose, which was consistently available across cohort studies, instead of with the limited A1c data. Moreover, the screening strategies used did not consider other important prognostic factors, such as diabetes duration and socioeconomic status.

DISCLOSURES:

Two authors declared receiving research support from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Several authors disclosed financial relationships with multiple pharmaceutical device and medical publishing companies in the form of receiving personal fees; serving in various capacities such as consultants, members of advisory boards, steering committees, or executive committees; and other ties.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A few weeks ago, I made a patient who lost 100 pounds following a sleeve gastrectomy 9 months prior feel bad because I told her she lost too much weight. As I spoke to her, I realized that she found it hard to make life changes and that the surgery was a huge aide in changing her life and her lifestyle. I ended up apologizing for initially saying she lost too much weight.

For the first time in her life, she was successful in losing weight and keeping it off. The surgery allowed her body to defend a lower body weight by altering the secretion of gut hormones that lead to satiety in the brain. It’s not her fault that her body responded so well!

I asked her to be on my next orientation virtual meeting with prospective weight management patients to urge those with a body mass index (BMI) > 40 to consider bariatric surgery as the most effective durable and safe treatment for their degree of obesity.

Metabolic bariatric surgery, primarily sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass , alters the gut hormone milieu such that the body defends a lower mass of adipose tissue and a lower weight. We have learned what it takes to alter body weight defense to a healthy lower weight by studying why metabolic bariatric surgery works so well. It turns out that there are several hormones secreted by the gut that allow the brain to register fullness.

One of these gut hormones, glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1, has been researched as an analog to help reduce body weight by 16% and has also been shown to reduce cardiovascular risk in the SELECT trial, as published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

It’s the first weight loss medication to be shown in a cardiovascular outcomes trial to be superior to placebo in reduction of major cardiovascular events, including cardiovascular deaths, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The results presented at the 2023 American Heart Association meetings in Philadelphia ended in wholehearted applause by a “standing only” audience even before the presentation’s conclusion.

As we pave the way for nutrient-stimulated hormone (NuSH) therapies to be prescribed to all Americans with a BMI > 30 to improve health, we need to remember what these medications actually do. We used to think that metabolic bariatric surgery worked by restricting the stomach contents and malabsorbing nutrients. We now know that the surgeries work by altering NuSH secretion, allowing for less secretion of the hunger hormone ghrelin and more secretion of GLP-1, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), peptide YY (PYY), cholecystokinin (CCK), oxyntomodulin (OXM), and other satiety hormones with less food ingestion.

They have pleiotropic effects on many organ systems in the body, including the brain, heart, adipose tissue, and liver. They decrease inflammation and also increase satiety and delay gastric emptying. None of these effects automatically produce weight loss, but they certainly aid in the adoption of a healthier body weight and better health. The weight loss occurs because these medications steer the body toward behavioral changes that promote weight loss.

As we delve into the SELECT trial results, a 20% reduction in major cardiovascular events was accompanied by an average weight loss of 9.6%, without a behavioral component added to either the placebo or intervention arms, as is usual in antiobesity agent trials.

Does this mean that primary care providers (PCPs) don’t have to educate patients on behavior change, diet, and exercise therapy? Well, if we consider obesity a disease as we do type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia or hypertension, then no — PCPs don’t have to, just like they don’t in treating these other diseases.

However, we should rethink this practice. The recently published SURMOUNT-3 trial looked at another NuSH, tirzepatide, with intensive behavioral therapy; it resulted in a 26.6% weight loss, which is comparable to results with bariatric surgery. The SURMOUNT-1 trial of tirzepatide with nonintensive behavioral therapy resulted in a 20.9% weight loss, which is still substantial, but SURMOUNT-3 showed how much more is achievable with robust behavior-change therapy.

In other words, it’s time that PCPs provide education on behavior change to maximize the power of the medications prescribed in practice for the most common diseases suffered in the United States: obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension. These are all chronic, relapsing diseases. Medication alone will improve numbers (weight, blood glucose, A1c, and blood pressure), but a relapsing disease continues relentlessly as patients age to overcome the medications prescribed.

Today I made another patient feel bad because she lost over 100 pounds on semaglutide (Wegovy) 2.4 mg over 1 year, reducing her BMI from 57 to 36. She wanted to keep losing, so I recommended sleeve gastrectomy to lose more weight. I told her she could always restart the Wegovy after the procedure if needed.

We really don’t have an answer to this issue of NuSH therapy not getting to goal and bariatric surgery following medication therapy. The reality is that bariatric surgery should be considered a safe, effective treatment for extreme obesity somewhere along the trajectory of treatments starting with behavior (diet, exercise) and medications. It is still considered a last resort, and for some, just too aggressive.

We have learned much about the incretin hormones and what they can accomplish for obesity from studying bariatric — now called metabolic — surgery. Surgery should be seen as we see stent placement for angina, only more effective for longevity. The COURAGE trial, published in 2007 in NEJM, showed that when compared with medication treatment alone for angina, stent placement plus medications resulted in no difference in mortality after a 7-year follow-up period. Compare this to bariatric surgery, which in many retrospective analyses shows a 20% reduction in cardiovascular mortality after 20-year follow-up (Swedish Obesity Study). In the United States, there are 2 million stent procedures performed per year vs 250,000 bariatric surgical procedures. There are millions of Americans with a BMI > 40 and, yes, millions of Americans with angina. I think I make my point that we need to do more bariatric surgeries to effectively treat extreme obesity.

The solution to this negligent medical practice in obesity treatment is to empower PCPs to treat obesity (at least uncomplicated obesity) and refer to obesity medicine practices for complicated obesity with multiple complications, such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and to refer to obesity medicine practices with a surgical component for BMIs > 40 or > 35 with type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, and/or cardiovascular disease or other serious conditions.

How do we empower PCPs? Insurance coverage of NuSH therapies due to life-saving properties — as evidenced by the SELECT trial — without prior authorizations; and education on how and why metabolic surgery works, as well as education on behavioral approaches, such as healthy diet and exercise, as a core therapy for all BMI categories.

It’s time.

Caroline Apovian, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Altimmune; Cowen and Company; Currax Pharmaceuticals; EPG Communication Holdings; Gelesis, Srl; L-Nutra; and NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals. Received research grant from: National Institutes of Health; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; and GI Dynamics. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Altimmune; Cowen and Company; NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals; and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A few weeks ago, I made a patient who lost 100 pounds following a sleeve gastrectomy 9 months prior feel bad because I told her she lost too much weight. As I spoke to her, I realized that she found it hard to make life changes and that the surgery was a huge aide in changing her life and her lifestyle. I ended up apologizing for initially saying she lost too much weight.

For the first time in her life, she was successful in losing weight and keeping it off. The surgery allowed her body to defend a lower body weight by altering the secretion of gut hormones that lead to satiety in the brain. It’s not her fault that her body responded so well!

I asked her to be on my next orientation virtual meeting with prospective weight management patients to urge those with a body mass index (BMI) > 40 to consider bariatric surgery as the most effective durable and safe treatment for their degree of obesity.

Metabolic bariatric surgery, primarily sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass , alters the gut hormone milieu such that the body defends a lower mass of adipose tissue and a lower weight. We have learned what it takes to alter body weight defense to a healthy lower weight by studying why metabolic bariatric surgery works so well. It turns out that there are several hormones secreted by the gut that allow the brain to register fullness.

One of these gut hormones, glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1, has been researched as an analog to help reduce body weight by 16% and has also been shown to reduce cardiovascular risk in the SELECT trial, as published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

It’s the first weight loss medication to be shown in a cardiovascular outcomes trial to be superior to placebo in reduction of major cardiovascular events, including cardiovascular deaths, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The results presented at the 2023 American Heart Association meetings in Philadelphia ended in wholehearted applause by a “standing only” audience even before the presentation’s conclusion.

As we pave the way for nutrient-stimulated hormone (NuSH) therapies to be prescribed to all Americans with a BMI > 30 to improve health, we need to remember what these medications actually do. We used to think that metabolic bariatric surgery worked by restricting the stomach contents and malabsorbing nutrients. We now know that the surgeries work by altering NuSH secretion, allowing for less secretion of the hunger hormone ghrelin and more secretion of GLP-1, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), peptide YY (PYY), cholecystokinin (CCK), oxyntomodulin (OXM), and other satiety hormones with less food ingestion.

They have pleiotropic effects on many organ systems in the body, including the brain, heart, adipose tissue, and liver. They decrease inflammation and also increase satiety and delay gastric emptying. None of these effects automatically produce weight loss, but they certainly aid in the adoption of a healthier body weight and better health. The weight loss occurs because these medications steer the body toward behavioral changes that promote weight loss.

As we delve into the SELECT trial results, a 20% reduction in major cardiovascular events was accompanied by an average weight loss of 9.6%, without a behavioral component added to either the placebo or intervention arms, as is usual in antiobesity agent trials.

Does this mean that primary care providers (PCPs) don’t have to educate patients on behavior change, diet, and exercise therapy? Well, if we consider obesity a disease as we do type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia or hypertension, then no — PCPs don’t have to, just like they don’t in treating these other diseases.

However, we should rethink this practice. The recently published SURMOUNT-3 trial looked at another NuSH, tirzepatide, with intensive behavioral therapy; it resulted in a 26.6% weight loss, which is comparable to results with bariatric surgery. The SURMOUNT-1 trial of tirzepatide with nonintensive behavioral therapy resulted in a 20.9% weight loss, which is still substantial, but SURMOUNT-3 showed how much more is achievable with robust behavior-change therapy.

In other words, it’s time that PCPs provide education on behavior change to maximize the power of the medications prescribed in practice for the most common diseases suffered in the United States: obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension. These are all chronic, relapsing diseases. Medication alone will improve numbers (weight, blood glucose, A1c, and blood pressure), but a relapsing disease continues relentlessly as patients age to overcome the medications prescribed.

Today I made another patient feel bad because she lost over 100 pounds on semaglutide (Wegovy) 2.4 mg over 1 year, reducing her BMI from 57 to 36. She wanted to keep losing, so I recommended sleeve gastrectomy to lose more weight. I told her she could always restart the Wegovy after the procedure if needed.

We really don’t have an answer to this issue of NuSH therapy not getting to goal and bariatric surgery following medication therapy. The reality is that bariatric surgery should be considered a safe, effective treatment for extreme obesity somewhere along the trajectory of treatments starting with behavior (diet, exercise) and medications. It is still considered a last resort, and for some, just too aggressive.

We have learned much about the incretin hormones and what they can accomplish for obesity from studying bariatric — now called metabolic — surgery. Surgery should be seen as we see stent placement for angina, only more effective for longevity. The COURAGE trial, published in 2007 in NEJM, showed that when compared with medication treatment alone for angina, stent placement plus medications resulted in no difference in mortality after a 7-year follow-up period. Compare this to bariatric surgery, which in many retrospective analyses shows a 20% reduction in cardiovascular mortality after 20-year follow-up (Swedish Obesity Study). In the United States, there are 2 million stent procedures performed per year vs 250,000 bariatric surgical procedures. There are millions of Americans with a BMI > 40 and, yes, millions of Americans with angina. I think I make my point that we need to do more bariatric surgeries to effectively treat extreme obesity.

The solution to this negligent medical practice in obesity treatment is to empower PCPs to treat obesity (at least uncomplicated obesity) and refer to obesity medicine practices for complicated obesity with multiple complications, such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and to refer to obesity medicine practices with a surgical component for BMIs > 40 or > 35 with type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, and/or cardiovascular disease or other serious conditions.

How do we empower PCPs? Insurance coverage of NuSH therapies due to life-saving properties — as evidenced by the SELECT trial — without prior authorizations; and education on how and why metabolic surgery works, as well as education on behavioral approaches, such as healthy diet and exercise, as a core therapy for all BMI categories.

It’s time.

Caroline Apovian, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Altimmune; Cowen and Company; Currax Pharmaceuticals; EPG Communication Holdings; Gelesis, Srl; L-Nutra; and NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals. Received research grant from: National Institutes of Health; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; and GI Dynamics. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Altimmune; Cowen and Company; NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals; and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A few weeks ago, I made a patient who lost 100 pounds following a sleeve gastrectomy 9 months prior feel bad because I told her she lost too much weight. As I spoke to her, I realized that she found it hard to make life changes and that the surgery was a huge aide in changing her life and her lifestyle. I ended up apologizing for initially saying she lost too much weight.

For the first time in her life, she was successful in losing weight and keeping it off. The surgery allowed her body to defend a lower body weight by altering the secretion of gut hormones that lead to satiety in the brain. It’s not her fault that her body responded so well!

I asked her to be on my next orientation virtual meeting with prospective weight management patients to urge those with a body mass index (BMI) > 40 to consider bariatric surgery as the most effective durable and safe treatment for their degree of obesity.

Metabolic bariatric surgery, primarily sleeve gastrectomy and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass , alters the gut hormone milieu such that the body defends a lower mass of adipose tissue and a lower weight. We have learned what it takes to alter body weight defense to a healthy lower weight by studying why metabolic bariatric surgery works so well. It turns out that there are several hormones secreted by the gut that allow the brain to register fullness.

One of these gut hormones, glucagon-like peptide (GLP)-1, has been researched as an analog to help reduce body weight by 16% and has also been shown to reduce cardiovascular risk in the SELECT trial, as published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM).

It’s the first weight loss medication to be shown in a cardiovascular outcomes trial to be superior to placebo in reduction of major cardiovascular events, including cardiovascular deaths, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. The results presented at the 2023 American Heart Association meetings in Philadelphia ended in wholehearted applause by a “standing only” audience even before the presentation’s conclusion.

As we pave the way for nutrient-stimulated hormone (NuSH) therapies to be prescribed to all Americans with a BMI > 30 to improve health, we need to remember what these medications actually do. We used to think that metabolic bariatric surgery worked by restricting the stomach contents and malabsorbing nutrients. We now know that the surgeries work by altering NuSH secretion, allowing for less secretion of the hunger hormone ghrelin and more secretion of GLP-1, glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP), peptide YY (PYY), cholecystokinin (CCK), oxyntomodulin (OXM), and other satiety hormones with less food ingestion.

They have pleiotropic effects on many organ systems in the body, including the brain, heart, adipose tissue, and liver. They decrease inflammation and also increase satiety and delay gastric emptying. None of these effects automatically produce weight loss, but they certainly aid in the adoption of a healthier body weight and better health. The weight loss occurs because these medications steer the body toward behavioral changes that promote weight loss.

As we delve into the SELECT trial results, a 20% reduction in major cardiovascular events was accompanied by an average weight loss of 9.6%, without a behavioral component added to either the placebo or intervention arms, as is usual in antiobesity agent trials.

Does this mean that primary care providers (PCPs) don’t have to educate patients on behavior change, diet, and exercise therapy? Well, if we consider obesity a disease as we do type 2 diabetes and dyslipidemia or hypertension, then no — PCPs don’t have to, just like they don’t in treating these other diseases.

However, we should rethink this practice. The recently published SURMOUNT-3 trial looked at another NuSH, tirzepatide, with intensive behavioral therapy; it resulted in a 26.6% weight loss, which is comparable to results with bariatric surgery. The SURMOUNT-1 trial of tirzepatide with nonintensive behavioral therapy resulted in a 20.9% weight loss, which is still substantial, but SURMOUNT-3 showed how much more is achievable with robust behavior-change therapy.

In other words, it’s time that PCPs provide education on behavior change to maximize the power of the medications prescribed in practice for the most common diseases suffered in the United States: obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and hypertension. These are all chronic, relapsing diseases. Medication alone will improve numbers (weight, blood glucose, A1c, and blood pressure), but a relapsing disease continues relentlessly as patients age to overcome the medications prescribed.

Today I made another patient feel bad because she lost over 100 pounds on semaglutide (Wegovy) 2.4 mg over 1 year, reducing her BMI from 57 to 36. She wanted to keep losing, so I recommended sleeve gastrectomy to lose more weight. I told her she could always restart the Wegovy after the procedure if needed.

We really don’t have an answer to this issue of NuSH therapy not getting to goal and bariatric surgery following medication therapy. The reality is that bariatric surgery should be considered a safe, effective treatment for extreme obesity somewhere along the trajectory of treatments starting with behavior (diet, exercise) and medications. It is still considered a last resort, and for some, just too aggressive.

We have learned much about the incretin hormones and what they can accomplish for obesity from studying bariatric — now called metabolic — surgery. Surgery should be seen as we see stent placement for angina, only more effective for longevity. The COURAGE trial, published in 2007 in NEJM, showed that when compared with medication treatment alone for angina, stent placement plus medications resulted in no difference in mortality after a 7-year follow-up period. Compare this to bariatric surgery, which in many retrospective analyses shows a 20% reduction in cardiovascular mortality after 20-year follow-up (Swedish Obesity Study). In the United States, there are 2 million stent procedures performed per year vs 250,000 bariatric surgical procedures. There are millions of Americans with a BMI > 40 and, yes, millions of Americans with angina. I think I make my point that we need to do more bariatric surgeries to effectively treat extreme obesity.

The solution to this negligent medical practice in obesity treatment is to empower PCPs to treat obesity (at least uncomplicated obesity) and refer to obesity medicine practices for complicated obesity with multiple complications, such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and to refer to obesity medicine practices with a surgical component for BMIs > 40 or > 35 with type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea, and/or cardiovascular disease or other serious conditions.

How do we empower PCPs? Insurance coverage of NuSH therapies due to life-saving properties — as evidenced by the SELECT trial — without prior authorizations; and education on how and why metabolic surgery works, as well as education on behavioral approaches, such as healthy diet and exercise, as a core therapy for all BMI categories.

It’s time.

Caroline Apovian, MD, has disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Serve(d) as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for Altimmune; Cowen and Company; Currax Pharmaceuticals; EPG Communication Holdings; Gelesis, Srl; L-Nutra; and NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals. Received research grant from: National Institutes of Health; Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; and GI Dynamics. Received income in an amount equal to or greater than $250 from: Altimmune; Cowen and Company; NeuroBo Pharmaceuticals; and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Juices made of 100% fruit can have a slight impact on children’s body mass index (BMI), which increases with each serving consumed. In addition, an effect on weight is noticeable in adults. These are some of the conclusions drawn from a literature review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics.

“Consumption of 100% fruit juice can serve as a convenient means to meet daily fruit recommendations and offers many of the nutrients found in whole fruit including essential vitamins, antioxidants, and polyphenols that can contribute to a healthy dietary pattern. However, there is concern that intake of 100% fruit juice may contribute to weight gain due to the high amounts of free sugars and energy,” wrote the authors, led by Michelle Nguyen, research assistant at the University of Toronto.

As the authors point out, available data on the subject are conflicting, and recommendations in national and international guidelines are not perfectly aligned. “With the rising overweight and obesity rates in children and adults worldwide, evidence-based recommendations for 100% fruit juice consumption are needed,” wrote the authors.
 

What the Literature Says

To shed light on such a crucial topic, researchers conducted a literature review with a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies lasting at least 6 months and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) lasting at least 2 weeks. The analysis included 42 studies: 17 on the pediatric population (only cohort studies; totaling 45,851 children) and 25 on the adult population (6 cohort studies and 19 RCTs; 268,095 adults involved).

In children, each daily serving of 100% fruit juice (equivalent to a glass of about 230 mL) was associated with a 0.03 increase in BMI, with a higher increase in younger children (0.15 in those under 11 years) compared with older ones (−0.001).

As for adults, the overall analysis of cohort studies did not show significant associations. Further analyses without adjusting for energy intake showed a significant association between 100% fruit juices and weight gain (0.21 kg), whereas after adjustment, an inverse association with weight gain (−0.08 kg) emerged. This finding suggests that the association may be mediated by calorie intake, wrote the researchers, adding that no association was found in the analysis of randomized controlled trials.
 

A Closer Look 

“Our comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis provides a novel analysis of 100% fruit juice and weight gain assessing children and adults using data from both prospective cohort studies and RCTs,” explained the authors, commenting on some of the obtained results.

Regarding the observed differences between children of different age groups, the researchers explained that a standard glass of fruit juice represents a higher proportion of the daily energy intake for a younger child compared with an older one. “Our findings are in line with American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines that children younger than 6 years should consume less than a glass of fruit juice per day,” they wrote. “Limiting intake of fruit juice among children is an important strategy for them to develop healthy weight trajectories.”

Experts also state that high-quality RCTs are needed in children and adults to explore the effect of fruit juice consumption on body weight at different intake levels and with different types of juice. “Our findings are in support of public health guidance to limit consumption of 100% fruit juice to prevent overweight and obesity,” the authors wrote. 
 

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Juices made of 100% fruit can have a slight impact on children’s body mass index (BMI), which increases with each serving consumed. In addition, an effect on weight is noticeable in adults. These are some of the conclusions drawn from a literature review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics.

“Consumption of 100% fruit juice can serve as a convenient means to meet daily fruit recommendations and offers many of the nutrients found in whole fruit including essential vitamins, antioxidants, and polyphenols that can contribute to a healthy dietary pattern. However, there is concern that intake of 100% fruit juice may contribute to weight gain due to the high amounts of free sugars and energy,” wrote the authors, led by Michelle Nguyen, research assistant at the University of Toronto.

As the authors point out, available data on the subject are conflicting, and recommendations in national and international guidelines are not perfectly aligned. “With the rising overweight and obesity rates in children and adults worldwide, evidence-based recommendations for 100% fruit juice consumption are needed,” wrote the authors.
 

What the Literature Says

To shed light on such a crucial topic, researchers conducted a literature review with a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies lasting at least 6 months and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) lasting at least 2 weeks. The analysis included 42 studies: 17 on the pediatric population (only cohort studies; totaling 45,851 children) and 25 on the adult population (6 cohort studies and 19 RCTs; 268,095 adults involved).

In children, each daily serving of 100% fruit juice (equivalent to a glass of about 230 mL) was associated with a 0.03 increase in BMI, with a higher increase in younger children (0.15 in those under 11 years) compared with older ones (−0.001).

As for adults, the overall analysis of cohort studies did not show significant associations. Further analyses without adjusting for energy intake showed a significant association between 100% fruit juices and weight gain (0.21 kg), whereas after adjustment, an inverse association with weight gain (−0.08 kg) emerged. This finding suggests that the association may be mediated by calorie intake, wrote the researchers, adding that no association was found in the analysis of randomized controlled trials.
 

A Closer Look 

“Our comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis provides a novel analysis of 100% fruit juice and weight gain assessing children and adults using data from both prospective cohort studies and RCTs,” explained the authors, commenting on some of the obtained results.

Regarding the observed differences between children of different age groups, the researchers explained that a standard glass of fruit juice represents a higher proportion of the daily energy intake for a younger child compared with an older one. “Our findings are in line with American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines that children younger than 6 years should consume less than a glass of fruit juice per day,” they wrote. “Limiting intake of fruit juice among children is an important strategy for them to develop healthy weight trajectories.”

Experts also state that high-quality RCTs are needed in children and adults to explore the effect of fruit juice consumption on body weight at different intake levels and with different types of juice. “Our findings are in support of public health guidance to limit consumption of 100% fruit juice to prevent overweight and obesity,” the authors wrote. 
 

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Juices made of 100% fruit can have a slight impact on children’s body mass index (BMI), which increases with each serving consumed. In addition, an effect on weight is noticeable in adults. These are some of the conclusions drawn from a literature review and meta-analysis published in JAMA Pediatrics.

“Consumption of 100% fruit juice can serve as a convenient means to meet daily fruit recommendations and offers many of the nutrients found in whole fruit including essential vitamins, antioxidants, and polyphenols that can contribute to a healthy dietary pattern. However, there is concern that intake of 100% fruit juice may contribute to weight gain due to the high amounts of free sugars and energy,” wrote the authors, led by Michelle Nguyen, research assistant at the University of Toronto.

As the authors point out, available data on the subject are conflicting, and recommendations in national and international guidelines are not perfectly aligned. “With the rising overweight and obesity rates in children and adults worldwide, evidence-based recommendations for 100% fruit juice consumption are needed,” wrote the authors.
 

What the Literature Says

To shed light on such a crucial topic, researchers conducted a literature review with a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies lasting at least 6 months and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) lasting at least 2 weeks. The analysis included 42 studies: 17 on the pediatric population (only cohort studies; totaling 45,851 children) and 25 on the adult population (6 cohort studies and 19 RCTs; 268,095 adults involved).

In children, each daily serving of 100% fruit juice (equivalent to a glass of about 230 mL) was associated with a 0.03 increase in BMI, with a higher increase in younger children (0.15 in those under 11 years) compared with older ones (−0.001).

As for adults, the overall analysis of cohort studies did not show significant associations. Further analyses without adjusting for energy intake showed a significant association between 100% fruit juices and weight gain (0.21 kg), whereas after adjustment, an inverse association with weight gain (−0.08 kg) emerged. This finding suggests that the association may be mediated by calorie intake, wrote the researchers, adding that no association was found in the analysis of randomized controlled trials.
 

A Closer Look 

“Our comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis provides a novel analysis of 100% fruit juice and weight gain assessing children and adults using data from both prospective cohort studies and RCTs,” explained the authors, commenting on some of the obtained results.

Regarding the observed differences between children of different age groups, the researchers explained that a standard glass of fruit juice represents a higher proportion of the daily energy intake for a younger child compared with an older one. “Our findings are in line with American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines that children younger than 6 years should consume less than a glass of fruit juice per day,” they wrote. “Limiting intake of fruit juice among children is an important strategy for them to develop healthy weight trajectories.”

Experts also state that high-quality RCTs are needed in children and adults to explore the effect of fruit juice consumption on body weight at different intake levels and with different types of juice. “Our findings are in support of public health guidance to limit consumption of 100% fruit juice to prevent overweight and obesity,” the authors wrote. 
 

This article was translated from Univadis Italy, which is part of the Medscape Professional Network. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Children and adolescents ages 5-17 who received a bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccine were less likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared with those who were unvaccinated or received only the monovalent COVID-19 vaccine, according to new data published February 6 in JAMA.

“All eligible children and adolescents should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations,” wrote the authors, led by Leora R. Feldstein, PhD, with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta.

By the end of 2023, at least 911 youths ages 5-17 had died from COVID-related causes.

Researchers found that compared with participants who did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine or got monovalent-only doses 180 days or more before, the adjusted vaccine effectiveness of a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose against SARS-CoV-2 infection was 51.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.6%-71.9%) 7-60 days after vaccination. Relative effectiveness was 62.4% (95% CI, 38.5%-81.1%) 61-150 days after vaccination. The researchers said the confidence intervals were wide because of the small sample size.

The information can help inform public health strategies, the authors noted, especially as new variants emerge.
 

Bivalent Dose Recommended in Fall of 2022

Bivalent mRNA COVID vaccines were recommended in the United States for children and adolescents ages 12 years or older on Sept. 1, 2022, and for children ages 5-11 on Oct. 12, 2022, when Omicron BA.4/5 types were the predominant circulating variant.

The study included 2,959 participants who completed periodic surveys (answering questions on demographics, household details, chronic medical conditions, and COVID-19 symptoms) and submitted weekly self-collected nasal swabs (whether or not they had symptoms). Those in the study submitted additional nasal swabs if they developed any symptoms.

Median adherence to weekly upper respiratory specimen swabbing was high throughout the study period at 93.8%.

Data from Sept. 4, 2022, to Jan. 31, 2023, were combined from three prospective US cohort studies at six sites. In addition to the surveys, researchers used information from state immunization information systems and electronic medical records.
 

Most of the Infected Were Unvaccinated or Had Monovalent Vax

Of the 426 participants (14.4% of the combined cohorts) infected with SARS-CoV-2, 383 (89.9%) were either unvaccinated or received monovalent vaccine doses only.

Calculations were adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, health conditions, prior SARS-CoV-2 infections, geographic location, proportion of circulating variants by site, and local virus prevalence.

Participants living in Oregon, for example, had the highest uptake of bivalent COVID-19 vaccine (56.2%), whereas those in Texas had the lowest (2.4%). Participants reporting Hispanic ethnicity had lower bivalent uptake (17.1%) compared with non-Hispanic participants of all races (27.1%).

Of the 2,207 participants who did not receive a bivalent dose, 24.2% were unvaccinated and 1,672 (75.8%) received at least 1 monovalent dose.

The researchers said they saw no sign of waning effectiveness 61-150 days (the limit for this analysis) after receipt of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine.

They wrote that continuation of the cohorts will allow study of waning patterns, which could help inform vaccine recommendations.

Among the limitations of the study are that testing methods and the COVID-19 symptoms surveyed varied among the three cohorts, so there may be some differences in defining infection or symptomatic COVID. In addition, the researchers were not able to account for the social vulnerability index and immunocompromised status, which could have affected vaccine uptake and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

This study was supported by the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Coauthor Dr. Caban-Martinez reported grants from the Florida Firefighter Cancer Initiative and the Florida Department of Health. Coauthors Dr. Chu, Dr. Englund, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Monto reported receiving personal fees or grants from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hegmann reported being the editor of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine practice guidelines. Coauthor Dr. Gaglani reported serving as cochair of the infectious diseases and immunization committee and the respiratory syncytial virus task force lead for the Texas Pediatric Society and the Texas Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. No other disclosures were reported.

Children and adolescents ages 5-17 who received a bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccine were less likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared with those who were unvaccinated or received only the monovalent COVID-19 vaccine, according to new data published February 6 in JAMA.

“All eligible children and adolescents should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations,” wrote the authors, led by Leora R. Feldstein, PhD, with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta.

By the end of 2023, at least 911 youths ages 5-17 had died from COVID-related causes.

Researchers found that compared with participants who did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine or got monovalent-only doses 180 days or more before, the adjusted vaccine effectiveness of a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose against SARS-CoV-2 infection was 51.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.6%-71.9%) 7-60 days after vaccination. Relative effectiveness was 62.4% (95% CI, 38.5%-81.1%) 61-150 days after vaccination. The researchers said the confidence intervals were wide because of the small sample size.

The information can help inform public health strategies, the authors noted, especially as new variants emerge.
 

Bivalent Dose Recommended in Fall of 2022

Bivalent mRNA COVID vaccines were recommended in the United States for children and adolescents ages 12 years or older on Sept. 1, 2022, and for children ages 5-11 on Oct. 12, 2022, when Omicron BA.4/5 types were the predominant circulating variant.

The study included 2,959 participants who completed periodic surveys (answering questions on demographics, household details, chronic medical conditions, and COVID-19 symptoms) and submitted weekly self-collected nasal swabs (whether or not they had symptoms). Those in the study submitted additional nasal swabs if they developed any symptoms.

Median adherence to weekly upper respiratory specimen swabbing was high throughout the study period at 93.8%.

Data from Sept. 4, 2022, to Jan. 31, 2023, were combined from three prospective US cohort studies at six sites. In addition to the surveys, researchers used information from state immunization information systems and electronic medical records.
 

Most of the Infected Were Unvaccinated or Had Monovalent Vax

Of the 426 participants (14.4% of the combined cohorts) infected with SARS-CoV-2, 383 (89.9%) were either unvaccinated or received monovalent vaccine doses only.

Calculations were adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, health conditions, prior SARS-CoV-2 infections, geographic location, proportion of circulating variants by site, and local virus prevalence.

Participants living in Oregon, for example, had the highest uptake of bivalent COVID-19 vaccine (56.2%), whereas those in Texas had the lowest (2.4%). Participants reporting Hispanic ethnicity had lower bivalent uptake (17.1%) compared with non-Hispanic participants of all races (27.1%).

Of the 2,207 participants who did not receive a bivalent dose, 24.2% were unvaccinated and 1,672 (75.8%) received at least 1 monovalent dose.

The researchers said they saw no sign of waning effectiveness 61-150 days (the limit for this analysis) after receipt of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine.

They wrote that continuation of the cohorts will allow study of waning patterns, which could help inform vaccine recommendations.

Among the limitations of the study are that testing methods and the COVID-19 symptoms surveyed varied among the three cohorts, so there may be some differences in defining infection or symptomatic COVID. In addition, the researchers were not able to account for the social vulnerability index and immunocompromised status, which could have affected vaccine uptake and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

This study was supported by the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Coauthor Dr. Caban-Martinez reported grants from the Florida Firefighter Cancer Initiative and the Florida Department of Health. Coauthors Dr. Chu, Dr. Englund, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Monto reported receiving personal fees or grants from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hegmann reported being the editor of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine practice guidelines. Coauthor Dr. Gaglani reported serving as cochair of the infectious diseases and immunization committee and the respiratory syncytial virus task force lead for the Texas Pediatric Society and the Texas Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. No other disclosures were reported.

Children and adolescents ages 5-17 who received a bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccine were less likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared with those who were unvaccinated or received only the monovalent COVID-19 vaccine, according to new data published February 6 in JAMA.

“All eligible children and adolescents should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations,” wrote the authors, led by Leora R. Feldstein, PhD, with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta.

By the end of 2023, at least 911 youths ages 5-17 had died from COVID-related causes.

Researchers found that compared with participants who did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine or got monovalent-only doses 180 days or more before, the adjusted vaccine effectiveness of a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose against SARS-CoV-2 infection was 51.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.6%-71.9%) 7-60 days after vaccination. Relative effectiveness was 62.4% (95% CI, 38.5%-81.1%) 61-150 days after vaccination. The researchers said the confidence intervals were wide because of the small sample size.

The information can help inform public health strategies, the authors noted, especially as new variants emerge.
 

Bivalent Dose Recommended in Fall of 2022

Bivalent mRNA COVID vaccines were recommended in the United States for children and adolescents ages 12 years or older on Sept. 1, 2022, and for children ages 5-11 on Oct. 12, 2022, when Omicron BA.4/5 types were the predominant circulating variant.

The study included 2,959 participants who completed periodic surveys (answering questions on demographics, household details, chronic medical conditions, and COVID-19 symptoms) and submitted weekly self-collected nasal swabs (whether or not they had symptoms). Those in the study submitted additional nasal swabs if they developed any symptoms.

Median adherence to weekly upper respiratory specimen swabbing was high throughout the study period at 93.8%.

Data from Sept. 4, 2022, to Jan. 31, 2023, were combined from three prospective US cohort studies at six sites. In addition to the surveys, researchers used information from state immunization information systems and electronic medical records.
 

Most of the Infected Were Unvaccinated or Had Monovalent Vax

Of the 426 participants (14.4% of the combined cohorts) infected with SARS-CoV-2, 383 (89.9%) were either unvaccinated or received monovalent vaccine doses only.

Calculations were adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, health conditions, prior SARS-CoV-2 infections, geographic location, proportion of circulating variants by site, and local virus prevalence.

Participants living in Oregon, for example, had the highest uptake of bivalent COVID-19 vaccine (56.2%), whereas those in Texas had the lowest (2.4%). Participants reporting Hispanic ethnicity had lower bivalent uptake (17.1%) compared with non-Hispanic participants of all races (27.1%).

Of the 2,207 participants who did not receive a bivalent dose, 24.2% were unvaccinated and 1,672 (75.8%) received at least 1 monovalent dose.

The researchers said they saw no sign of waning effectiveness 61-150 days (the limit for this analysis) after receipt of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine.

They wrote that continuation of the cohorts will allow study of waning patterns, which could help inform vaccine recommendations.

Among the limitations of the study are that testing methods and the COVID-19 symptoms surveyed varied among the three cohorts, so there may be some differences in defining infection or symptomatic COVID. In addition, the researchers were not able to account for the social vulnerability index and immunocompromised status, which could have affected vaccine uptake and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

This study was supported by the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Coauthor Dr. Caban-Martinez reported grants from the Florida Firefighter Cancer Initiative and the Florida Department of Health. Coauthors Dr. Chu, Dr. Englund, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Monto reported receiving personal fees or grants from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hegmann reported being the editor of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine practice guidelines. Coauthor Dr. Gaglani reported serving as cochair of the infectious diseases and immunization committee and the respiratory syncytial virus task force lead for the Texas Pediatric Society and the Texas Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. No other disclosures were reported.

The supervising physician for the California nurse practitioner (NP) “Dr. Sarah,” who illegally presented herself as a doctor, has been fined $25,000. The case highlights the liability concerns doctors face when they oversee NPs.

According to the complaint, ob.gyn. Anika Moore, MD, FACOP, agreed to pay the civil penalty but admitted no fault related to allegations of unlawful supervision of Sarah Erny, DNP. Dr. Moore did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

Ms. Erny was fined nearly $20,000 after an investigation in November by the San Luis Obispo County, California, district attorney found she had committed false advertising and fraud by regularly calling herself “Doctor” on social media and with patients.

A group of California DNPs, including Ms. Erny, pushed back against those regulations last year by suing the state, alleging a law restricting the use of the honorific title violates their right to free speech.

For collaborative agreements, California law requires physicians and the NPs they supervise to adhere to specific roles and prescribing privileges as outlined in the written document. Supervising physicians must routinely review the terms of the agreement and the nurse’s performance and skills.

Even as more states loosen supervision restrictions for NPs, physicians who still do so face added risks. Medical boards may sanction them for improper supervision, and the majority of patients who sue their NP for malpractice also sue the supervising doctor.

Dr. Moore lived in Massachusetts in 2018 when she entered the agreement with Ms. Erny, but she only skimmed the document and did no further research on her supervising responsibilities, court records said. Although Dr. Moore was not compensated for the oversight role, she said she made herself available over the next 2 years to answer Ms. Erny’s questions.

However, an investigation by the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s Office found that Dr. Moore never reviewed any physical medical records of Ms. Erny’s patients.

Instead, without Dr. Moore’s knowledge, Ms. Erny opened an independent medical practice near San Luis Obispo, called Holistic Women’s Health, where she provided medical services and drug supplements, including prescribing controlled substances like testosterone.

Meanwhile, Dr. Moore believed Ms. Erny was practicing in a clinical setting with other physicians, court documents said.

Ms. Erny and Dr. Moore agreed to terminate the collaborative agreement in March 2021.

“As a supervising physician, Dr. Moore accepted a professional commitment to collaborate and supervise Nurse Practitioner Erny,” Assistant District Attorney Eric Dobroth said in a statement.

“Our office seeks to ensure that every physician that consents to supervise a nurse will comply with California requirements and take great care to routinely evaluate whether the terms of the agreement are being met and to evaluate the nurse’s performance to ensure best patient care.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

The supervising physician for the California nurse practitioner (NP) “Dr. Sarah,” who illegally presented herself as a doctor, has been fined $25,000. The case highlights the liability concerns doctors face when they oversee NPs.

According to the complaint, ob.gyn. Anika Moore, MD, FACOP, agreed to pay the civil penalty but admitted no fault related to allegations of unlawful supervision of Sarah Erny, DNP. Dr. Moore did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

Ms. Erny was fined nearly $20,000 after an investigation in November by the San Luis Obispo County, California, district attorney found she had committed false advertising and fraud by regularly calling herself “Doctor” on social media and with patients.

A group of California DNPs, including Ms. Erny, pushed back against those regulations last year by suing the state, alleging a law restricting the use of the honorific title violates their right to free speech.

For collaborative agreements, California law requires physicians and the NPs they supervise to adhere to specific roles and prescribing privileges as outlined in the written document. Supervising physicians must routinely review the terms of the agreement and the nurse’s performance and skills.

Even as more states loosen supervision restrictions for NPs, physicians who still do so face added risks. Medical boards may sanction them for improper supervision, and the majority of patients who sue their NP for malpractice also sue the supervising doctor.

Dr. Moore lived in Massachusetts in 2018 when she entered the agreement with Ms. Erny, but she only skimmed the document and did no further research on her supervising responsibilities, court records said. Although Dr. Moore was not compensated for the oversight role, she said she made herself available over the next 2 years to answer Ms. Erny’s questions.

However, an investigation by the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s Office found that Dr. Moore never reviewed any physical medical records of Ms. Erny’s patients.

Instead, without Dr. Moore’s knowledge, Ms. Erny opened an independent medical practice near San Luis Obispo, called Holistic Women’s Health, where she provided medical services and drug supplements, including prescribing controlled substances like testosterone.

Meanwhile, Dr. Moore believed Ms. Erny was practicing in a clinical setting with other physicians, court documents said.

Ms. Erny and Dr. Moore agreed to terminate the collaborative agreement in March 2021.

“As a supervising physician, Dr. Moore accepted a professional commitment to collaborate and supervise Nurse Practitioner Erny,” Assistant District Attorney Eric Dobroth said in a statement.

“Our office seeks to ensure that every physician that consents to supervise a nurse will comply with California requirements and take great care to routinely evaluate whether the terms of the agreement are being met and to evaluate the nurse’s performance to ensure best patient care.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

The supervising physician for the California nurse practitioner (NP) “Dr. Sarah,” who illegally presented herself as a doctor, has been fined $25,000. The case highlights the liability concerns doctors face when they oversee NPs.

According to the complaint, ob.gyn. Anika Moore, MD, FACOP, agreed to pay the civil penalty but admitted no fault related to allegations of unlawful supervision of Sarah Erny, DNP. Dr. Moore did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

Ms. Erny was fined nearly $20,000 after an investigation in November by the San Luis Obispo County, California, district attorney found she had committed false advertising and fraud by regularly calling herself “Doctor” on social media and with patients.

A group of California DNPs, including Ms. Erny, pushed back against those regulations last year by suing the state, alleging a law restricting the use of the honorific title violates their right to free speech.

For collaborative agreements, California law requires physicians and the NPs they supervise to adhere to specific roles and prescribing privileges as outlined in the written document. Supervising physicians must routinely review the terms of the agreement and the nurse’s performance and skills.

Even as more states loosen supervision restrictions for NPs, physicians who still do so face added risks. Medical boards may sanction them for improper supervision, and the majority of patients who sue their NP for malpractice also sue the supervising doctor.

Dr. Moore lived in Massachusetts in 2018 when she entered the agreement with Ms. Erny, but she only skimmed the document and did no further research on her supervising responsibilities, court records said. Although Dr. Moore was not compensated for the oversight role, she said she made herself available over the next 2 years to answer Ms. Erny’s questions.

However, an investigation by the California Department of Consumer Affairs and the San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s Office found that Dr. Moore never reviewed any physical medical records of Ms. Erny’s patients.

Instead, without Dr. Moore’s knowledge, Ms. Erny opened an independent medical practice near San Luis Obispo, called Holistic Women’s Health, where she provided medical services and drug supplements, including prescribing controlled substances like testosterone.

Meanwhile, Dr. Moore believed Ms. Erny was practicing in a clinical setting with other physicians, court documents said.

Ms. Erny and Dr. Moore agreed to terminate the collaborative agreement in March 2021.

“As a supervising physician, Dr. Moore accepted a professional commitment to collaborate and supervise Nurse Practitioner Erny,” Assistant District Attorney Eric Dobroth said in a statement.

“Our office seeks to ensure that every physician that consents to supervise a nurse will comply with California requirements and take great care to routinely evaluate whether the terms of the agreement are being met and to evaluate the nurse’s performance to ensure best patient care.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

When it comes to managing acne, new guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology rate the existing evidence as “strong” for topical benzoyl peroxide, retinoids, and/or antibiotics and their fixed-dose combinations, as well as the use of oral isotretinoin for severe forms of the condition. The guidelines also conditionally recommend the use of topical clascoterone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, oral minocycline, sarecycline, combined oral contraceptives, and spironolactone.

The development updates the AAD’s 2016 guidelines for managing acne. “Since there have been several important new treatments introduced since the prior guidelines, it was determined that there was a need to update these guidelines,” John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, who cochaired a 16-member multidisciplinary work group that assembled the guidelines, told this news organization.

Dr. Barbieri

For the new guidelines, which were published online January 30, 2023, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Barbieri, a dermatologist who directs the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, guidelines cochair Rachel V. Reynolds, MD, a dermatologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues conducted a systematic review of evidence regarding the management of acne. Next, the work group applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading clinical recommendations based on relevant randomized trials in the medical literature.

In all, the work group made 18 recommendations and 5 good practice statements. They ranked 7 of the recommendations as “strong” based on the evidence reviewed, and the rest as “conditional.” The “strong” recommendations include the use of benzoyl peroxide, the use of topical retinoids, the use of topical antibiotics, a fixed dose of a combination topical antibiotic with benzoyl peroxide, a fixed dose of a combination topical retinoid with topical antibiotic, a fixed dose combination of a topical retinoid with benzoyl peroxide, and the use of doxycycline.

“Conditional” recommendations include those for the use of clascoterone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, minocycline, sarecycline, doxycycline over azithromycin; combined oral contraceptive pills, spironolactone, and, for patients with severe acne, traditional daily dosing of isotretinoin over intermittent dosing of isotretinoin.

Meanwhile, good clinical practice statements contained in the document include using topical therapies combining multiple mechanisms of action, limiting systemic antibiotic use, combining topical and systemic antibiotics with benzoyl peroxide and other topical therapies, and adjuvant intralesional corticosteroid injections.

In Dr. Barbieri’s opinion, the recommendations regarding clascoterone and sarecycline represent important developments. “Clascoterone is the first FDA-approved treatment that can address hormonal causes of acne in both men and women,” he told this news organization. “Sarecycline is a narrow-spectrum tetracycline that might have some advantages over other tetracyclines such as doxycycline and minocycline. It will be important to payers to provide coverage to ensure that patients have access to these valuable new treatments.”

Dr. Barbieri added that while no evidence exists to suggest that minocycline is more effective than doxycycline, minocycline can be associated with rare but serious side effects, such as vestibular dysfunction, autoimmune hepatitis, drug-induced lupus, and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). “We should consider whether reducing use of minocycline might be beneficial to our overall care of patients with acne,” he said. “In addition, we discuss that use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be limited due to risk of severe adverse reactions such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, and acute respiratory failure.”

Another highlight of the guidelines, he continued, are specific recommendations for young, healthy patients on isotretinoin or spironolactone, which “can help clinicians and patients who are interested in less frequent monitoring feel more comfortable with these approaches,” he said.

Many discussions among work group members dealt with how to best implement the GRADE approach to the project “while ensuring the guidelines were as clinically relevant and actionable as possible,” according to Dr. Barbieri. “I think an important issue going forward will be to consider how to update and modify the GRADE approach to fit the unique needs of creating evidence-based guidelines for the management of skin disease.”

The work group acknowledged limitations of the guidelines, including identification of “important evidence gaps on the use of microbiology and endocrinology testing in acne, the use of systemic antibiotics beyond tetracycline-class antibiotics, physical modalities, complementary and alternative therapies, dietary interventions for the treatment of acne, and cost-effectiveness of acne treatments,” they wrote. “RCTs with long-term follow-up and comparative effectiveness research are necessary to examine and compare patient-centered acne treatment outcomes.”

The AAD funded the project. Dr. Barbieri disclosed that he serves as investigator for the National Institutes of Health and the National Psoriasis Foundation. Many coauthors reported being a speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies.

When it comes to managing acne, new guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology rate the existing evidence as “strong” for topical benzoyl peroxide, retinoids, and/or antibiotics and their fixed-dose combinations, as well as the use of oral isotretinoin for severe forms of the condition. The guidelines also conditionally recommend the use of topical clascoterone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, oral minocycline, sarecycline, combined oral contraceptives, and spironolactone.

The development updates the AAD’s 2016 guidelines for managing acne. “Since there have been several important new treatments introduced since the prior guidelines, it was determined that there was a need to update these guidelines,” John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, who cochaired a 16-member multidisciplinary work group that assembled the guidelines, told this news organization.

Dr. Barbieri

For the new guidelines, which were published online January 30, 2023, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Barbieri, a dermatologist who directs the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, guidelines cochair Rachel V. Reynolds, MD, a dermatologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues conducted a systematic review of evidence regarding the management of acne. Next, the work group applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading clinical recommendations based on relevant randomized trials in the medical literature.

In all, the work group made 18 recommendations and 5 good practice statements. They ranked 7 of the recommendations as “strong” based on the evidence reviewed, and the rest as “conditional.” The “strong” recommendations include the use of benzoyl peroxide, the use of topical retinoids, the use of topical antibiotics, a fixed dose of a combination topical antibiotic with benzoyl peroxide, a fixed dose of a combination topical retinoid with topical antibiotic, a fixed dose combination of a topical retinoid with benzoyl peroxide, and the use of doxycycline.

“Conditional” recommendations include those for the use of clascoterone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, minocycline, sarecycline, doxycycline over azithromycin; combined oral contraceptive pills, spironolactone, and, for patients with severe acne, traditional daily dosing of isotretinoin over intermittent dosing of isotretinoin.

Meanwhile, good clinical practice statements contained in the document include using topical therapies combining multiple mechanisms of action, limiting systemic antibiotic use, combining topical and systemic antibiotics with benzoyl peroxide and other topical therapies, and adjuvant intralesional corticosteroid injections.

In Dr. Barbieri’s opinion, the recommendations regarding clascoterone and sarecycline represent important developments. “Clascoterone is the first FDA-approved treatment that can address hormonal causes of acne in both men and women,” he told this news organization. “Sarecycline is a narrow-spectrum tetracycline that might have some advantages over other tetracyclines such as doxycycline and minocycline. It will be important to payers to provide coverage to ensure that patients have access to these valuable new treatments.”

Dr. Barbieri added that while no evidence exists to suggest that minocycline is more effective than doxycycline, minocycline can be associated with rare but serious side effects, such as vestibular dysfunction, autoimmune hepatitis, drug-induced lupus, and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). “We should consider whether reducing use of minocycline might be beneficial to our overall care of patients with acne,” he said. “In addition, we discuss that use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be limited due to risk of severe adverse reactions such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, and acute respiratory failure.”

Another highlight of the guidelines, he continued, are specific recommendations for young, healthy patients on isotretinoin or spironolactone, which “can help clinicians and patients who are interested in less frequent monitoring feel more comfortable with these approaches,” he said.

Many discussions among work group members dealt with how to best implement the GRADE approach to the project “while ensuring the guidelines were as clinically relevant and actionable as possible,” according to Dr. Barbieri. “I think an important issue going forward will be to consider how to update and modify the GRADE approach to fit the unique needs of creating evidence-based guidelines for the management of skin disease.”

The work group acknowledged limitations of the guidelines, including identification of “important evidence gaps on the use of microbiology and endocrinology testing in acne, the use of systemic antibiotics beyond tetracycline-class antibiotics, physical modalities, complementary and alternative therapies, dietary interventions for the treatment of acne, and cost-effectiveness of acne treatments,” they wrote. “RCTs with long-term follow-up and comparative effectiveness research are necessary to examine and compare patient-centered acne treatment outcomes.”

The AAD funded the project. Dr. Barbieri disclosed that he serves as investigator for the National Institutes of Health and the National Psoriasis Foundation. Many coauthors reported being a speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies.

When it comes to managing acne, new guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology rate the existing evidence as “strong” for topical benzoyl peroxide, retinoids, and/or antibiotics and their fixed-dose combinations, as well as the use of oral isotretinoin for severe forms of the condition. The guidelines also conditionally recommend the use of topical clascoterone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, oral minocycline, sarecycline, combined oral contraceptives, and spironolactone.

The development updates the AAD’s 2016 guidelines for managing acne. “Since there have been several important new treatments introduced since the prior guidelines, it was determined that there was a need to update these guidelines,” John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, who cochaired a 16-member multidisciplinary work group that assembled the guidelines, told this news organization.

Dr. Barbieri

For the new guidelines, which were published online January 30, 2023, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Barbieri, a dermatologist who directs the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, guidelines cochair Rachel V. Reynolds, MD, a dermatologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues conducted a systematic review of evidence regarding the management of acne. Next, the work group applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading clinical recommendations based on relevant randomized trials in the medical literature.

In all, the work group made 18 recommendations and 5 good practice statements. They ranked 7 of the recommendations as “strong” based on the evidence reviewed, and the rest as “conditional.” The “strong” recommendations include the use of benzoyl peroxide, the use of topical retinoids, the use of topical antibiotics, a fixed dose of a combination topical antibiotic with benzoyl peroxide, a fixed dose of a combination topical retinoid with topical antibiotic, a fixed dose combination of a topical retinoid with benzoyl peroxide, and the use of doxycycline.

“Conditional” recommendations include those for the use of clascoterone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, minocycline, sarecycline, doxycycline over azithromycin; combined oral contraceptive pills, spironolactone, and, for patients with severe acne, traditional daily dosing of isotretinoin over intermittent dosing of isotretinoin.

Meanwhile, good clinical practice statements contained in the document include using topical therapies combining multiple mechanisms of action, limiting systemic antibiotic use, combining topical and systemic antibiotics with benzoyl peroxide and other topical therapies, and adjuvant intralesional corticosteroid injections.

In Dr. Barbieri’s opinion, the recommendations regarding clascoterone and sarecycline represent important developments. “Clascoterone is the first FDA-approved treatment that can address hormonal causes of acne in both men and women,” he told this news organization. “Sarecycline is a narrow-spectrum tetracycline that might have some advantages over other tetracyclines such as doxycycline and minocycline. It will be important to payers to provide coverage to ensure that patients have access to these valuable new treatments.”

Dr. Barbieri added that while no evidence exists to suggest that minocycline is more effective than doxycycline, minocycline can be associated with rare but serious side effects, such as vestibular dysfunction, autoimmune hepatitis, drug-induced lupus, and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). “We should consider whether reducing use of minocycline might be beneficial to our overall care of patients with acne,” he said. “In addition, we discuss that use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be limited due to risk of severe adverse reactions such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, and acute respiratory failure.”

Another highlight of the guidelines, he continued, are specific recommendations for young, healthy patients on isotretinoin or spironolactone, which “can help clinicians and patients who are interested in less frequent monitoring feel more comfortable with these approaches,” he said.

Many discussions among work group members dealt with how to best implement the GRADE approach to the project “while ensuring the guidelines were as clinically relevant and actionable as possible,” according to Dr. Barbieri. “I think an important issue going forward will be to consider how to update and modify the GRADE approach to fit the unique needs of creating evidence-based guidelines for the management of skin disease.”

The work group acknowledged limitations of the guidelines, including identification of “important evidence gaps on the use of microbiology and endocrinology testing in acne, the use of systemic antibiotics beyond tetracycline-class antibiotics, physical modalities, complementary and alternative therapies, dietary interventions for the treatment of acne, and cost-effectiveness of acne treatments,” they wrote. “RCTs with long-term follow-up and comparative effectiveness research are necessary to examine and compare patient-centered acne treatment outcomes.”

The AAD funded the project. Dr. Barbieri disclosed that he serves as investigator for the National Institutes of Health and the National Psoriasis Foundation. Many coauthors reported being a speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies.

SAN DIEGO — According to data from the American Cancer Society (ACS), cutaneous melanoma was the fifth most common cancer in 2023, with an estimated 97,610 new cases and 7,990 deaths, following cancer of the colorectal area, lung and bronchus, prostate, and breast.

“The incidence of melanoma seems to have continued to go up since the early 1990s,” David E. Kent, MD, a dermatologist at Skin Care Physicians of Georgia, Macon, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “The death rates have been flat and may have slightly decreased.”

In 2024, the ACS estimates that about 100,640 new melanomas will be diagnosed in the United States (59,170 in men and 41,470 in women), and about 8,290 people are expected to die of melanoma (5,430 men and 2,860 women). Meanwhile, the lifetime risk of melanoma is about 3% (1 in 33) for Whites, 0.1% (1 in 1,000) for Blacks, and 0.5% (1 in 200) for Hispanics. In 2019, there were an estimated 1.4 million people in the United States living with cutaneous melanoma, and the overall 5-year survival is 93.7%.

Epidemiologic studies show an increase in melanoma incidence, primarily among White populations. “This is believed to be due to sun exposure, changes in recreational behaviors, and tanning bed exposures,” said Dr. Kent, who holds a faculty position in the department of dermatology at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta. Increased surveillance and diagnosis also play a role. In the medical literature, annual increases in melanoma incidence vary from 3%-7% per year, “which means that the rate is doubling every 10-20 years,” he said, noting that annual melanoma costs are approximately $3.3 billion.

While incidence rates are lower in non-White, non-Hispanic populations, poor outcomes are disproportionately higher in persons of color, according to a 2023 paper. Black individuals present at diagnosis with more advanced stage disease and are 1.5 times more likely to die from melanoma, he said, while Hispanics are 2.4 times more likely to present with stage III disease and 3.6 times more likely to have distant metastases. Persons of color also have higher rates of mucosal, acral lentiginous, and subungual melanoma.

Risk Factors

Known genetic risk factors for melanoma include having skin types I and II, particularly those with light hair, light eyes, and freckling, and those with a family history have a twofold increased risk. Also, up to 40% of genetic cases are from inherited mutations in CDKN2A, CDK4, BAP1 and MCR1. Other genetic-related risk factors include the number and size of nevi, having atypical nevus syndrome, DNA repair defects, large congenital nevi, and a personal history of melanoma.

Dr. Kent said that genetic testing for melanoma is warranted for individuals who meet criteria for the “rule of 3s.” He defined this as three primary melanomas in an individual, or three cases of melanoma in first- or second-degree relatives, or two cases of melanoma and one pancreatic cancer or astrocytoma in first or second-degree relatives, or one case of melanoma and two of pancreatic cancer/astrocytoma in first- or second-degree relatives.

The main environmental risk factor for melanoma is exposure to ultraviolet radiation. Individuals can track their UV exposure with a variety of wearable devices and apps, including SunSense One Digital UV Tracker, the SunSense App, the UV Index Widget, the SunSmart Global UV App, the SunKnown UV light photometer, and the EPA’s UV Index Mobile App. Other environment-related risk factors include having a high socioeconomic status (SES), being immunosuppressed, as well as exposure to heavy metals, insecticides, or hormones; and ones distance from the equator.

In a study published in 2023, researchers investigated the risk factors associated with first and second primary melanomas in 38,845 patients who were followed in Australia between 2011 and 2018. During a median follow-up of 7.4 years, 1212 patients (3.1%) had a single primary melanoma diagnosis and 245 (0.6%) had a secondary primary melanoma diagnosis. The researchers found that second melanomas were more likely than first melanomas to be in situ; for invasive tumors, second melanomas were more likely to be thin (defined as 1 mm or less) than first melanomas. In addition, having many self-reported moles at age 21 years was more strongly associated with second melanomas compared with first melanomas (hazard ratio, 6.36 vs 3.46, respectively; P = .01), as was having a high genetic predisposition (HR, 3.28 vs. 2.06; P = .03). Second melanomas were also more strongly associated with a history of multiple skin cancer excisions (HR, 2.63 vs 1.86; P = .05).

Dr. Kent noted that while sunscreen use protects against melanoma, a National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey in 2014 found that internists and pediatricians mentioned sunscreen at fewer than 0.1% of visits — even those with patients who have a diagnosis of skin disease. “Physicians need to do better,” he said at the meeting, which was hosted by the Scripps Cancer Center. “We as dermatologists have work to do to help educate them.”

Dr. Kent reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — According to data from the American Cancer Society (ACS), cutaneous melanoma was the fifth most common cancer in 2023, with an estimated 97,610 new cases and 7,990 deaths, following cancer of the colorectal area, lung and bronchus, prostate, and breast.

“The incidence of melanoma seems to have continued to go up since the early 1990s,” David E. Kent, MD, a dermatologist at Skin Care Physicians of Georgia, Macon, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “The death rates have been flat and may have slightly decreased.”

In 2024, the ACS estimates that about 100,640 new melanomas will be diagnosed in the United States (59,170 in men and 41,470 in women), and about 8,290 people are expected to die of melanoma (5,430 men and 2,860 women). Meanwhile, the lifetime risk of melanoma is about 3% (1 in 33) for Whites, 0.1% (1 in 1,000) for Blacks, and 0.5% (1 in 200) for Hispanics. In 2019, there were an estimated 1.4 million people in the United States living with cutaneous melanoma, and the overall 5-year survival is 93.7%.

Epidemiologic studies show an increase in melanoma incidence, primarily among White populations. “This is believed to be due to sun exposure, changes in recreational behaviors, and tanning bed exposures,” said Dr. Kent, who holds a faculty position in the department of dermatology at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta. Increased surveillance and diagnosis also play a role. In the medical literature, annual increases in melanoma incidence vary from 3%-7% per year, “which means that the rate is doubling every 10-20 years,” he said, noting that annual melanoma costs are approximately $3.3 billion.

While incidence rates are lower in non-White, non-Hispanic populations, poor outcomes are disproportionately higher in persons of color, according to a 2023 paper. Black individuals present at diagnosis with more advanced stage disease and are 1.5 times more likely to die from melanoma, he said, while Hispanics are 2.4 times more likely to present with stage III disease and 3.6 times more likely to have distant metastases. Persons of color also have higher rates of mucosal, acral lentiginous, and subungual melanoma.

Risk Factors

Known genetic risk factors for melanoma include having skin types I and II, particularly those with light hair, light eyes, and freckling, and those with a family history have a twofold increased risk. Also, up to 40% of genetic cases are from inherited mutations in CDKN2A, CDK4, BAP1 and MCR1. Other genetic-related risk factors include the number and size of nevi, having atypical nevus syndrome, DNA repair defects, large congenital nevi, and a personal history of melanoma.

Dr. Kent said that genetic testing for melanoma is warranted for individuals who meet criteria for the “rule of 3s.” He defined this as three primary melanomas in an individual, or three cases of melanoma in first- or second-degree relatives, or two cases of melanoma and one pancreatic cancer or astrocytoma in first or second-degree relatives, or one case of melanoma and two of pancreatic cancer/astrocytoma in first- or second-degree relatives.

The main environmental risk factor for melanoma is exposure to ultraviolet radiation. Individuals can track their UV exposure with a variety of wearable devices and apps, including SunSense One Digital UV Tracker, the SunSense App, the UV Index Widget, the SunSmart Global UV App, the SunKnown UV light photometer, and the EPA’s UV Index Mobile App. Other environment-related risk factors include having a high socioeconomic status (SES), being immunosuppressed, as well as exposure to heavy metals, insecticides, or hormones; and ones distance from the equator.

In a study published in 2023, researchers investigated the risk factors associated with first and second primary melanomas in 38,845 patients who were followed in Australia between 2011 and 2018. During a median follow-up of 7.4 years, 1212 patients (3.1%) had a single primary melanoma diagnosis and 245 (0.6%) had a secondary primary melanoma diagnosis. The researchers found that second melanomas were more likely than first melanomas to be in situ; for invasive tumors, second melanomas were more likely to be thin (defined as 1 mm or less) than first melanomas. In addition, having many self-reported moles at age 21 years was more strongly associated with second melanomas compared with first melanomas (hazard ratio, 6.36 vs 3.46, respectively; P = .01), as was having a high genetic predisposition (HR, 3.28 vs. 2.06; P = .03). Second melanomas were also more strongly associated with a history of multiple skin cancer excisions (HR, 2.63 vs 1.86; P = .05).

Dr. Kent noted that while sunscreen use protects against melanoma, a National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey in 2014 found that internists and pediatricians mentioned sunscreen at fewer than 0.1% of visits — even those with patients who have a diagnosis of skin disease. “Physicians need to do better,” he said at the meeting, which was hosted by the Scripps Cancer Center. “We as dermatologists have work to do to help educate them.”

Dr. Kent reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — According to data from the American Cancer Society (ACS), cutaneous melanoma was the fifth most common cancer in 2023, with an estimated 97,610 new cases and 7,990 deaths, following cancer of the colorectal area, lung and bronchus, prostate, and breast.

“The incidence of melanoma seems to have continued to go up since the early 1990s,” David E. Kent, MD, a dermatologist at Skin Care Physicians of Georgia, Macon, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “The death rates have been flat and may have slightly decreased.”

In 2024, the ACS estimates that about 100,640 new melanomas will be diagnosed in the United States (59,170 in men and 41,470 in women), and about 8,290 people are expected to die of melanoma (5,430 men and 2,860 women). Meanwhile, the lifetime risk of melanoma is about 3% (1 in 33) for Whites, 0.1% (1 in 1,000) for Blacks, and 0.5% (1 in 200) for Hispanics. In 2019, there were an estimated 1.4 million people in the United States living with cutaneous melanoma, and the overall 5-year survival is 93.7%.

Epidemiologic studies show an increase in melanoma incidence, primarily among White populations. “This is believed to be due to sun exposure, changes in recreational behaviors, and tanning bed exposures,” said Dr. Kent, who holds a faculty position in the department of dermatology at the Medical College of Georgia, Augusta. Increased surveillance and diagnosis also play a role. In the medical literature, annual increases in melanoma incidence vary from 3%-7% per year, “which means that the rate is doubling every 10-20 years,” he said, noting that annual melanoma costs are approximately $3.3 billion.

While incidence rates are lower in non-White, non-Hispanic populations, poor outcomes are disproportionately higher in persons of color, according to a 2023 paper. Black individuals present at diagnosis with more advanced stage disease and are 1.5 times more likely to die from melanoma, he said, while Hispanics are 2.4 times more likely to present with stage III disease and 3.6 times more likely to have distant metastases. Persons of color also have higher rates of mucosal, acral lentiginous, and subungual melanoma.

Risk Factors

Known genetic risk factors for melanoma include having skin types I and II, particularly those with light hair, light eyes, and freckling, and those with a family history have a twofold increased risk. Also, up to 40% of genetic cases are from inherited mutations in CDKN2A, CDK4, BAP1 and MCR1. Other genetic-related risk factors include the number and size of nevi, having atypical nevus syndrome, DNA repair defects, large congenital nevi, and a personal history of melanoma.

Dr. Kent said that genetic testing for melanoma is warranted for individuals who meet criteria for the “rule of 3s.” He defined this as three primary melanomas in an individual, or three cases of melanoma in first- or second-degree relatives, or two cases of melanoma and one pancreatic cancer or astrocytoma in first or second-degree relatives, or one case of melanoma and two of pancreatic cancer/astrocytoma in first- or second-degree relatives.

The main environmental risk factor for melanoma is exposure to ultraviolet radiation. Individuals can track their UV exposure with a variety of wearable devices and apps, including SunSense One Digital UV Tracker, the SunSense App, the UV Index Widget, the SunSmart Global UV App, the SunKnown UV light photometer, and the EPA’s UV Index Mobile App. Other environment-related risk factors include having a high socioeconomic status (SES), being immunosuppressed, as well as exposure to heavy metals, insecticides, or hormones; and ones distance from the equator.

In a study published in 2023, researchers investigated the risk factors associated with first and second primary melanomas in 38,845 patients who were followed in Australia between 2011 and 2018. During a median follow-up of 7.4 years, 1212 patients (3.1%) had a single primary melanoma diagnosis and 245 (0.6%) had a secondary primary melanoma diagnosis. The researchers found that second melanomas were more likely than first melanomas to be in situ; for invasive tumors, second melanomas were more likely to be thin (defined as 1 mm or less) than first melanomas. In addition, having many self-reported moles at age 21 years was more strongly associated with second melanomas compared with first melanomas (hazard ratio, 6.36 vs 3.46, respectively; P = .01), as was having a high genetic predisposition (HR, 3.28 vs. 2.06; P = .03). Second melanomas were also more strongly associated with a history of multiple skin cancer excisions (HR, 2.63 vs 1.86; P = .05).

Dr. Kent noted that while sunscreen use protects against melanoma, a National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey in 2014 found that internists and pediatricians mentioned sunscreen at fewer than 0.1% of visits — even those with patients who have a diagnosis of skin disease. “Physicians need to do better,” he said at the meeting, which was hosted by the Scripps Cancer Center. “We as dermatologists have work to do to help educate them.”

Dr. Kent reported having no relevant disclosures.

Patients with type 2 diabetes and their clinicians may not share the same priorities when it comes to choosing a second-line drug after metformin, new research suggested.

In a mixed-methods study of 40 people with type 2 diabetes and moderate heart disease risk who were asked about their goals, preferences, and priorities for glucose-lowering medications, their answers were surprisingly heterogeneous and not always aligned with those endorsed by the medical community.

Notably, most patients rated blindness and death as the most important health outcomes to avoid and efficacy in lowering blood glucose and A1c as the most important medication attributes. Avoidance of cardiovascular outcomes was ranked slightly lower. The data were published recently in Clinical Diabetes.

“We really need to ask our patients about what is important to them. That’s how you have a relationship and engage in shared decision-making,” lead author Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, Associate Division Chief for Clinical Research in the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization.

Patient education should be approached in that way, she added. “They might not think their diabetes is related to heart disease risk or that anything they do can impact it. That’s a conversation starter ... We first have to understand what motivates them and then tailor education to what is important to them,” she said.

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Cecilia C. Low Wang, MD, Professor of Medicine at the University of Colorado, Aurora, told this news organization, “the fact that death and blindness are key health outcomes in the patients surveyed indicates to me that patients place great importance on ‘irreversible’ bad outcomes. We as clinicians do not tend to discuss benefits for all-cause mortality with our diabetes medications. Maybe we should include this in our discussions.”

Dr. Low Wang also noted, as did Dr. McCoy, that the emphasis on lowering glucose reflects decades of public health messaging, and that while it’s certainly important, particularly for microvascular outcomes, it’s just one of several factors influencing cardiovascular and all-cause mortality risk.

“I think what this finding tells us is that we need to focus on a more nuanced message of improved glycemic control and reduction of risk of both micro- and macrovascular complications and weight management, healthy diet, and regular physical activity ... that it is not just glycemic control that is important but glycemic control in the context of a healthy lifestyle and good overall health,” Dr. Low Wang said.

Blindness and Death Bigger Concerns Than Heart Attack or Heart Failure

The study participants included 25 from the Mayo Health System in Rochester, Minnesota (where McCoy formerly worked), and 15 from Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia. Half were White, and just over a third were Black. All had active prescriptions for a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, and/or a sulfonylurea.

They were first given a multistep ranking exercise regarding health outcomes and medication attributes selected from a list and then were asked to add any others that were important to them and re-ranked the entire list.

For health outcomes, the most common listed as “very important” were blindness (63%) and death (60%), followed by heart attack (48%) and heart failure (48%). Those endorsed less often were hospital admission (28%), severe hypoglycemia (25%), and pancreatitis (15%).

Dr. Low Wang noted, “Heart attack and heart failure and stroke were not far behind ... Maybe the messaging about risks of [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] in diabetes is working at least to some degree and in some populations.”

Combinations of outcomes selected as “very important” varied widely, with just one combination (end-stage kidney disease, heart attack, blindness, and any event causing death) endorsed by more than a single participant. This was unexpected, Dr. McCoy noted.

“Usually, a qualitative study is very small, so we thought 40 was huge and we’d see a lot of similar things, but I think the first surprising finding was just how much variability there is in what people with type 2 diabetes consider as motivating factors for choosing a diabetes medication ... So when we talk about patient-centered care and shared decision-making, that’s really important because patient priorities are very different,” she said.

For medication attributes, greater reductions in blood glucose and A1c were most often endorsed as “very important” (68%), followed by oral administration (45%) and absence of gastrointestinal side effects (38%).

Nearly half (47.5%) added one or more outcomes as important to them in deciding on a medication for type 2 diabetes. The most common had to do with affordability (n = 10), minimizing the total number of drugs (n = 3) and avoiding drowsiness (n = 2).

Dr. Low Wang said, “Some of the health outcomes we as clinicians feel are important, such as serious infection, hospitalization, kidney dysfunction or failure, and diabetic foot problems, were not felt to be as important to the patients surveyed. This could be due to other health outcomes outweighing these, or highlights the need for more focus, education, and discussion with patients.”

Five Themes Describe Patients’ Perceptions of Health Outcomes

Throughout the ranking process, a researcher asked participants (via phone or Zoom) about their reasons for ranking items as “very important” or “not very important” in choosing medications. For health outcomes, five broad themes emerged from their comments: The outcome’s severity (with permanence and potential lethality prominent), their perceived personal susceptibility to it, salience (ie, whether they knew someone who had experienced the outcome), their beliefs about causation, and about the consequences of the outcome.

With medication attributes, the medication’s ability to lower blood glucose was deemed a priority by nearly all. By contrast, there was much more variation in the responses regarding the influence of various side effects in their decision-making based on personal preferences, beliefs, and previous experiences.

This paper is one part of research funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) examining the effects of second-line glucose-lowering medications in patients with type 2 diabetes who are at moderate, rather than high, cardiovascular risk. The main paper, looking at prespecified cardiovascular outcomes, is scheduled to be published soon, Dr. McCoy said.

She’s now planning a follow-up study to look at actual outcomes for the second-line drugs based on the patients’ preferences. “We don’t have the evidence necessarily to tell our patients what is best given their specific preferences ... The question is, if our patients tell us what they want, how would that change what we recommend to them?”

The study was funded by PCORI. Dr. McCoy received support from the National Institutes of Health and AARP. She also served as a consultant to Emmi (Wolters Kluwer) for developing patient education materials related to prediabetes and diabetes. Dr. Low Wang received research support from Dexcom Inc, Virta Health, and CellResearch Corp within the past 24 months.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with type 2 diabetes and their clinicians may not share the same priorities when it comes to choosing a second-line drug after metformin, new research suggested.

In a mixed-methods study of 40 people with type 2 diabetes and moderate heart disease risk who were asked about their goals, preferences, and priorities for glucose-lowering medications, their answers were surprisingly heterogeneous and not always aligned with those endorsed by the medical community.

Notably, most patients rated blindness and death as the most important health outcomes to avoid and efficacy in lowering blood glucose and A1c as the most important medication attributes. Avoidance of cardiovascular outcomes was ranked slightly lower. The data were published recently in Clinical Diabetes.

“We really need to ask our patients about what is important to them. That’s how you have a relationship and engage in shared decision-making,” lead author Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, Associate Division Chief for Clinical Research in the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization.

Patient education should be approached in that way, she added. “They might not think their diabetes is related to heart disease risk or that anything they do can impact it. That’s a conversation starter ... We first have to understand what motivates them and then tailor education to what is important to them,” she said.

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Cecilia C. Low Wang, MD, Professor of Medicine at the University of Colorado, Aurora, told this news organization, “the fact that death and blindness are key health outcomes in the patients surveyed indicates to me that patients place great importance on ‘irreversible’ bad outcomes. We as clinicians do not tend to discuss benefits for all-cause mortality with our diabetes medications. Maybe we should include this in our discussions.”

Dr. Low Wang also noted, as did Dr. McCoy, that the emphasis on lowering glucose reflects decades of public health messaging, and that while it’s certainly important, particularly for microvascular outcomes, it’s just one of several factors influencing cardiovascular and all-cause mortality risk.

“I think what this finding tells us is that we need to focus on a more nuanced message of improved glycemic control and reduction of risk of both micro- and macrovascular complications and weight management, healthy diet, and regular physical activity ... that it is not just glycemic control that is important but glycemic control in the context of a healthy lifestyle and good overall health,” Dr. Low Wang said.

Blindness and Death Bigger Concerns Than Heart Attack or Heart Failure

The study participants included 25 from the Mayo Health System in Rochester, Minnesota (where McCoy formerly worked), and 15 from Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia. Half were White, and just over a third were Black. All had active prescriptions for a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, and/or a sulfonylurea.

They were first given a multistep ranking exercise regarding health outcomes and medication attributes selected from a list and then were asked to add any others that were important to them and re-ranked the entire list.

For health outcomes, the most common listed as “very important” were blindness (63%) and death (60%), followed by heart attack (48%) and heart failure (48%). Those endorsed less often were hospital admission (28%), severe hypoglycemia (25%), and pancreatitis (15%).

Dr. Low Wang noted, “Heart attack and heart failure and stroke were not far behind ... Maybe the messaging about risks of [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] in diabetes is working at least to some degree and in some populations.”

Combinations of outcomes selected as “very important” varied widely, with just one combination (end-stage kidney disease, heart attack, blindness, and any event causing death) endorsed by more than a single participant. This was unexpected, Dr. McCoy noted.

“Usually, a qualitative study is very small, so we thought 40 was huge and we’d see a lot of similar things, but I think the first surprising finding was just how much variability there is in what people with type 2 diabetes consider as motivating factors for choosing a diabetes medication ... So when we talk about patient-centered care and shared decision-making, that’s really important because patient priorities are very different,” she said.

For medication attributes, greater reductions in blood glucose and A1c were most often endorsed as “very important” (68%), followed by oral administration (45%) and absence of gastrointestinal side effects (38%).

Nearly half (47.5%) added one or more outcomes as important to them in deciding on a medication for type 2 diabetes. The most common had to do with affordability (n = 10), minimizing the total number of drugs (n = 3) and avoiding drowsiness (n = 2).

Dr. Low Wang said, “Some of the health outcomes we as clinicians feel are important, such as serious infection, hospitalization, kidney dysfunction or failure, and diabetic foot problems, were not felt to be as important to the patients surveyed. This could be due to other health outcomes outweighing these, or highlights the need for more focus, education, and discussion with patients.”

Five Themes Describe Patients’ Perceptions of Health Outcomes

Throughout the ranking process, a researcher asked participants (via phone or Zoom) about their reasons for ranking items as “very important” or “not very important” in choosing medications. For health outcomes, five broad themes emerged from their comments: The outcome’s severity (with permanence and potential lethality prominent), their perceived personal susceptibility to it, salience (ie, whether they knew someone who had experienced the outcome), their beliefs about causation, and about the consequences of the outcome.

With medication attributes, the medication’s ability to lower blood glucose was deemed a priority by nearly all. By contrast, there was much more variation in the responses regarding the influence of various side effects in their decision-making based on personal preferences, beliefs, and previous experiences.

This paper is one part of research funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) examining the effects of second-line glucose-lowering medications in patients with type 2 diabetes who are at moderate, rather than high, cardiovascular risk. The main paper, looking at prespecified cardiovascular outcomes, is scheduled to be published soon, Dr. McCoy said.

She’s now planning a follow-up study to look at actual outcomes for the second-line drugs based on the patients’ preferences. “We don’t have the evidence necessarily to tell our patients what is best given their specific preferences ... The question is, if our patients tell us what they want, how would that change what we recommend to them?”

The study was funded by PCORI. Dr. McCoy received support from the National Institutes of Health and AARP. She also served as a consultant to Emmi (Wolters Kluwer) for developing patient education materials related to prediabetes and diabetes. Dr. Low Wang received research support from Dexcom Inc, Virta Health, and CellResearch Corp within the past 24 months.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with type 2 diabetes and their clinicians may not share the same priorities when it comes to choosing a second-line drug after metformin, new research suggested.

In a mixed-methods study of 40 people with type 2 diabetes and moderate heart disease risk who were asked about their goals, preferences, and priorities for glucose-lowering medications, their answers were surprisingly heterogeneous and not always aligned with those endorsed by the medical community.

Notably, most patients rated blindness and death as the most important health outcomes to avoid and efficacy in lowering blood glucose and A1c as the most important medication attributes. Avoidance of cardiovascular outcomes was ranked slightly lower. The data were published recently in Clinical Diabetes.

“We really need to ask our patients about what is important to them. That’s how you have a relationship and engage in shared decision-making,” lead author Rozalina G. McCoy, MD, Associate Division Chief for Clinical Research in the Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Nutrition at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, told this news organization.

Patient education should be approached in that way, she added. “They might not think their diabetes is related to heart disease risk or that anything they do can impact it. That’s a conversation starter ... We first have to understand what motivates them and then tailor education to what is important to them,” she said.

Asked to comment, endocrinologist Cecilia C. Low Wang, MD, Professor of Medicine at the University of Colorado, Aurora, told this news organization, “the fact that death and blindness are key health outcomes in the patients surveyed indicates to me that patients place great importance on ‘irreversible’ bad outcomes. We as clinicians do not tend to discuss benefits for all-cause mortality with our diabetes medications. Maybe we should include this in our discussions.”

Dr. Low Wang also noted, as did Dr. McCoy, that the emphasis on lowering glucose reflects decades of public health messaging, and that while it’s certainly important, particularly for microvascular outcomes, it’s just one of several factors influencing cardiovascular and all-cause mortality risk.

“I think what this finding tells us is that we need to focus on a more nuanced message of improved glycemic control and reduction of risk of both micro- and macrovascular complications and weight management, healthy diet, and regular physical activity ... that it is not just glycemic control that is important but glycemic control in the context of a healthy lifestyle and good overall health,” Dr. Low Wang said.

Blindness and Death Bigger Concerns Than Heart Attack or Heart Failure

The study participants included 25 from the Mayo Health System in Rochester, Minnesota (where McCoy formerly worked), and 15 from Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta, Georgia. Half were White, and just over a third were Black. All had active prescriptions for a glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonist, sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor, dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, and/or a sulfonylurea.

They were first given a multistep ranking exercise regarding health outcomes and medication attributes selected from a list and then were asked to add any others that were important to them and re-ranked the entire list.

For health outcomes, the most common listed as “very important” were blindness (63%) and death (60%), followed by heart attack (48%) and heart failure (48%). Those endorsed less often were hospital admission (28%), severe hypoglycemia (25%), and pancreatitis (15%).

Dr. Low Wang noted, “Heart attack and heart failure and stroke were not far behind ... Maybe the messaging about risks of [atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease] in diabetes is working at least to some degree and in some populations.”

Combinations of outcomes selected as “very important” varied widely, with just one combination (end-stage kidney disease, heart attack, blindness, and any event causing death) endorsed by more than a single participant. This was unexpected, Dr. McCoy noted.

“Usually, a qualitative study is very small, so we thought 40 was huge and we’d see a lot of similar things, but I think the first surprising finding was just how much variability there is in what people with type 2 diabetes consider as motivating factors for choosing a diabetes medication ... So when we talk about patient-centered care and shared decision-making, that’s really important because patient priorities are very different,” she said.

For medication attributes, greater reductions in blood glucose and A1c were most often endorsed as “very important” (68%), followed by oral administration (45%) and absence of gastrointestinal side effects (38%).

Nearly half (47.5%) added one or more outcomes as important to them in deciding on a medication for type 2 diabetes. The most common had to do with affordability (n = 10), minimizing the total number of drugs (n = 3) and avoiding drowsiness (n = 2).

Dr. Low Wang said, “Some of the health outcomes we as clinicians feel are important, such as serious infection, hospitalization, kidney dysfunction or failure, and diabetic foot problems, were not felt to be as important to the patients surveyed. This could be due to other health outcomes outweighing these, or highlights the need for more focus, education, and discussion with patients.”

Five Themes Describe Patients’ Perceptions of Health Outcomes

Throughout the ranking process, a researcher asked participants (via phone or Zoom) about their reasons for ranking items as “very important” or “not very important” in choosing medications. For health outcomes, five broad themes emerged from their comments: The outcome’s severity (with permanence and potential lethality prominent), their perceived personal susceptibility to it, salience (ie, whether they knew someone who had experienced the outcome), their beliefs about causation, and about the consequences of the outcome.

With medication attributes, the medication’s ability to lower blood glucose was deemed a priority by nearly all. By contrast, there was much more variation in the responses regarding the influence of various side effects in their decision-making based on personal preferences, beliefs, and previous experiences.

This paper is one part of research funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) examining the effects of second-line glucose-lowering medications in patients with type 2 diabetes who are at moderate, rather than high, cardiovascular risk. The main paper, looking at prespecified cardiovascular outcomes, is scheduled to be published soon, Dr. McCoy said.

She’s now planning a follow-up study to look at actual outcomes for the second-line drugs based on the patients’ preferences. “We don’t have the evidence necessarily to tell our patients what is best given their specific preferences ... The question is, if our patients tell us what they want, how would that change what we recommend to them?”

The study was funded by PCORI. Dr. McCoy received support from the National Institutes of Health and AARP. She also served as a consultant to Emmi (Wolters Kluwer) for developing patient education materials related to prediabetes and diabetes. Dr. Low Wang received research support from Dexcom Inc, Virta Health, and CellResearch Corp within the past 24 months.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The patient had an advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) on the face that seemed to be affecting the facial nerve, ruling out aggressive surgery. When Mohs surgery failed to clear the tumor, radiation was ordered. But the best option — an immune checkpoint inhibitor — could not be administered because the patient was a lung transplant recipient.

Although approved for metastatic cSCC, immune checkpoint inhibitors are associated with a higher potential for rejection of an organ transplant.

“The feeling is that the risk of rejection is just too great if we were to try to give an immune checkpoint inhibitor,” said Sean Christensen, MD, PhD, director of dermatologic surgery at Yale Dermatology–Branford, in Connecticut, who was treating the patient. Dr. Christensen consulted with the transplant team, and together they decided to switch the patient to sirolimus, an immunosuppressant that has been shown to have less risk of promoting skin cancer in those who take the medication. Sirolimus, however, is not as well tolerated as the usual first-line immunosuppressant, tacrolimus.

Dr. Christensen

Dr. Bottomley

Reducing Risk Factors

Dr. Bottomley said that there’s also been renewed effort to identify how to reduce cSCC risk in transplant recipients through recently developed consensus guidelines and a proposed decision framework developed by Dr. Bottomley and colleagues. The evidence will help clinicians have “greater confidence in making early interventions,” he said.

Currently, solid organ transplant patients are told to reduce sun exposure, in part because the majority of cSCCs occur in sun-exposed areas, such as the head and neck, and ultraviolet radiation leads to mutations. “Sun protection is critical,” Dr. Christensen said. That’s especially true in younger transplant recipients, who may have decades of sun exposure, he said.

The immunosuppressive medications also increase cancer risk, for a variety of reasons. One of the more-commonly used immunosuppressants in the past, azathioprine, is itself carcinogenic. Other antirejection medications, such as tacrolimus and mycophenolate, may also induce mutagenic changes that give rise to malignancies, according to the paper by Dr. Bibee, assistant professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.

Both Dr. Bibee, in her paper, and Dr. Arron, in an interview, noted that voriconazole, an antifungal used to prevent Aspergillus infection after lung transplant, has been associated with an increase in cSCC in lung transplant recipients.

Dr. Arron

In addition, immunosuppression essentially “blocks the body’s immune system from recognizing that there are abnormal cancerous cells present,” Dr. Arron, a dermatologist in private practice in Burlingame, California, told this news organization.

Previously, while at the High-Risk Skin Cancer Program at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Dr. Arron and others studied whether human papillomavirus (HPV) might play a role in spurring the development of cSCC formation in the immunocompromised. HPV is highly prevalent on the skin, but the virus found on the skin tends to be composed of lower-risk strains.

“In our research, we did not find any biologic mechanism by which this virus might be driving these cancers,” said Dr. Arron, although she said that some researchers “feel very strongly that HPV must be in some way a driver.”

Dr. Bottomley believes that HPV’s role has not been completely determined. The excess incidence of cSCC suggests a virus might be involved, as has been seen with excess risk of lymphoma in patients with Epstein-Barr virus, he said.

Some of his research is focusing on whether advanced immune aging is an independent risk factor for subsequent cSCC development in solid organ transplant recipients. The immune system undergoes changes as people age, and the speed of this process varies from patient to patient, which means immune age can be different from chronological age, said Dr. Bottomley. “We’re still exploring why immune aging should predispose you to cSCC,” he said.
 

When to Intervene?

Transplant patients are followed by dermatologists at regular intervals. But guidelines are not consistent on the recommended timing of those intervals.

Dr. Arron and colleagues in 2019 created a risk prediction module that recommended frequency of follow-up based on low, medium, high, or very high risk. The tool is available to clinicians in an app called SUNTRAC, or the Skin and Ultraviolet Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator.

A question that Dr. Arron said dermatologists and transplant specialists have wrangled with: How early can they intervene to prevent further lesions?

In the 2022 decision framework paper in Transplant International, Dr. Bottomley and dermatology colleagues from around the world attempted to better delineate when and how clinicians should intervene when a cSCC is first detected. That first cSCC “should be regarded as a ‘red flag’ heralding an increased risk of further skin cancers and possibly internal malignancies,” the authors wrote. That moment is “a key opportunity to proactively consider secondary preventive strategies,” they wrote, but noted that the best interventions and “their sequencing remain unclear,” indicating the need for further research.
 

Coordinating With the Transplant Team

A key strategy to help prevent cSCC development — suggested in Dr. Bottomley’s paper, and by Dr. Arron and Dr. Christensen — is to consult with the transplant team on potentially changing a patient’s immunosuppressive medication or reducing the dose.

Dr. Arron said that a decade ago, it was somewhat of a novel concept, requiring data-sharing and making personal connections with the transplant team to forge trusting relationships. By the time she left UCSF a few years ago, she said, “the transplant program was very much on board with preventing and treating skin cancer and oftentimes they were making changes even before I would suggest them.”

Suggesting a change or dose reduction is not undertaken lightly. “Our transplant physician colleagues are balancing multiple problems in very sick patients, of which skin cancer might be one, but not the most pressing one in the setting of other transplant complications,” said Dr. Arron.

Dr. Bottomley said that “as transplant physicians, we very much respect and value the input of our dermatology colleagues,” but agreed that many factors “outside malignancy risk” must be weighed when considering changing an immunosuppressive regimen.

In a Delphi Consensus Statement on prevention of cSCC in organ transplant recipients, published in 2021 in JAMA Dermatology, the authors recommended having discussions about immunosuppression with transplant specialists, but did not make a recommendation on what strategy to use. The consensus panel said it preferred “to defer this decision to transplant physicians.”

Acitretin a Go, Nicotinamide Not So Much

Outside of changing an immunosuppressive regimen, among the interventions for secondary prevention are acitretin, the systemic retinoid, and nicotinamide, a form of niacin.

Dr. Christensen conducted a small retrospective investigation evaluating the effectiveness of acitretin in reducing cSCC in both immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients who had received care at Yale, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Acitretin reduced invasive cSCC by about 75% in both patient groups — a surprising result for the immunocompetent group, but well-established in patients who have had a solid organ transplant. But acitretin had no effect on cSCC in situ or basal cell carcinoma. “The benefit of acitretin is primarily in preventing the invasive SCC,” said Dr. Christensen, which is why he tends to reserve it for patients who have already had several cSCCs.

“It’s not a completely benign medication,” he said, noting the need for monitoring for cholesterol and liver function.

Several years ago, a study in immunocompetent patients, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that nicotinamide (also known as niacinamide) reduced the rate of nonmelonoma skin cancer by 23%, giving clinicians hope that it might also be a low-risk, low-cost cancer preventive for solid organ transplant patients. But enthusiasm has dampened since a 2023 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the vitamin did not reduce cSCCs in transplant recipients.

Dr. Christensen said he believes the most-recent study wasn’t powered to detect a 25% reduction in cancers. “It’s certainly possible that it still works exactly the same way in transplant patients that it does in immunocompetent patients,” he said. “There’s very little risk of recommending it to patients for general prevention. But it probably has a very modest effect in many,” he said.

Dr. Arron agreed, saying, “it may be that we simply need bigger studies to achieve that statistical significance.” Even so, she said she would not use the therapy “until there is more evidence supporting the use of nicotinamide in transplant recipients.”

Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as cemiplimab and pembrolizumab have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for advanced cSCC; nivolumab is another drug in the same class that has not yet been approved for cSCC. But “there’s always been a fear — and a legitimate fear — that if you gave those to organ transplant recipients they would reject their organ,” said Dr. Christensen.

Patients who take the checkpoint inhibitors may first have to stop taking their antirejection drugs, leaving them at risk. It also appears that the checkpoint inhibitors themselves contribute to organ rejection. Recent studies suggest that “the rate of organ rejection is only about 30% to 40%,” with the checkpoint inhibitors, said Dr. Christensen. “Obviously that’s still not an ideal outcome,” he said, but noted that with patients who have inoperable metastatic cSCC, “immune therapy can be a good option.”

Dr. Christensen reported no disclosures. Dr. Bottomley has previously received speaker fees and an educational grant from Astellas. Dr. Arron disclosed ties with Regeneron, Castle Biosciences, and Enspectra Health, not specific to transplantation.

The patient had an advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) on the face that seemed to be affecting the facial nerve, ruling out aggressive surgery. When Mohs surgery failed to clear the tumor, radiation was ordered. But the best option — an immune checkpoint inhibitor — could not be administered because the patient was a lung transplant recipient.

Although approved for metastatic cSCC, immune checkpoint inhibitors are associated with a higher potential for rejection of an organ transplant.

“The feeling is that the risk of rejection is just too great if we were to try to give an immune checkpoint inhibitor,” said Sean Christensen, MD, PhD, director of dermatologic surgery at Yale Dermatology–Branford, in Connecticut, who was treating the patient. Dr. Christensen consulted with the transplant team, and together they decided to switch the patient to sirolimus, an immunosuppressant that has been shown to have less risk of promoting skin cancer in those who take the medication. Sirolimus, however, is not as well tolerated as the usual first-line immunosuppressant, tacrolimus.

Dr. Christensen

Dr. Bottomley

Reducing Risk Factors

Dr. Bottomley said that there’s also been renewed effort to identify how to reduce cSCC risk in transplant recipients through recently developed consensus guidelines and a proposed decision framework developed by Dr. Bottomley and colleagues. The evidence will help clinicians have “greater confidence in making early interventions,” he said.

Currently, solid organ transplant patients are told to reduce sun exposure, in part because the majority of cSCCs occur in sun-exposed areas, such as the head and neck, and ultraviolet radiation leads to mutations. “Sun protection is critical,” Dr. Christensen said. That’s especially true in younger transplant recipients, who may have decades of sun exposure, he said.

The immunosuppressive medications also increase cancer risk, for a variety of reasons. One of the more-commonly used immunosuppressants in the past, azathioprine, is itself carcinogenic. Other antirejection medications, such as tacrolimus and mycophenolate, may also induce mutagenic changes that give rise to malignancies, according to the paper by Dr. Bibee, assistant professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.

Both Dr. Bibee, in her paper, and Dr. Arron, in an interview, noted that voriconazole, an antifungal used to prevent Aspergillus infection after lung transplant, has been associated with an increase in cSCC in lung transplant recipients.

Dr. Arron

In addition, immunosuppression essentially “blocks the body’s immune system from recognizing that there are abnormal cancerous cells present,” Dr. Arron, a dermatologist in private practice in Burlingame, California, told this news organization.

Previously, while at the High-Risk Skin Cancer Program at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Dr. Arron and others studied whether human papillomavirus (HPV) might play a role in spurring the development of cSCC formation in the immunocompromised. HPV is highly prevalent on the skin, but the virus found on the skin tends to be composed of lower-risk strains.

“In our research, we did not find any biologic mechanism by which this virus might be driving these cancers,” said Dr. Arron, although she said that some researchers “feel very strongly that HPV must be in some way a driver.”

Dr. Bottomley believes that HPV’s role has not been completely determined. The excess incidence of cSCC suggests a virus might be involved, as has been seen with excess risk of lymphoma in patients with Epstein-Barr virus, he said.

Some of his research is focusing on whether advanced immune aging is an independent risk factor for subsequent cSCC development in solid organ transplant recipients. The immune system undergoes changes as people age, and the speed of this process varies from patient to patient, which means immune age can be different from chronological age, said Dr. Bottomley. “We’re still exploring why immune aging should predispose you to cSCC,” he said.
 

When to Intervene?

Transplant patients are followed by dermatologists at regular intervals. But guidelines are not consistent on the recommended timing of those intervals.

Dr. Arron and colleagues in 2019 created a risk prediction module that recommended frequency of follow-up based on low, medium, high, or very high risk. The tool is available to clinicians in an app called SUNTRAC, or the Skin and Ultraviolet Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator.

A question that Dr. Arron said dermatologists and transplant specialists have wrangled with: How early can they intervene to prevent further lesions?

In the 2022 decision framework paper in Transplant International, Dr. Bottomley and dermatology colleagues from around the world attempted to better delineate when and how clinicians should intervene when a cSCC is first detected. That first cSCC “should be regarded as a ‘red flag’ heralding an increased risk of further skin cancers and possibly internal malignancies,” the authors wrote. That moment is “a key opportunity to proactively consider secondary preventive strategies,” they wrote, but noted that the best interventions and “their sequencing remain unclear,” indicating the need for further research.
 

Coordinating With the Transplant Team

A key strategy to help prevent cSCC development — suggested in Dr. Bottomley’s paper, and by Dr. Arron and Dr. Christensen — is to consult with the transplant team on potentially changing a patient’s immunosuppressive medication or reducing the dose.

Dr. Arron said that a decade ago, it was somewhat of a novel concept, requiring data-sharing and making personal connections with the transplant team to forge trusting relationships. By the time she left UCSF a few years ago, she said, “the transplant program was very much on board with preventing and treating skin cancer and oftentimes they were making changes even before I would suggest them.”

Suggesting a change or dose reduction is not undertaken lightly. “Our transplant physician colleagues are balancing multiple problems in very sick patients, of which skin cancer might be one, but not the most pressing one in the setting of other transplant complications,” said Dr. Arron.

Dr. Bottomley said that “as transplant physicians, we very much respect and value the input of our dermatology colleagues,” but agreed that many factors “outside malignancy risk” must be weighed when considering changing an immunosuppressive regimen.

In a Delphi Consensus Statement on prevention of cSCC in organ transplant recipients, published in 2021 in JAMA Dermatology, the authors recommended having discussions about immunosuppression with transplant specialists, but did not make a recommendation on what strategy to use. The consensus panel said it preferred “to defer this decision to transplant physicians.”

Acitretin a Go, Nicotinamide Not So Much

Outside of changing an immunosuppressive regimen, among the interventions for secondary prevention are acitretin, the systemic retinoid, and nicotinamide, a form of niacin.

Dr. Christensen conducted a small retrospective investigation evaluating the effectiveness of acitretin in reducing cSCC in both immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients who had received care at Yale, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Acitretin reduced invasive cSCC by about 75% in both patient groups — a surprising result for the immunocompetent group, but well-established in patients who have had a solid organ transplant. But acitretin had no effect on cSCC in situ or basal cell carcinoma. “The benefit of acitretin is primarily in preventing the invasive SCC,” said Dr. Christensen, which is why he tends to reserve it for patients who have already had several cSCCs.

“It’s not a completely benign medication,” he said, noting the need for monitoring for cholesterol and liver function.

Several years ago, a study in immunocompetent patients, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that nicotinamide (also known as niacinamide) reduced the rate of nonmelonoma skin cancer by 23%, giving clinicians hope that it might also be a low-risk, low-cost cancer preventive for solid organ transplant patients. But enthusiasm has dampened since a 2023 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the vitamin did not reduce cSCCs in transplant recipients.

Dr. Christensen said he believes the most-recent study wasn’t powered to detect a 25% reduction in cancers. “It’s certainly possible that it still works exactly the same way in transplant patients that it does in immunocompetent patients,” he said. “There’s very little risk of recommending it to patients for general prevention. But it probably has a very modest effect in many,” he said.

Dr. Arron agreed, saying, “it may be that we simply need bigger studies to achieve that statistical significance.” Even so, she said she would not use the therapy “until there is more evidence supporting the use of nicotinamide in transplant recipients.”

Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as cemiplimab and pembrolizumab have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for advanced cSCC; nivolumab is another drug in the same class that has not yet been approved for cSCC. But “there’s always been a fear — and a legitimate fear — that if you gave those to organ transplant recipients they would reject their organ,” said Dr. Christensen.

Patients who take the checkpoint inhibitors may first have to stop taking their antirejection drugs, leaving them at risk. It also appears that the checkpoint inhibitors themselves contribute to organ rejection. Recent studies suggest that “the rate of organ rejection is only about 30% to 40%,” with the checkpoint inhibitors, said Dr. Christensen. “Obviously that’s still not an ideal outcome,” he said, but noted that with patients who have inoperable metastatic cSCC, “immune therapy can be a good option.”

Dr. Christensen reported no disclosures. Dr. Bottomley has previously received speaker fees and an educational grant from Astellas. Dr. Arron disclosed ties with Regeneron, Castle Biosciences, and Enspectra Health, not specific to transplantation.

The patient had an advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) on the face that seemed to be affecting the facial nerve, ruling out aggressive surgery. When Mohs surgery failed to clear the tumor, radiation was ordered. But the best option — an immune checkpoint inhibitor — could not be administered because the patient was a lung transplant recipient.

Although approved for metastatic cSCC, immune checkpoint inhibitors are associated with a higher potential for rejection of an organ transplant.

“The feeling is that the risk of rejection is just too great if we were to try to give an immune checkpoint inhibitor,” said Sean Christensen, MD, PhD, director of dermatologic surgery at Yale Dermatology–Branford, in Connecticut, who was treating the patient. Dr. Christensen consulted with the transplant team, and together they decided to switch the patient to sirolimus, an immunosuppressant that has been shown to have less risk of promoting skin cancer in those who take the medication. Sirolimus, however, is not as well tolerated as the usual first-line immunosuppressant, tacrolimus.

Dr. Christensen

Dr. Bottomley

Reducing Risk Factors

Dr. Bottomley said that there’s also been renewed effort to identify how to reduce cSCC risk in transplant recipients through recently developed consensus guidelines and a proposed decision framework developed by Dr. Bottomley and colleagues. The evidence will help clinicians have “greater confidence in making early interventions,” he said.

Currently, solid organ transplant patients are told to reduce sun exposure, in part because the majority of cSCCs occur in sun-exposed areas, such as the head and neck, and ultraviolet radiation leads to mutations. “Sun protection is critical,” Dr. Christensen said. That’s especially true in younger transplant recipients, who may have decades of sun exposure, he said.

The immunosuppressive medications also increase cancer risk, for a variety of reasons. One of the more-commonly used immunosuppressants in the past, azathioprine, is itself carcinogenic. Other antirejection medications, such as tacrolimus and mycophenolate, may also induce mutagenic changes that give rise to malignancies, according to the paper by Dr. Bibee, assistant professor of dermatology at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore.

Both Dr. Bibee, in her paper, and Dr. Arron, in an interview, noted that voriconazole, an antifungal used to prevent Aspergillus infection after lung transplant, has been associated with an increase in cSCC in lung transplant recipients.

Dr. Arron

In addition, immunosuppression essentially “blocks the body’s immune system from recognizing that there are abnormal cancerous cells present,” Dr. Arron, a dermatologist in private practice in Burlingame, California, told this news organization.

Previously, while at the High-Risk Skin Cancer Program at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), Dr. Arron and others studied whether human papillomavirus (HPV) might play a role in spurring the development of cSCC formation in the immunocompromised. HPV is highly prevalent on the skin, but the virus found on the skin tends to be composed of lower-risk strains.

“In our research, we did not find any biologic mechanism by which this virus might be driving these cancers,” said Dr. Arron, although she said that some researchers “feel very strongly that HPV must be in some way a driver.”

Dr. Bottomley believes that HPV’s role has not been completely determined. The excess incidence of cSCC suggests a virus might be involved, as has been seen with excess risk of lymphoma in patients with Epstein-Barr virus, he said.

Some of his research is focusing on whether advanced immune aging is an independent risk factor for subsequent cSCC development in solid organ transplant recipients. The immune system undergoes changes as people age, and the speed of this process varies from patient to patient, which means immune age can be different from chronological age, said Dr. Bottomley. “We’re still exploring why immune aging should predispose you to cSCC,” he said.
 

When to Intervene?

Transplant patients are followed by dermatologists at regular intervals. But guidelines are not consistent on the recommended timing of those intervals.

Dr. Arron and colleagues in 2019 created a risk prediction module that recommended frequency of follow-up based on low, medium, high, or very high risk. The tool is available to clinicians in an app called SUNTRAC, or the Skin and Ultraviolet Neoplasia Transplant Risk Assessment Calculator.

A question that Dr. Arron said dermatologists and transplant specialists have wrangled with: How early can they intervene to prevent further lesions?

In the 2022 decision framework paper in Transplant International, Dr. Bottomley and dermatology colleagues from around the world attempted to better delineate when and how clinicians should intervene when a cSCC is first detected. That first cSCC “should be regarded as a ‘red flag’ heralding an increased risk of further skin cancers and possibly internal malignancies,” the authors wrote. That moment is “a key opportunity to proactively consider secondary preventive strategies,” they wrote, but noted that the best interventions and “their sequencing remain unclear,” indicating the need for further research.
 

Coordinating With the Transplant Team

A key strategy to help prevent cSCC development — suggested in Dr. Bottomley’s paper, and by Dr. Arron and Dr. Christensen — is to consult with the transplant team on potentially changing a patient’s immunosuppressive medication or reducing the dose.

Dr. Arron said that a decade ago, it was somewhat of a novel concept, requiring data-sharing and making personal connections with the transplant team to forge trusting relationships. By the time she left UCSF a few years ago, she said, “the transplant program was very much on board with preventing and treating skin cancer and oftentimes they were making changes even before I would suggest them.”

Suggesting a change or dose reduction is not undertaken lightly. “Our transplant physician colleagues are balancing multiple problems in very sick patients, of which skin cancer might be one, but not the most pressing one in the setting of other transplant complications,” said Dr. Arron.

Dr. Bottomley said that “as transplant physicians, we very much respect and value the input of our dermatology colleagues,” but agreed that many factors “outside malignancy risk” must be weighed when considering changing an immunosuppressive regimen.

In a Delphi Consensus Statement on prevention of cSCC in organ transplant recipients, published in 2021 in JAMA Dermatology, the authors recommended having discussions about immunosuppression with transplant specialists, but did not make a recommendation on what strategy to use. The consensus panel said it preferred “to defer this decision to transplant physicians.”

Acitretin a Go, Nicotinamide Not So Much

Outside of changing an immunosuppressive regimen, among the interventions for secondary prevention are acitretin, the systemic retinoid, and nicotinamide, a form of niacin.

Dr. Christensen conducted a small retrospective investigation evaluating the effectiveness of acitretin in reducing cSCC in both immunocompromised and immunocompetent patients who had received care at Yale, which was recently published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. Acitretin reduced invasive cSCC by about 75% in both patient groups — a surprising result for the immunocompetent group, but well-established in patients who have had a solid organ transplant. But acitretin had no effect on cSCC in situ or basal cell carcinoma. “The benefit of acitretin is primarily in preventing the invasive SCC,” said Dr. Christensen, which is why he tends to reserve it for patients who have already had several cSCCs.

“It’s not a completely benign medication,” he said, noting the need for monitoring for cholesterol and liver function.

Several years ago, a study in immunocompetent patients, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, found that nicotinamide (also known as niacinamide) reduced the rate of nonmelonoma skin cancer by 23%, giving clinicians hope that it might also be a low-risk, low-cost cancer preventive for solid organ transplant patients. But enthusiasm has dampened since a 2023 study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the vitamin did not reduce cSCCs in transplant recipients.

Dr. Christensen said he believes the most-recent study wasn’t powered to detect a 25% reduction in cancers. “It’s certainly possible that it still works exactly the same way in transplant patients that it does in immunocompetent patients,” he said. “There’s very little risk of recommending it to patients for general prevention. But it probably has a very modest effect in many,” he said.

Dr. Arron agreed, saying, “it may be that we simply need bigger studies to achieve that statistical significance.” Even so, she said she would not use the therapy “until there is more evidence supporting the use of nicotinamide in transplant recipients.”

Immune checkpoint inhibitors such as cemiplimab and pembrolizumab have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for advanced cSCC; nivolumab is another drug in the same class that has not yet been approved for cSCC. But “there’s always been a fear — and a legitimate fear — that if you gave those to organ transplant recipients they would reject their organ,” said Dr. Christensen.

Patients who take the checkpoint inhibitors may first have to stop taking their antirejection drugs, leaving them at risk. It also appears that the checkpoint inhibitors themselves contribute to organ rejection. Recent studies suggest that “the rate of organ rejection is only about 30% to 40%,” with the checkpoint inhibitors, said Dr. Christensen. “Obviously that’s still not an ideal outcome,” he said, but noted that with patients who have inoperable metastatic cSCC, “immune therapy can be a good option.”

Dr. Christensen reported no disclosures. Dr. Bottomley has previously received speaker fees and an educational grant from Astellas. Dr. Arron disclosed ties with Regeneron, Castle Biosciences, and Enspectra Health, not specific to transplantation.

There is insufficient evidence that drugs targeting the Janus kinase–signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway increase the risk of cardiovascular or thrombotic complications in people undergoing treatment for a variety of dermatological conditions, at least in the short term, say the authors of a new meta-analysis published in JAMA Dermatology.

Considering data on over 17,000 patients with different dermatoses from 45 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials with an average follow up of 16 weeks, they found there was no significant increase in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with dermatoses treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, compared with placebo.

The I² statistic was 0.00% for both MACE and VTE comparing the two arms, indicating that the results were unlikely to be due to chance. There was no increased risk in MACE between those on placebo and those on JAK-STAT inhibitors, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.47; or for VTE risk, with an RR of 0.46.

Similar findings were obtained when data were analyzed according to the dermatological condition being treated, mechanism of action of the medication, or whether the medication carried a boxed warning.

These data “suggest inconsistency with established sentiments,” that JAK-STAT inhibitors increase the risk for cardiovascular events, Patrick Ireland, MD, of the University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia, and coauthors wrote in the article. “This may be owing to the limited time frames in which these rare events could be adequately captured, or the ages of enrolled patients being too young to realize the well established heightened risks of developing MACE and VTE,” they suggested.

However, the findings challenge the notion that the cardiovascular complications of these drugs are the same in all patients; dermatological use may not be associated with the same risks as with use for rheumatologic indications.
 

Class-Wide Boxed Warning

“JAK-STAT [inhibitors] have had some pretty indemnifying data against their use, with the ORAL [Surveillance] study demonstrating increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and malignancy,” Dr. Ireland said in an interview.

ORAL Surveillance was an open-label, postmarketing trial conducted in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. The results led the US Food and Drug Administration to require information about the risks of serious heart-related events, cancer, blood clots, and death in a boxed warning for JAK-STAT inhibitors in 2022.

“I think it’s important to recognize that these [ORAL Surveillance participants] are very different patients to the typical dermatological patient being treated with a JAK-STAT [inhibitors], with newer studies demonstrating a much safer profile than initially thought,” Dr. Ireland said.
 

Examining Risk in Dermatological Conditions

The meta-analysis performed by Dr. Ireland and associates focused specifically on the risk for MACE and VTE in patients being treated for dermatological conditions, and included trials published up until June 2023. Only trials that had included a placebo arm were considered; pooled analyses, long-term extension trial data, post hoc analyses, and pediatric-specific trials were excluded.

Most (25) of the trials were phase 2b or phase 3 trials, 18 were phase 2 to 2b, and two were phase 1 trials. The studies included 12,996 participants, mostly with atopic dermatitis or psoriasis, who were treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, which included baricitinib (2846 patients), tofacitinib (2470), upadacitinib (2218), abrocitinib (1904), and deucravacitinib (1492), among others. There were 4925 patients on placebo.

Overall, MACE — defined as a combined endpoint of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure, and unstable angina, as well as arterial embolism — occurred in 13 of the JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in four of those on placebo. VTE — defined as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and any unusual site thrombosis — was reported in eight JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in one patient on placebo.

The pooled incidence ratios for MACE and VTE were calculated as 0.20 per 100 person exposure years (PEY) for JAK-STAT inhibitor treatment and 0.13 PEY for placebo. The pooled RRs comparing the two treatment groups were a respective 1.13 for MACE and 2.79 for VTE, but neither RR reached statistical significance.

No difference was seen between the treatment arms in terms of treatment emergent adverse events (RR, 1.05), serious adverse events (RR, 0.92), or study discontinuation because of adverse events (RR, 0.94).
 

Reassuring Results?

Dr. Ireland and coauthors said the finding should help to reassure clinicians that the short-term use of JAK-STAT inhibitors in patients with dermatological conditions with low cardiovascular risk profiles “appears to be both safe and well tolerated.” They cautioned, however, that “clinicians must remain judicious” when using these medications for longer periods and in high-risk patient populations.

This was a pragmatic meta-analysis that provides useful information for dermatologists, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

“When there are safety concerns, I think that’s where data like this are so important to not just allay the fears of practitioners, but also to arm the practitioner with information for when they discuss a possible treatment with a patient,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved in the study.

“What’s unique here is that they’re looking at any possible use of JAK inhibitors for dermatological disease,” so this represents patients that dermatologists would be seeing, he added.

“The limitation here is time, we only can say so much about the safety of the medication with the data that we have,” Dr. Friedman said. Almost 4 months is “a good amount of time” to know about the cardiovascular risks, he said, but added, what happens then? Will the risk increase and will patients need to be switched to another medication?

“There’s no line in the sand,” with regard to using a JAK-STAT inhibitor. “If you look at the label, they’re not meant to be used incrementally,” but as ongoing treatment, while considering the needs of the patient and the relative risks and benefits, he said.

With that in mind, “the open label extension studies for all these [JAK-STAT inhibitors] are really, really important to get a sense of ‘do new signals emerge down the road.’ ”

The meta-analysis received no commercial funding. One author of the work reported personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies which were done outside of analysis. Dr. Friedman has received research funding from or acted as a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies including, Incyte, Pfizer, Eli Lily, and AbbVie.

There is insufficient evidence that drugs targeting the Janus kinase–signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway increase the risk of cardiovascular or thrombotic complications in people undergoing treatment for a variety of dermatological conditions, at least in the short term, say the authors of a new meta-analysis published in JAMA Dermatology.

Considering data on over 17,000 patients with different dermatoses from 45 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials with an average follow up of 16 weeks, they found there was no significant increase in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with dermatoses treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, compared with placebo.

The I² statistic was 0.00% for both MACE and VTE comparing the two arms, indicating that the results were unlikely to be due to chance. There was no increased risk in MACE between those on placebo and those on JAK-STAT inhibitors, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.47; or for VTE risk, with an RR of 0.46.

Similar findings were obtained when data were analyzed according to the dermatological condition being treated, mechanism of action of the medication, or whether the medication carried a boxed warning.

These data “suggest inconsistency with established sentiments,” that JAK-STAT inhibitors increase the risk for cardiovascular events, Patrick Ireland, MD, of the University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia, and coauthors wrote in the article. “This may be owing to the limited time frames in which these rare events could be adequately captured, or the ages of enrolled patients being too young to realize the well established heightened risks of developing MACE and VTE,” they suggested.

However, the findings challenge the notion that the cardiovascular complications of these drugs are the same in all patients; dermatological use may not be associated with the same risks as with use for rheumatologic indications.
 

Class-Wide Boxed Warning

“JAK-STAT [inhibitors] have had some pretty indemnifying data against their use, with the ORAL [Surveillance] study demonstrating increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and malignancy,” Dr. Ireland said in an interview.

ORAL Surveillance was an open-label, postmarketing trial conducted in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. The results led the US Food and Drug Administration to require information about the risks of serious heart-related events, cancer, blood clots, and death in a boxed warning for JAK-STAT inhibitors in 2022.

“I think it’s important to recognize that these [ORAL Surveillance participants] are very different patients to the typical dermatological patient being treated with a JAK-STAT [inhibitors], with newer studies demonstrating a much safer profile than initially thought,” Dr. Ireland said.
 

Examining Risk in Dermatological Conditions

The meta-analysis performed by Dr. Ireland and associates focused specifically on the risk for MACE and VTE in patients being treated for dermatological conditions, and included trials published up until June 2023. Only trials that had included a placebo arm were considered; pooled analyses, long-term extension trial data, post hoc analyses, and pediatric-specific trials were excluded.

Most (25) of the trials were phase 2b or phase 3 trials, 18 were phase 2 to 2b, and two were phase 1 trials. The studies included 12,996 participants, mostly with atopic dermatitis or psoriasis, who were treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, which included baricitinib (2846 patients), tofacitinib (2470), upadacitinib (2218), abrocitinib (1904), and deucravacitinib (1492), among others. There were 4925 patients on placebo.

Overall, MACE — defined as a combined endpoint of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure, and unstable angina, as well as arterial embolism — occurred in 13 of the JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in four of those on placebo. VTE — defined as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and any unusual site thrombosis — was reported in eight JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in one patient on placebo.

The pooled incidence ratios for MACE and VTE were calculated as 0.20 per 100 person exposure years (PEY) for JAK-STAT inhibitor treatment and 0.13 PEY for placebo. The pooled RRs comparing the two treatment groups were a respective 1.13 for MACE and 2.79 for VTE, but neither RR reached statistical significance.

No difference was seen between the treatment arms in terms of treatment emergent adverse events (RR, 1.05), serious adverse events (RR, 0.92), or study discontinuation because of adverse events (RR, 0.94).
 

Reassuring Results?

Dr. Ireland and coauthors said the finding should help to reassure clinicians that the short-term use of JAK-STAT inhibitors in patients with dermatological conditions with low cardiovascular risk profiles “appears to be both safe and well tolerated.” They cautioned, however, that “clinicians must remain judicious” when using these medications for longer periods and in high-risk patient populations.

This was a pragmatic meta-analysis that provides useful information for dermatologists, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

“When there are safety concerns, I think that’s where data like this are so important to not just allay the fears of practitioners, but also to arm the practitioner with information for when they discuss a possible treatment with a patient,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved in the study.

“What’s unique here is that they’re looking at any possible use of JAK inhibitors for dermatological disease,” so this represents patients that dermatologists would be seeing, he added.

“The limitation here is time, we only can say so much about the safety of the medication with the data that we have,” Dr. Friedman said. Almost 4 months is “a good amount of time” to know about the cardiovascular risks, he said, but added, what happens then? Will the risk increase and will patients need to be switched to another medication?

“There’s no line in the sand,” with regard to using a JAK-STAT inhibitor. “If you look at the label, they’re not meant to be used incrementally,” but as ongoing treatment, while considering the needs of the patient and the relative risks and benefits, he said.

With that in mind, “the open label extension studies for all these [JAK-STAT inhibitors] are really, really important to get a sense of ‘do new signals emerge down the road.’ ”

The meta-analysis received no commercial funding. One author of the work reported personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies which were done outside of analysis. Dr. Friedman has received research funding from or acted as a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies including, Incyte, Pfizer, Eli Lily, and AbbVie.

There is insufficient evidence that drugs targeting the Janus kinase–signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway increase the risk of cardiovascular or thrombotic complications in people undergoing treatment for a variety of dermatological conditions, at least in the short term, say the authors of a new meta-analysis published in JAMA Dermatology.

Considering data on over 17,000 patients with different dermatoses from 45 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials with an average follow up of 16 weeks, they found there was no significant increase in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with dermatoses treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, compared with placebo.

The I² statistic was 0.00% for both MACE and VTE comparing the two arms, indicating that the results were unlikely to be due to chance. There was no increased risk in MACE between those on placebo and those on JAK-STAT inhibitors, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.47; or for VTE risk, with an RR of 0.46.

Similar findings were obtained when data were analyzed according to the dermatological condition being treated, mechanism of action of the medication, or whether the medication carried a boxed warning.

These data “suggest inconsistency with established sentiments,” that JAK-STAT inhibitors increase the risk for cardiovascular events, Patrick Ireland, MD, of the University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia, and coauthors wrote in the article. “This may be owing to the limited time frames in which these rare events could be adequately captured, or the ages of enrolled patients being too young to realize the well established heightened risks of developing MACE and VTE,” they suggested.

However, the findings challenge the notion that the cardiovascular complications of these drugs are the same in all patients; dermatological use may not be associated with the same risks as with use for rheumatologic indications.
 

Class-Wide Boxed Warning

“JAK-STAT [inhibitors] have had some pretty indemnifying data against their use, with the ORAL [Surveillance] study demonstrating increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and malignancy,” Dr. Ireland said in an interview.

ORAL Surveillance was an open-label, postmarketing trial conducted in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. The results led the US Food and Drug Administration to require information about the risks of serious heart-related events, cancer, blood clots, and death in a boxed warning for JAK-STAT inhibitors in 2022.

“I think it’s important to recognize that these [ORAL Surveillance participants] are very different patients to the typical dermatological patient being treated with a JAK-STAT [inhibitors], with newer studies demonstrating a much safer profile than initially thought,” Dr. Ireland said.
 

Examining Risk in Dermatological Conditions

The meta-analysis performed by Dr. Ireland and associates focused specifically on the risk for MACE and VTE in patients being treated for dermatological conditions, and included trials published up until June 2023. Only trials that had included a placebo arm were considered; pooled analyses, long-term extension trial data, post hoc analyses, and pediatric-specific trials were excluded.

Most (25) of the trials were phase 2b or phase 3 trials, 18 were phase 2 to 2b, and two were phase 1 trials. The studies included 12,996 participants, mostly with atopic dermatitis or psoriasis, who were treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, which included baricitinib (2846 patients), tofacitinib (2470), upadacitinib (2218), abrocitinib (1904), and deucravacitinib (1492), among others. There were 4925 patients on placebo.

Overall, MACE — defined as a combined endpoint of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure, and unstable angina, as well as arterial embolism — occurred in 13 of the JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in four of those on placebo. VTE — defined as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and any unusual site thrombosis — was reported in eight JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in one patient on placebo.

The pooled incidence ratios for MACE and VTE were calculated as 0.20 per 100 person exposure years (PEY) for JAK-STAT inhibitor treatment and 0.13 PEY for placebo. The pooled RRs comparing the two treatment groups were a respective 1.13 for MACE and 2.79 for VTE, but neither RR reached statistical significance.

No difference was seen between the treatment arms in terms of treatment emergent adverse events (RR, 1.05), serious adverse events (RR, 0.92), or study discontinuation because of adverse events (RR, 0.94).
 

Reassuring Results?

Dr. Ireland and coauthors said the finding should help to reassure clinicians that the short-term use of JAK-STAT inhibitors in patients with dermatological conditions with low cardiovascular risk profiles “appears to be both safe and well tolerated.” They cautioned, however, that “clinicians must remain judicious” when using these medications for longer periods and in high-risk patient populations.

This was a pragmatic meta-analysis that provides useful information for dermatologists, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

“When there are safety concerns, I think that’s where data like this are so important to not just allay the fears of practitioners, but also to arm the practitioner with information for when they discuss a possible treatment with a patient,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved in the study.

“What’s unique here is that they’re looking at any possible use of JAK inhibitors for dermatological disease,” so this represents patients that dermatologists would be seeing, he added.

“The limitation here is time, we only can say so much about the safety of the medication with the data that we have,” Dr. Friedman said. Almost 4 months is “a good amount of time” to know about the cardiovascular risks, he said, but added, what happens then? Will the risk increase and will patients need to be switched to another medication?

“There’s no line in the sand,” with regard to using a JAK-STAT inhibitor. “If you look at the label, they’re not meant to be used incrementally,” but as ongoing treatment, while considering the needs of the patient and the relative risks and benefits, he said.

With that in mind, “the open label extension studies for all these [JAK-STAT inhibitors] are really, really important to get a sense of ‘do new signals emerge down the road.’ ”

The meta-analysis received no commercial funding. One author of the work reported personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies which were done outside of analysis. Dr. Friedman has received research funding from or acted as a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies including, Incyte, Pfizer, Eli Lily, and AbbVie.