Dermatology News

TOPLINE:

Seborrheic dermatitis affects an estimated 4% of the global population, with significant variations across age groups, settings, and regions, according to a meta-analysis that also found a higher prevalence in adults than in children.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 121 studies, which included 1,260,163 people with clinician-diagnosed seborrheic dermatitis.
• The included studies represented nine countries; most were from India (n = 18), Turkey (n = 13), and the United States (n = 8).
• The primary outcome was the pooled prevalence of seborrheic dermatitis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall pooled prevalence of seborrheic dermatitis was 4.38%, 4.08% in clinical settings, and 4.71% in the studies conducted in the general population.
• The prevalence of seborrheic dermatitis was higher among adults (5.64%) than in children (3.7%) and neonates (0.23%).
• A significant variation was observed across countries, with South Africa having the highest prevalence at 8.82%, followed by the United States at 5.86% and Turkey at 3.74%, while India had the lowest prevalence at 2.62%.

IN PRACTICE:

The global prevalence in this meta-analysis was “higher than previous large-scale global estimates, with notable geographic and sociodemographic variability, highlighting the potential impact of environmental factors and cultural practices,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Meredith Tyree Polaskey, MS, Chicago Medical School, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, Illinois, and was published online on July 3, 2024, in the JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Interpretation of the findings is limited by research gaps in Central Asia, much of Sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, Latin America (excluding Brazil), and the Caribbean, along with potential underreporting in regions with restricted healthcare access and significant heterogeneity across studies.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding information was not available. One author reported serving as an advisor, consultant, speaker, and/or investigator for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Amgen, and Pfizer.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Seborrheic dermatitis affects an estimated 4% of the global population, with significant variations across age groups, settings, and regions, according to a meta-analysis that also found a higher prevalence in adults than in children.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 121 studies, which included 1,260,163 people with clinician-diagnosed seborrheic dermatitis.
• The included studies represented nine countries; most were from India (n = 18), Turkey (n = 13), and the United States (n = 8).
• The primary outcome was the pooled prevalence of seborrheic dermatitis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall pooled prevalence of seborrheic dermatitis was 4.38%, 4.08% in clinical settings, and 4.71% in the studies conducted in the general population.
• The prevalence of seborrheic dermatitis was higher among adults (5.64%) than in children (3.7%) and neonates (0.23%).
• A significant variation was observed across countries, with South Africa having the highest prevalence at 8.82%, followed by the United States at 5.86% and Turkey at 3.74%, while India had the lowest prevalence at 2.62%.

IN PRACTICE:

The global prevalence in this meta-analysis was “higher than previous large-scale global estimates, with notable geographic and sociodemographic variability, highlighting the potential impact of environmental factors and cultural practices,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Meredith Tyree Polaskey, MS, Chicago Medical School, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, Illinois, and was published online on July 3, 2024, in the JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Interpretation of the findings is limited by research gaps in Central Asia, much of Sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, Latin America (excluding Brazil), and the Caribbean, along with potential underreporting in regions with restricted healthcare access and significant heterogeneity across studies.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding information was not available. One author reported serving as an advisor, consultant, speaker, and/or investigator for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Amgen, and Pfizer.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Seborrheic dermatitis affects an estimated 4% of the global population, with significant variations across age groups, settings, and regions, according to a meta-analysis that also found a higher prevalence in adults than in children.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 121 studies, which included 1,260,163 people with clinician-diagnosed seborrheic dermatitis.
• The included studies represented nine countries; most were from India (n = 18), Turkey (n = 13), and the United States (n = 8).
• The primary outcome was the pooled prevalence of seborrheic dermatitis.

TAKEAWAY:

• The overall pooled prevalence of seborrheic dermatitis was 4.38%, 4.08% in clinical settings, and 4.71% in the studies conducted in the general population.
• The prevalence of seborrheic dermatitis was higher among adults (5.64%) than in children (3.7%) and neonates (0.23%).
• A significant variation was observed across countries, with South Africa having the highest prevalence at 8.82%, followed by the United States at 5.86% and Turkey at 3.74%, while India had the lowest prevalence at 2.62%.

IN PRACTICE:

The global prevalence in this meta-analysis was “higher than previous large-scale global estimates, with notable geographic and sociodemographic variability, highlighting the potential impact of environmental factors and cultural practices,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Meredith Tyree Polaskey, MS, Chicago Medical School, Rosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science, North Chicago, Illinois, and was published online on July 3, 2024, in the JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Interpretation of the findings is limited by research gaps in Central Asia, much of Sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, Latin America (excluding Brazil), and the Caribbean, along with potential underreporting in regions with restricted healthcare access and significant heterogeneity across studies.

DISCLOSURES:

Funding information was not available. One author reported serving as an advisor, consultant, speaker, and/or investigator for multiple pharmaceutical companies, including AbbVie, Amgen, and Pfizer.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Full-term afebrile infants with pustules and vesicles have a low likelihood of life-threatening infections once herpes simplex virus (HSV) is ruled out, according to the findings from a retrospective study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed the electronic medical records of infants aged ≤ 60 days who received a pediatric dermatology consultation at six US academic institutions between September 2013 and August 2019.
• Among 879 consults, 183 afebrile infants were identified as having presented with pustules, vesicles, and/or bullae.
• Infectious disease workups included blood cultures, urine cultures, lumbar punctures, and HSV testing using viral skin culture, direct immunofluorescence assay, and/or polymerase chain reaction.
• Patients were categorized by gestational age as preterm (< 37 weeks), full-term (37-42 weeks), and post-term (≥ 42 weeks).
• Overall, 67.8% of infants had pustules, 31.1% had vesicles, and 10.4% had bullae.

TAKEAWAY:

• None of the cases showed positive cerebrospinal fluid or pathogenic blood cultures. In 122 of the cases (66.6%), a noninfectious cause was diagnosed, and an infectious cause was diagnosed in 71 cases (38.8%; some patients had more than one diagnosis).
• Of the 127 newborns evaluated for HSV infection, nine (7.1%) tested positive, of whom seven (5.5%) had disease affecting the skin, eye, and mouth and were full- term infants, and two (1.6%) had disseminated HSV and were preterm infants.
• Angioinvasive fungal infection was diagnosed in five infants (2.7%), all of whom were preterm infants (< 28 weeks gestational age).
• The risk for life-threatening disease was higher in preterm infants born before 32 weeks of gestational age (P < .01) compared with those born after 32 weeks.

IN PRACTICE:

“Full-term, well-appearing, afebrile infants ≤ 60 days of age presenting with pustules or vesicles may not require full SBI [serious bacterial infection] work-up, although larger studies are needed,” the authors concluded. Testing for HSV, they added, “is recommended in all infants with vesicles, grouped pustules, or pustules accompanied by punched out or grouped erosions,” and preterm infants “should be assessed for disseminated fungal infection and HSV in the setting of fluid-filled skin lesions.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sonora Yun, BA, Columbia University, New York City, and was published online in Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

The data were limited by the sample size and very low incidence of serious infections. Infants probably had atypical or severe presentations that warranted pediatric dermatology consultation, which may have led to overrepresentation of infectious disease rates. The study inclusion was restricted to those who received a dermatology consult; therefore, the findings may not be generalizable to outpatient primary care.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Full-term afebrile infants with pustules and vesicles have a low likelihood of life-threatening infections once herpes simplex virus (HSV) is ruled out, according to the findings from a retrospective study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed the electronic medical records of infants aged ≤ 60 days who received a pediatric dermatology consultation at six US academic institutions between September 2013 and August 2019.
• Among 879 consults, 183 afebrile infants were identified as having presented with pustules, vesicles, and/or bullae.
• Infectious disease workups included blood cultures, urine cultures, lumbar punctures, and HSV testing using viral skin culture, direct immunofluorescence assay, and/or polymerase chain reaction.
• Patients were categorized by gestational age as preterm (< 37 weeks), full-term (37-42 weeks), and post-term (≥ 42 weeks).
• Overall, 67.8% of infants had pustules, 31.1% had vesicles, and 10.4% had bullae.

TAKEAWAY:

• None of the cases showed positive cerebrospinal fluid or pathogenic blood cultures. In 122 of the cases (66.6%), a noninfectious cause was diagnosed, and an infectious cause was diagnosed in 71 cases (38.8%; some patients had more than one diagnosis).
• Of the 127 newborns evaluated for HSV infection, nine (7.1%) tested positive, of whom seven (5.5%) had disease affecting the skin, eye, and mouth and were full- term infants, and two (1.6%) had disseminated HSV and were preterm infants.
• Angioinvasive fungal infection was diagnosed in five infants (2.7%), all of whom were preterm infants (< 28 weeks gestational age).
• The risk for life-threatening disease was higher in preterm infants born before 32 weeks of gestational age (P < .01) compared with those born after 32 weeks.

IN PRACTICE:

“Full-term, well-appearing, afebrile infants ≤ 60 days of age presenting with pustules or vesicles may not require full SBI [serious bacterial infection] work-up, although larger studies are needed,” the authors concluded. Testing for HSV, they added, “is recommended in all infants with vesicles, grouped pustules, or pustules accompanied by punched out or grouped erosions,” and preterm infants “should be assessed for disseminated fungal infection and HSV in the setting of fluid-filled skin lesions.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sonora Yun, BA, Columbia University, New York City, and was published online in Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

The data were limited by the sample size and very low incidence of serious infections. Infants probably had atypical or severe presentations that warranted pediatric dermatology consultation, which may have led to overrepresentation of infectious disease rates. The study inclusion was restricted to those who received a dermatology consult; therefore, the findings may not be generalizable to outpatient primary care.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Full-term afebrile infants with pustules and vesicles have a low likelihood of life-threatening infections once herpes simplex virus (HSV) is ruled out, according to the findings from a retrospective study.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers reviewed the electronic medical records of infants aged ≤ 60 days who received a pediatric dermatology consultation at six US academic institutions between September 2013 and August 2019.
• Among 879 consults, 183 afebrile infants were identified as having presented with pustules, vesicles, and/or bullae.
• Infectious disease workups included blood cultures, urine cultures, lumbar punctures, and HSV testing using viral skin culture, direct immunofluorescence assay, and/or polymerase chain reaction.
• Patients were categorized by gestational age as preterm (< 37 weeks), full-term (37-42 weeks), and post-term (≥ 42 weeks).
• Overall, 67.8% of infants had pustules, 31.1% had vesicles, and 10.4% had bullae.

TAKEAWAY:

• None of the cases showed positive cerebrospinal fluid or pathogenic blood cultures. In 122 of the cases (66.6%), a noninfectious cause was diagnosed, and an infectious cause was diagnosed in 71 cases (38.8%; some patients had more than one diagnosis).
• Of the 127 newborns evaluated for HSV infection, nine (7.1%) tested positive, of whom seven (5.5%) had disease affecting the skin, eye, and mouth and were full- term infants, and two (1.6%) had disseminated HSV and were preterm infants.
• Angioinvasive fungal infection was diagnosed in five infants (2.7%), all of whom were preterm infants (< 28 weeks gestational age).
• The risk for life-threatening disease was higher in preterm infants born before 32 weeks of gestational age (P < .01) compared with those born after 32 weeks.

IN PRACTICE:

“Full-term, well-appearing, afebrile infants ≤ 60 days of age presenting with pustules or vesicles may not require full SBI [serious bacterial infection] work-up, although larger studies are needed,” the authors concluded. Testing for HSV, they added, “is recommended in all infants with vesicles, grouped pustules, or pustules accompanied by punched out or grouped erosions,” and preterm infants “should be assessed for disseminated fungal infection and HSV in the setting of fluid-filled skin lesions.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sonora Yun, BA, Columbia University, New York City, and was published online in Pediatrics.

LIMITATIONS:

The data were limited by the sample size and very low incidence of serious infections. Infants probably had atypical or severe presentations that warranted pediatric dermatology consultation, which may have led to overrepresentation of infectious disease rates. The study inclusion was restricted to those who received a dermatology consult; therefore, the findings may not be generalizable to outpatient primary care.

DISCLOSURES:

This study did not receive any external funding. The authors declared that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On July 9, the Food and Drug Administration approved the supplemental new drug application for roflumilast cream 0.15% for the treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults and in pediatric patients aged 6 years or older.

Roflumilast cream 0.15%, which has been developed by Arcutis Biotherapeutics and is marketed under the brand name Zoryve, is a steroid-free topical phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor that was previously approved in a higher concentration to treat seborrheic dermatitis and plaque psoriasis.

According to a press release from Arcutis, approval for AD was supported by positive results from three phase 3 studies, a phase 2 dose-ranging study, and two phase 1 pharmacokinetic trials. In two identical phase 3 studies known as INTEGUMENT-1 and INTEGUMENT-2, about 40% of children and adults treated with roflumilast cream 0.15% achieved a Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) at week 4 (INTEGUMENT-1: 41.5% vs 25.2%; P < .0001; INTEGUMENT-2: 39% vs 16.9%; P < .0001), with significant improvement as early as week 1 (P < .0001).

Among children and adults who participated in the INTEGUMENT studies for 28 and 56 weeks, 61.3% and 65.7% achieved a 75% reduction in their Eczema Area and Severity Index scores, respectively. According to the company, there were no adverse reactions in the combined phase 3 pivotal trials that occurred in more than 2.9% of participants in either arm. The most common adverse reactions included headache (2.9%), nausea (1.9%), application-site pain (1.5%), diarrhea (1.5%), and vomiting (1.5%).

The product is expected to be available commercially at the end of July 2024, according to Arcutis. Roflumilast cream 0.3% is indicated for topical treatment of plaque psoriasis, including intertriginous areas, in adult and pediatric patients aged 6 years or older; roflumilast foam 0.3% is indicated for the treatment of seborrheic dermatitis in adult and pediatric patients aged 9 years or older. 

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

On July 9, the Food and Drug Administration approved the supplemental new drug application for roflumilast cream 0.15% for the treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults and in pediatric patients aged 6 years or older.

Roflumilast cream 0.15%, which has been developed by Arcutis Biotherapeutics and is marketed under the brand name Zoryve, is a steroid-free topical phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor that was previously approved in a higher concentration to treat seborrheic dermatitis and plaque psoriasis.

According to a press release from Arcutis, approval for AD was supported by positive results from three phase 3 studies, a phase 2 dose-ranging study, and two phase 1 pharmacokinetic trials. In two identical phase 3 studies known as INTEGUMENT-1 and INTEGUMENT-2, about 40% of children and adults treated with roflumilast cream 0.15% achieved a Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) at week 4 (INTEGUMENT-1: 41.5% vs 25.2%; P < .0001; INTEGUMENT-2: 39% vs 16.9%; P < .0001), with significant improvement as early as week 1 (P < .0001).

Among children and adults who participated in the INTEGUMENT studies for 28 and 56 weeks, 61.3% and 65.7% achieved a 75% reduction in their Eczema Area and Severity Index scores, respectively. According to the company, there were no adverse reactions in the combined phase 3 pivotal trials that occurred in more than 2.9% of participants in either arm. The most common adverse reactions included headache (2.9%), nausea (1.9%), application-site pain (1.5%), diarrhea (1.5%), and vomiting (1.5%).

The product is expected to be available commercially at the end of July 2024, according to Arcutis. Roflumilast cream 0.3% is indicated for topical treatment of plaque psoriasis, including intertriginous areas, in adult and pediatric patients aged 6 years or older; roflumilast foam 0.3% is indicated for the treatment of seborrheic dermatitis in adult and pediatric patients aged 9 years or older. 

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

On July 9, the Food and Drug Administration approved the supplemental new drug application for roflumilast cream 0.15% for the treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults and in pediatric patients aged 6 years or older.

Roflumilast cream 0.15%, which has been developed by Arcutis Biotherapeutics and is marketed under the brand name Zoryve, is a steroid-free topical phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor that was previously approved in a higher concentration to treat seborrheic dermatitis and plaque psoriasis.

According to a press release from Arcutis, approval for AD was supported by positive results from three phase 3 studies, a phase 2 dose-ranging study, and two phase 1 pharmacokinetic trials. In two identical phase 3 studies known as INTEGUMENT-1 and INTEGUMENT-2, about 40% of children and adults treated with roflumilast cream 0.15% achieved a Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) at week 4 (INTEGUMENT-1: 41.5% vs 25.2%; P < .0001; INTEGUMENT-2: 39% vs 16.9%; P < .0001), with significant improvement as early as week 1 (P < .0001).

Among children and adults who participated in the INTEGUMENT studies for 28 and 56 weeks, 61.3% and 65.7% achieved a 75% reduction in their Eczema Area and Severity Index scores, respectively. According to the company, there were no adverse reactions in the combined phase 3 pivotal trials that occurred in more than 2.9% of participants in either arm. The most common adverse reactions included headache (2.9%), nausea (1.9%), application-site pain (1.5%), diarrhea (1.5%), and vomiting (1.5%).

The product is expected to be available commercially at the end of July 2024, according to Arcutis. Roflumilast cream 0.3% is indicated for topical treatment of plaque psoriasis, including intertriginous areas, in adult and pediatric patients aged 6 years or older; roflumilast foam 0.3% is indicated for the treatment of seborrheic dermatitis in adult and pediatric patients aged 9 years or older. 

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

A recent report by this news organization of a vitamin D clinical practice guideline released by the Endocrine Society in June triggered an outpouring of objections in the comments section from doctors and other readers.

A society press release listed the key new recommendations on the use of vitamin D supplementation and screening to reduce disease risks in individuals without established indications for such treatment or testing:

• For healthy adults younger than 75, no supplementation at doses above the recommended dietary intakes.
• Populations that may benefit from higher doses include: children and adolescents 18 and younger to prevent rickets and to reduce risk for respiratory infection, individuals 75 and older to possibly lower mortality risk, “pregnant people” to potentially reduce various risks, and people with prediabetes to potentially reduce risk of progression.
• No routine testing for 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels because outcome-specific benefits based on those levels have not been identified (including screening in people with dark complexion or obesity).
• Based on insufficient evidence, the panel could not determine specific blood-level thresholds for 25-hydroxyvitamin D for adequacy or for target levels for disease prevention.

This news organization covered the guideline release and simultaneous presentation at the Endocrine Society annual meeting. In response to the coverage, more than 200 doctors and other readers expressed concerns about the guideline, and some said outright that they would not follow it (readers quoted below are identified by the usernames they registered with on the website).

One reader who posted as Dr. Joseph Destefano went so far as to call the guideline “dangerous” and “almost ... evil.” Ironically, some readers attacked this news organization, thinking that the coverage implied an endorsement, rather than a news report.
 

Ignores Potential Benefits

Although the guideline is said to be for people who are “otherwise healthy” (other than the exceptions noted above), many readers were concerned that the recommendations ignore the potential benefits of supplementation for other health conditions relevant to patients and other populations.

“They address issues dealing only with endocrinology and bone health for the most part,” Dr. Emilio Gonzalez wrote. “However, vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency are not rare, and they impact the treatment of autoimmune disorders, chronic pain control, immunosuppression, cancer prevention, cardiovascular health, etc. There is plenty of literature in this regard.”

“They make these claims as if quality studies contradicting their guidelines have not been out there for years,” Dr. Brian Batcheldor said. “What about the huge demographic with diseases that impact intestinal absorption, eg, Crohn’s and celiac disease, cystic fibrosis, and ulcerative colitis? What about the one in nine that now have autoimmune diseases still awaiting diagnosis? What about night workers or anyone with more restricted access to sun exposure? How about those whose cultural or religious dress code limit skin exposure?”

The latter group was also mentioned in a post from Dr. Eve Finkelstein who said, “They don’t take into account women who are totally covered for religious reasons. They have no skin other than part of their face exposed. It does not make sense not to supplement them. Ignoring women’s health needs seems to be the norm.”

“I don’t think they considered the oral health effects of vitamin D deficiency,” pointed out commenter Corie Lewis. “Excess dental calculus (tartar) from excess calcium/phosphate in saliva significantly increases an individual’s periodontal disease risks (gum disease), and low saliva calcium/phosphate increases dental caries (cavities) risks, which generally indicates an imbalance of the oral microbiome. Vitamin D can help create balance and reduce those oral health risks.”

Noted Kimberley Morris-Windisch, “Having worked in rheumatology and pain for most of my career, I have seen too many people benefit from correcting deficiency of vitamin D. To ignore this is to miss opportunities to improve patient health.” Furthermore, “I find it unlikely that it would only improve mortality after age 75. That makes no sense.”

“Also,” she added, “what is the number [needed] to harm? In my 25 years, I have seen vitamin D toxicity once and an excessively high level without symptoms one other time.”

“WHY? Just WHY?” lamented Anne Kinchen. “Low levels in pregnant women have long-term effects on the developing fetus — higher and earlier rates of osteopenia in female children, weaker immune systems overall. There are just SO many reasons to test. These guidelines for no testing are absurd!”
 

No Screening, No Need for Decision-Making?

Several readers questioned the society’s rationale for not screening, as expressed by session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine.

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it,” Dr. Rosen said. “That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen. ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life. ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Among the reader comments in this regard:

“So misguided. Don’t look because we don’t know what do to with data. That’s the message this article exposes. The recommendation is do nothing. But, doing nothing IS an action — not a default.” (Lisa Tracy)

“So now, you will not screen for vitamin D because you do not know what to do next? See a naturopathic doctor — we know what to do next!” (Dr. Joyce Roberson)

“Gee, how do we treat it? ... What to do? Sounds incompetent at minimum. I suspect it’s vital, easy, and inexpensive ... so hide it.” (Holly Kohley)

“Just because we do not know is not a rationale for not testing. The opposite should be done.” (Dr. JJ Gold)
 

Caters to Industry?

Many commentators intimated that pharma and/or insurance company considerations played a role in the recommendations. Their comments included the following:

“I have been under the impression people do routine checkups to verify there are no hidden problems. If only some testing is done, the probability of not finding a problem is huge. ... Preventive healthcare should be looking for something to prevent instead of waiting until they can cure it. Of course, it might come back to ‘follow the money.’ It is much more profitable to diagnose and treat than it is to prevent.” (Grace Kyser)

“The current irrational ‘recommendation’ gives insurance companies an excuse to deny ALL tests of vitamin D — even if the proper code is supplied. The result is — people suffer. This recommendation does harm!” (Dr JJ Gold)

“Essentially, they are saying let’s not screen ‘healthy’ individuals and ignore it altogether. Better to wait till they’re old, pregnant, or already sick and diagnosed with a disease. This is the problem with the healthcare in this country.” (Brittney Lesher)

“Until allopathic medicine stops waiting for severe symptoms to develop before even screening for potential health problems, the most expensive healthcare (aka, sick care) system in the world will continue to be content to focus on medical emergencies and ignore prevention. ...” (Dean Raffelock)

“Don’t test? Are you kidding me? Especially when people are supplementing? That is akin to taking a blood pressure medication without measuring blood pressures! ... Don’t test? Don’t supplement? ... I have only one explanation for such nonsense: Pharma lives off sick people, not healthy ones.” (Georg Schlomka)

On a somewhat conciliatory and pointed note, Dr Francesca Luna-Rudin commented, “I would like to remind all of my fellow physicians that recommendations should be regarded as just that, a ‘recommendation.’ As doctors, we can use guidelines and recommendations in our practice, but if a new one is presented that does not make sense or would lead to harm based on our education and training, then we are not bound to follow it!”

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

A recent report by this news organization of a vitamin D clinical practice guideline released by the Endocrine Society in June triggered an outpouring of objections in the comments section from doctors and other readers.

A society press release listed the key new recommendations on the use of vitamin D supplementation and screening to reduce disease risks in individuals without established indications for such treatment or testing:

• For healthy adults younger than 75, no supplementation at doses above the recommended dietary intakes.
• Populations that may benefit from higher doses include: children and adolescents 18 and younger to prevent rickets and to reduce risk for respiratory infection, individuals 75 and older to possibly lower mortality risk, “pregnant people” to potentially reduce various risks, and people with prediabetes to potentially reduce risk of progression.
• No routine testing for 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels because outcome-specific benefits based on those levels have not been identified (including screening in people with dark complexion or obesity).
• Based on insufficient evidence, the panel could not determine specific blood-level thresholds for 25-hydroxyvitamin D for adequacy or for target levels for disease prevention.

This news organization covered the guideline release and simultaneous presentation at the Endocrine Society annual meeting. In response to the coverage, more than 200 doctors and other readers expressed concerns about the guideline, and some said outright that they would not follow it (readers quoted below are identified by the usernames they registered with on the website).

One reader who posted as Dr. Joseph Destefano went so far as to call the guideline “dangerous” and “almost ... evil.” Ironically, some readers attacked this news organization, thinking that the coverage implied an endorsement, rather than a news report.
 

Ignores Potential Benefits

Although the guideline is said to be for people who are “otherwise healthy” (other than the exceptions noted above), many readers were concerned that the recommendations ignore the potential benefits of supplementation for other health conditions relevant to patients and other populations.

“They address issues dealing only with endocrinology and bone health for the most part,” Dr. Emilio Gonzalez wrote. “However, vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency are not rare, and they impact the treatment of autoimmune disorders, chronic pain control, immunosuppression, cancer prevention, cardiovascular health, etc. There is plenty of literature in this regard.”

“They make these claims as if quality studies contradicting their guidelines have not been out there for years,” Dr. Brian Batcheldor said. “What about the huge demographic with diseases that impact intestinal absorption, eg, Crohn’s and celiac disease, cystic fibrosis, and ulcerative colitis? What about the one in nine that now have autoimmune diseases still awaiting diagnosis? What about night workers or anyone with more restricted access to sun exposure? How about those whose cultural or religious dress code limit skin exposure?”

The latter group was also mentioned in a post from Dr. Eve Finkelstein who said, “They don’t take into account women who are totally covered for religious reasons. They have no skin other than part of their face exposed. It does not make sense not to supplement them. Ignoring women’s health needs seems to be the norm.”

“I don’t think they considered the oral health effects of vitamin D deficiency,” pointed out commenter Corie Lewis. “Excess dental calculus (tartar) from excess calcium/phosphate in saliva significantly increases an individual’s periodontal disease risks (gum disease), and low saliva calcium/phosphate increases dental caries (cavities) risks, which generally indicates an imbalance of the oral microbiome. Vitamin D can help create balance and reduce those oral health risks.”

Noted Kimberley Morris-Windisch, “Having worked in rheumatology and pain for most of my career, I have seen too many people benefit from correcting deficiency of vitamin D. To ignore this is to miss opportunities to improve patient health.” Furthermore, “I find it unlikely that it would only improve mortality after age 75. That makes no sense.”

“Also,” she added, “what is the number [needed] to harm? In my 25 years, I have seen vitamin D toxicity once and an excessively high level without symptoms one other time.”

“WHY? Just WHY?” lamented Anne Kinchen. “Low levels in pregnant women have long-term effects on the developing fetus — higher and earlier rates of osteopenia in female children, weaker immune systems overall. There are just SO many reasons to test. These guidelines for no testing are absurd!”
 

No Screening, No Need for Decision-Making?

Several readers questioned the society’s rationale for not screening, as expressed by session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine.

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it,” Dr. Rosen said. “That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen. ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life. ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Among the reader comments in this regard:

“So misguided. Don’t look because we don’t know what do to with data. That’s the message this article exposes. The recommendation is do nothing. But, doing nothing IS an action — not a default.” (Lisa Tracy)

“So now, you will not screen for vitamin D because you do not know what to do next? See a naturopathic doctor — we know what to do next!” (Dr. Joyce Roberson)

“Gee, how do we treat it? ... What to do? Sounds incompetent at minimum. I suspect it’s vital, easy, and inexpensive ... so hide it.” (Holly Kohley)

“Just because we do not know is not a rationale for not testing. The opposite should be done.” (Dr. JJ Gold)
 

Caters to Industry?

Many commentators intimated that pharma and/or insurance company considerations played a role in the recommendations. Their comments included the following:

“I have been under the impression people do routine checkups to verify there are no hidden problems. If only some testing is done, the probability of not finding a problem is huge. ... Preventive healthcare should be looking for something to prevent instead of waiting until they can cure it. Of course, it might come back to ‘follow the money.’ It is much more profitable to diagnose and treat than it is to prevent.” (Grace Kyser)

“The current irrational ‘recommendation’ gives insurance companies an excuse to deny ALL tests of vitamin D — even if the proper code is supplied. The result is — people suffer. This recommendation does harm!” (Dr JJ Gold)

“Essentially, they are saying let’s not screen ‘healthy’ individuals and ignore it altogether. Better to wait till they’re old, pregnant, or already sick and diagnosed with a disease. This is the problem with the healthcare in this country.” (Brittney Lesher)

“Until allopathic medicine stops waiting for severe symptoms to develop before even screening for potential health problems, the most expensive healthcare (aka, sick care) system in the world will continue to be content to focus on medical emergencies and ignore prevention. ...” (Dean Raffelock)

“Don’t test? Are you kidding me? Especially when people are supplementing? That is akin to taking a blood pressure medication without measuring blood pressures! ... Don’t test? Don’t supplement? ... I have only one explanation for such nonsense: Pharma lives off sick people, not healthy ones.” (Georg Schlomka)

On a somewhat conciliatory and pointed note, Dr Francesca Luna-Rudin commented, “I would like to remind all of my fellow physicians that recommendations should be regarded as just that, a ‘recommendation.’ As doctors, we can use guidelines and recommendations in our practice, but if a new one is presented that does not make sense or would lead to harm based on our education and training, then we are not bound to follow it!”

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

A recent report by this news organization of a vitamin D clinical practice guideline released by the Endocrine Society in June triggered an outpouring of objections in the comments section from doctors and other readers.

A society press release listed the key new recommendations on the use of vitamin D supplementation and screening to reduce disease risks in individuals without established indications for such treatment or testing:

• For healthy adults younger than 75, no supplementation at doses above the recommended dietary intakes.
• Populations that may benefit from higher doses include: children and adolescents 18 and younger to prevent rickets and to reduce risk for respiratory infection, individuals 75 and older to possibly lower mortality risk, “pregnant people” to potentially reduce various risks, and people with prediabetes to potentially reduce risk of progression.
• No routine testing for 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels because outcome-specific benefits based on those levels have not been identified (including screening in people with dark complexion or obesity).
• Based on insufficient evidence, the panel could not determine specific blood-level thresholds for 25-hydroxyvitamin D for adequacy or for target levels for disease prevention.

This news organization covered the guideline release and simultaneous presentation at the Endocrine Society annual meeting. In response to the coverage, more than 200 doctors and other readers expressed concerns about the guideline, and some said outright that they would not follow it (readers quoted below are identified by the usernames they registered with on the website).

One reader who posted as Dr. Joseph Destefano went so far as to call the guideline “dangerous” and “almost ... evil.” Ironically, some readers attacked this news organization, thinking that the coverage implied an endorsement, rather than a news report.
 

Ignores Potential Benefits

Although the guideline is said to be for people who are “otherwise healthy” (other than the exceptions noted above), many readers were concerned that the recommendations ignore the potential benefits of supplementation for other health conditions relevant to patients and other populations.

“They address issues dealing only with endocrinology and bone health for the most part,” Dr. Emilio Gonzalez wrote. “However, vitamin D insufficiency and deficiency are not rare, and they impact the treatment of autoimmune disorders, chronic pain control, immunosuppression, cancer prevention, cardiovascular health, etc. There is plenty of literature in this regard.”

“They make these claims as if quality studies contradicting their guidelines have not been out there for years,” Dr. Brian Batcheldor said. “What about the huge demographic with diseases that impact intestinal absorption, eg, Crohn’s and celiac disease, cystic fibrosis, and ulcerative colitis? What about the one in nine that now have autoimmune diseases still awaiting diagnosis? What about night workers or anyone with more restricted access to sun exposure? How about those whose cultural or religious dress code limit skin exposure?”

The latter group was also mentioned in a post from Dr. Eve Finkelstein who said, “They don’t take into account women who are totally covered for religious reasons. They have no skin other than part of their face exposed. It does not make sense not to supplement them. Ignoring women’s health needs seems to be the norm.”

“I don’t think they considered the oral health effects of vitamin D deficiency,” pointed out commenter Corie Lewis. “Excess dental calculus (tartar) from excess calcium/phosphate in saliva significantly increases an individual’s periodontal disease risks (gum disease), and low saliva calcium/phosphate increases dental caries (cavities) risks, which generally indicates an imbalance of the oral microbiome. Vitamin D can help create balance and reduce those oral health risks.”

Noted Kimberley Morris-Windisch, “Having worked in rheumatology and pain for most of my career, I have seen too many people benefit from correcting deficiency of vitamin D. To ignore this is to miss opportunities to improve patient health.” Furthermore, “I find it unlikely that it would only improve mortality after age 75. That makes no sense.”

“Also,” she added, “what is the number [needed] to harm? In my 25 years, I have seen vitamin D toxicity once and an excessively high level without symptoms one other time.”

“WHY? Just WHY?” lamented Anne Kinchen. “Low levels in pregnant women have long-term effects on the developing fetus — higher and earlier rates of osteopenia in female children, weaker immune systems overall. There are just SO many reasons to test. These guidelines for no testing are absurd!”
 

No Screening, No Need for Decision-Making?

Several readers questioned the society’s rationale for not screening, as expressed by session moderator Clifford J. Rosen, MD, director of Clinical and Translational Research and senior scientist at Maine Medical Center Research Institute, Scarborough, Maine.

“When clinicians measure vitamin D, then they’re forced to make a decision what to do about it,” Dr. Rosen said. “That’s where questions about the levels come in. And that’s a big problem. So what the panel’s saying is, don’t screen. ... This really gets to the heart of the issue, because we have no data that there’s anything about screening that allows us to improve quality of life. ... Screening is probably not worthwhile in any age group.”

Among the reader comments in this regard:

“So misguided. Don’t look because we don’t know what do to with data. That’s the message this article exposes. The recommendation is do nothing. But, doing nothing IS an action — not a default.” (Lisa Tracy)

“So now, you will not screen for vitamin D because you do not know what to do next? See a naturopathic doctor — we know what to do next!” (Dr. Joyce Roberson)

“Gee, how do we treat it? ... What to do? Sounds incompetent at minimum. I suspect it’s vital, easy, and inexpensive ... so hide it.” (Holly Kohley)

“Just because we do not know is not a rationale for not testing. The opposite should be done.” (Dr. JJ Gold)
 

Caters to Industry?

Many commentators intimated that pharma and/or insurance company considerations played a role in the recommendations. Their comments included the following:

“I have been under the impression people do routine checkups to verify there are no hidden problems. If only some testing is done, the probability of not finding a problem is huge. ... Preventive healthcare should be looking for something to prevent instead of waiting until they can cure it. Of course, it might come back to ‘follow the money.’ It is much more profitable to diagnose and treat than it is to prevent.” (Grace Kyser)

“The current irrational ‘recommendation’ gives insurance companies an excuse to deny ALL tests of vitamin D — even if the proper code is supplied. The result is — people suffer. This recommendation does harm!” (Dr JJ Gold)

“Essentially, they are saying let’s not screen ‘healthy’ individuals and ignore it altogether. Better to wait till they’re old, pregnant, or already sick and diagnosed with a disease. This is the problem with the healthcare in this country.” (Brittney Lesher)

“Until allopathic medicine stops waiting for severe symptoms to develop before even screening for potential health problems, the most expensive healthcare (aka, sick care) system in the world will continue to be content to focus on medical emergencies and ignore prevention. ...” (Dean Raffelock)

“Don’t test? Are you kidding me? Especially when people are supplementing? That is akin to taking a blood pressure medication without measuring blood pressures! ... Don’t test? Don’t supplement? ... I have only one explanation for such nonsense: Pharma lives off sick people, not healthy ones.” (Georg Schlomka)

On a somewhat conciliatory and pointed note, Dr Francesca Luna-Rudin commented, “I would like to remind all of my fellow physicians that recommendations should be regarded as just that, a ‘recommendation.’ As doctors, we can use guidelines and recommendations in our practice, but if a new one is presented that does not make sense or would lead to harm based on our education and training, then we are not bound to follow it!”

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

Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.

The 2025 draft base rate, or conversion factor, is slated to drop to $32.36 from the current level of $33.29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.

This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.

Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.

“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”

Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.

“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”

Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.

Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.

Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.

That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.

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

Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.

The 2025 draft base rate, or conversion factor, is slated to drop to $32.36 from the current level of $33.29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.

This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.

Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.

“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”

Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.

“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”

Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.

Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.

Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.

That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.

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

Federal officials on July 11 proposed Medicare rates that effectively would cut physician pay by about 3% in 2025, touching off a fresh round of protests from medical associations.

The 2025 draft base rate, or conversion factor, is slated to drop to $32.36 from the current level of $33.29, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services said.

The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) and other groups on July 10 reiterated calls on Congress to revise the law on Medicare payment for physicians and move away from short-term tweaks.

This proposed cut is mostly due to the 5-year freeze in the physician schedule base rate mandated by the 2015 Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA). Congress designed MACRA with an aim of shifting clinicians toward programs that would peg pay increases to quality measures.

Lawmakers have since had to soften the blow of that freeze, acknowledging flaws in MACRA and inflation’s significant toll on medical practices. Yet lawmakers have made temporary fixes, such as a 2.93% increase in current payment that’s set to expire.

“Previous quick fixes have been insufficient — this situation requires a bold, substantial approach,” Bruce A. Scott, MD, the AMA president, said in a statement. “A Band-Aid goes only so far when the patient is in dire need.”

Dr. Scott noted that the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of practice cost inflation — is expected to rise by 3.6% in 2025.

“As a first step, Congress must enact an annual inflationary update to help physician payment rates keep pace with rising practice costs,” Steven P. Furr, MD, AAFP’s president, said in a statement released July 10. “Any payment reductions will threaten practices and exacerbate workforce shortages, preventing patients from accessing the primary care, behavioral health care, and other critical preventive services they need.”

Many medical groups, including the AMA, AAFP, and the Medical Group Management Association, are pressing Congress to pass a law that would tie the conversion factor of the physician fee schedule to inflation.

Influential advisory groups also have backed the idea of increasing the conversion factor. For example, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission in March recommended to Congress that it increase the 2025 conversion factor, suggesting a bump of half of the projected increase in the Medicare Economic Index.

Congress seems unlikely to revamp the physician fee schedule this year, with members spending significant time away from Washington ahead of the November election.

That could make it likely that Congress’ next action on Medicare payment rates would be another short-term tweak — instead of long-lasting change.

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

TOPLINE:

Over 5 years, dupilumab demonstrated acceptable safety and sustained efficacy, with significant improvements in the signs and symptoms of AD, in the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

METHODOLOGY:

• The phase 3 multinational LIBERTY AD open-label extension study evaluated the safety and efficacy of dupilumab in 2677 adults with moderate to severe AD who had previously participated in dupilumab trials over 5 years; 334 patients (12.5%) completed treatment up to 5 years.
• Patients started with subcutaneous dupilumab, initially dosed weekly after a loading dose, then every 2 weeks in 2019.
• The primary outcomes were the incidence and rate of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 14,717 TEAEs were reported over 5 years. The exposure-adjusted incidence rate decreased over time and was 252.48 events per 100 patient-years.
• The most common TEAEs were nasopharyngitis (28.9%), worsening AD (16.7%), upper respiratory tract infection (13.6%), conjunctivitis (10.3%), allergic conjunctivitis (9%), headache (8.1%), oral herpes (7.5%), and injection-site reactions (5.2%).
• Serious and severe TEAE rates were 10.6% and 10.0%, respectively. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates were 6.66 and 6.71 events per 100 patient-years, respectively.
• At week 260, 67.5% of patients had achieved clear or almost clear skin according to the Investigator’s Global Assessment, and 88.9% experienced a 75% or greater improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index.

IN PRACTICE:

“Safety and efficacy results from up to 5 years of dupilumab treatment in the LIBERTY AD open-label extension study support dupilumab as a continuous long-term treatment for adults with moderate to severe AD,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lisa A. Beck, MD, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, and was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included the absence of a placebo arm and treatment interruptions stemming from protocol changes. The number of patients who received biweekly doses was small. The early conclusion of the trial by the sponsor because of regulatory approval also resulted in a lower number of patients at later stages.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by dupilumab manufacturers Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Several authors declared ties with various pharmaceutical companies including Sanofi and Regeneron, and several authors were employees of Sanofi or Regeneron. No disclosures were reported by other authors.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Over 5 years, dupilumab demonstrated acceptable safety and sustained efficacy, with significant improvements in the signs and symptoms of AD, in the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

METHODOLOGY:

• The phase 3 multinational LIBERTY AD open-label extension study evaluated the safety and efficacy of dupilumab in 2677 adults with moderate to severe AD who had previously participated in dupilumab trials over 5 years; 334 patients (12.5%) completed treatment up to 5 years.
• Patients started with subcutaneous dupilumab, initially dosed weekly after a loading dose, then every 2 weeks in 2019.
• The primary outcomes were the incidence and rate of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 14,717 TEAEs were reported over 5 years. The exposure-adjusted incidence rate decreased over time and was 252.48 events per 100 patient-years.
• The most common TEAEs were nasopharyngitis (28.9%), worsening AD (16.7%), upper respiratory tract infection (13.6%), conjunctivitis (10.3%), allergic conjunctivitis (9%), headache (8.1%), oral herpes (7.5%), and injection-site reactions (5.2%).
• Serious and severe TEAE rates were 10.6% and 10.0%, respectively. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates were 6.66 and 6.71 events per 100 patient-years, respectively.
• At week 260, 67.5% of patients had achieved clear or almost clear skin according to the Investigator’s Global Assessment, and 88.9% experienced a 75% or greater improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index.

IN PRACTICE:

“Safety and efficacy results from up to 5 years of dupilumab treatment in the LIBERTY AD open-label extension study support dupilumab as a continuous long-term treatment for adults with moderate to severe AD,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lisa A. Beck, MD, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, and was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included the absence of a placebo arm and treatment interruptions stemming from protocol changes. The number of patients who received biweekly doses was small. The early conclusion of the trial by the sponsor because of regulatory approval also resulted in a lower number of patients at later stages.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by dupilumab manufacturers Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Several authors declared ties with various pharmaceutical companies including Sanofi and Regeneron, and several authors were employees of Sanofi or Regeneron. No disclosures were reported by other authors.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Over 5 years, dupilumab demonstrated acceptable safety and sustained efficacy, with significant improvements in the signs and symptoms of AD, in the treatment of moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD).

METHODOLOGY:

• The phase 3 multinational LIBERTY AD open-label extension study evaluated the safety and efficacy of dupilumab in 2677 adults with moderate to severe AD who had previously participated in dupilumab trials over 5 years; 334 patients (12.5%) completed treatment up to 5 years.
• Patients started with subcutaneous dupilumab, initially dosed weekly after a loading dose, then every 2 weeks in 2019.
• The primary outcomes were the incidence and rate of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs).

TAKEAWAY:

• Overall, 14,717 TEAEs were reported over 5 years. The exposure-adjusted incidence rate decreased over time and was 252.48 events per 100 patient-years.
• The most common TEAEs were nasopharyngitis (28.9%), worsening AD (16.7%), upper respiratory tract infection (13.6%), conjunctivitis (10.3%), allergic conjunctivitis (9%), headache (8.1%), oral herpes (7.5%), and injection-site reactions (5.2%).
• Serious and severe TEAE rates were 10.6% and 10.0%, respectively. Exposure-adjusted incidence rates were 6.66 and 6.71 events per 100 patient-years, respectively.
• At week 260, 67.5% of patients had achieved clear or almost clear skin according to the Investigator’s Global Assessment, and 88.9% experienced a 75% or greater improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index.

IN PRACTICE:

“Safety and efficacy results from up to 5 years of dupilumab treatment in the LIBERTY AD open-label extension study support dupilumab as a continuous long-term treatment for adults with moderate to severe AD,” the authors concluded.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Lisa A. Beck, MD, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, and was published online in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Study limitations included the absence of a placebo arm and treatment interruptions stemming from protocol changes. The number of patients who received biweekly doses was small. The early conclusion of the trial by the sponsor because of regulatory approval also resulted in a lower number of patients at later stages.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by dupilumab manufacturers Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals. Several authors declared ties with various pharmaceutical companies including Sanofi and Regeneron, and several authors were employees of Sanofi or Regeneron. No disclosures were reported by other authors.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

A higher intake of ultraprocessed foods increases the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by over 50% in women. The risk doubled in those with anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed 204,175 women from two Nurses’ Health Study cohorts from 1984 to 2016.
• Participants completed semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires every 4 years for the assessment of dietary intake.
• Incident SLE cases were self-reported and confirmed using medical records, with 212 cases identified.

TAKEAWAY:

• A higher cumulative average daily intake of ultraprocessed foods was associated with a 56% increased risk for SLE (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.32).
• The risk for anti–double-stranded DNA antibody-positive SLE was more than doubled (hazard ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.15-3.65).
• Sugar or artificially sweetened beverages were associated with a 45% increased risk for SLE (95% CI, 1.01-2.09).
• No significant interactions with body mass index were observed in the association between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE.

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practical application.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sinara Rossato, PhD, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. It was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s generalizability is limited due to the predominantly White female population of registered nurses. The relatively high baseline age of participants may not fully capture the peak incidence age range for SLE. The observational nature of the study cannot establish causality between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE risk.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors did not declare any competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

A higher intake of ultraprocessed foods increases the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by over 50% in women. The risk doubled in those with anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed 204,175 women from two Nurses’ Health Study cohorts from 1984 to 2016.
• Participants completed semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires every 4 years for the assessment of dietary intake.
• Incident SLE cases were self-reported and confirmed using medical records, with 212 cases identified.

TAKEAWAY:

• A higher cumulative average daily intake of ultraprocessed foods was associated with a 56% increased risk for SLE (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.32).
• The risk for anti–double-stranded DNA antibody-positive SLE was more than doubled (hazard ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.15-3.65).
• Sugar or artificially sweetened beverages were associated with a 45% increased risk for SLE (95% CI, 1.01-2.09).
• No significant interactions with body mass index were observed in the association between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE.

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practical application.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sinara Rossato, PhD, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. It was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s generalizability is limited due to the predominantly White female population of registered nurses. The relatively high baseline age of participants may not fully capture the peak incidence age range for SLE. The observational nature of the study cannot establish causality between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE risk.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors did not declare any competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

TOPLINE:

A higher intake of ultraprocessed foods increases the risk for systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) by over 50% in women. The risk doubled in those with anti–double-stranded DNA antibodies.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers assessed 204,175 women from two Nurses’ Health Study cohorts from 1984 to 2016.
• Participants completed semiquantitative food frequency questionnaires every 4 years for the assessment of dietary intake.
• Incident SLE cases were self-reported and confirmed using medical records, with 212 cases identified.

TAKEAWAY:

• A higher cumulative average daily intake of ultraprocessed foods was associated with a 56% increased risk for SLE (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-2.32).
• The risk for anti–double-stranded DNA antibody-positive SLE was more than doubled (hazard ratio, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.15-3.65).
• Sugar or artificially sweetened beverages were associated with a 45% increased risk for SLE (95% CI, 1.01-2.09).
• No significant interactions with body mass index were observed in the association between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE.

IN PRACTICE:

This study is too preliminary to have practical application.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sinara Rossato, PhD, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston. It was published online in Arthritis Care & Research.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s generalizability is limited due to the predominantly White female population of registered nurses. The relatively high baseline age of participants may not fully capture the peak incidence age range for SLE. The observational nature of the study cannot establish causality between ultraprocessed food intake and SLE risk.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Institutes of Health. The authors did not declare any competing interests.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.

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

A Seattle plastic surgeon who illegally restricted patients from posting negative reviews about his practice and directed his staff to post fake positive reviews will pay $5 million for violating Washington state’s consumer protection law.

According to a July 1 consent decree, Javad Sajan, MD, and his practice Allure Esthetic must pay $1.5 million in restitution to 21,000 patients and $3.5 million to the state for manipulation of patient ratings.

The settlement resolves a federal lawsuit brought by Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson that accused the doctor of illegally suppressing patients’ negative reviews by “forcing” them to sign nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) before they received care. In an April decision, US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez sided with the state, ruling that Allure Esthetic’s actions violated the federal Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA).

“Writing a truthful review about a business should not subject you to threats or intimidation,” Mr. Ferguson said in a July 2 statement. “Consumers rely on reviews when determining who to trust, especially services that affect their health and safety. This resolution holds Allure accountable for brazenly violating that trust — and the law — and ensures the clinic stops its harmful conduct.”

In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys had argued that the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them.

The surgeon’s practice is “pleased to have resolved its case with the Attorney General’s Office,” according to a statement provided by Dr. Sajan’s attorney. “The cooperative settlement, while not admitting fault and resolving claims asserted by both sides, allows Allure Esthetic to continue to focus on its core mission of providing compassionate care to patients and serving the community. The decision to settle was not an easy one, but it was necessary to allocate time and resources where they matter most — the patients.” 

The dispute stemmed from NDAs that Dr. Sajan’s practice required patients to sign starting in 2017, according to Mr. Ferguson’s complaint. The terms instructed patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review.

If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the lawsuit. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents.

In addition, Mr. Ferguson accused Dr. Sajan of creating fake positive accounts of patient experiences and buying fake followers on social media. State investigators found Dr. Sajan directed Allure Esthetic’s employees to create fake Gmail accounts to post the false reviews, many of which are still online today, according to the state’s complaint.

Mr. Ferguson also claimed Dr. Sajan and his practice manipulated social media to appear more popular by purchasing followers through an online vendor. The practice also allegedly used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media.

After filing the lawsuit, Mr. Ferguson’s office uncovered further evidence of Dr. Sajan’s efforts to influence his professional reputation through fabrication, according to the July 2 release. Allure Esthetic “rigged” “best doctor” competitions hosted by local media outlets by paying staff and contractors to vote for Dr. Sajan as “best plastic surgeon” in the region, according to the release. The staff cast as many votes as websites allowed, despite not being patients of Allure Esthetic.

The practice also allegedly edited before-and-after photos of patients to make their results appear better and kept tens of thousands of dollars in rebates intended for its patients.

In addition to paying $5 million, the consent decree requires Dr. Sajan and his practice also:

• Stop posting or influencing consumer reviews; perform a full audit of all public reviews on Google, Yelp, and other third-party review platforms; and request removal of every review Allure Esthetic was involved in creating, posting, or shaping in any manner.
• Remove all misleading “before-and-after” photographs of plastic surgery procedures from its website and social media and stop altering photographs of future procedures.
• Cease use of and attempts to enforce all illegal NDAs and notify patients who previously signed them that they are released from the terms of those NDAs.
• Pay a third-party forensic accounting firm to perform a full, independent audit of Allure Esthetic’s consumer rebate program to identify consumers who are owed rebates that were unlawfully claimed by Allure Esthetic.

Additionally, the attorney general’s office will continue to monitor Allure Esthetic, and upon request, the practice must provide information that demonstrates its compliance with the consent decree for the next 10 years.

The practice must also develop internal policies and implement a training program to educate staff about nondeceptive advertising and compliance with consumer protection laws.

Dr. Sajan and his practice agreed to the terms of the consent decree, and the settlement is not considered an admission of liability.

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

A Seattle plastic surgeon who illegally restricted patients from posting negative reviews about his practice and directed his staff to post fake positive reviews will pay $5 million for violating Washington state’s consumer protection law.

According to a July 1 consent decree, Javad Sajan, MD, and his practice Allure Esthetic must pay $1.5 million in restitution to 21,000 patients and $3.5 million to the state for manipulation of patient ratings.

The settlement resolves a federal lawsuit brought by Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson that accused the doctor of illegally suppressing patients’ negative reviews by “forcing” them to sign nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) before they received care. In an April decision, US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez sided with the state, ruling that Allure Esthetic’s actions violated the federal Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA).

“Writing a truthful review about a business should not subject you to threats or intimidation,” Mr. Ferguson said in a July 2 statement. “Consumers rely on reviews when determining who to trust, especially services that affect their health and safety. This resolution holds Allure accountable for brazenly violating that trust — and the law — and ensures the clinic stops its harmful conduct.”

In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys had argued that the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them.

The surgeon’s practice is “pleased to have resolved its case with the Attorney General’s Office,” according to a statement provided by Dr. Sajan’s attorney. “The cooperative settlement, while not admitting fault and resolving claims asserted by both sides, allows Allure Esthetic to continue to focus on its core mission of providing compassionate care to patients and serving the community. The decision to settle was not an easy one, but it was necessary to allocate time and resources where they matter most — the patients.” 

The dispute stemmed from NDAs that Dr. Sajan’s practice required patients to sign starting in 2017, according to Mr. Ferguson’s complaint. The terms instructed patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review.

If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the lawsuit. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents.

In addition, Mr. Ferguson accused Dr. Sajan of creating fake positive accounts of patient experiences and buying fake followers on social media. State investigators found Dr. Sajan directed Allure Esthetic’s employees to create fake Gmail accounts to post the false reviews, many of which are still online today, according to the state’s complaint.

Mr. Ferguson also claimed Dr. Sajan and his practice manipulated social media to appear more popular by purchasing followers through an online vendor. The practice also allegedly used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media.

After filing the lawsuit, Mr. Ferguson’s office uncovered further evidence of Dr. Sajan’s efforts to influence his professional reputation through fabrication, according to the July 2 release. Allure Esthetic “rigged” “best doctor” competitions hosted by local media outlets by paying staff and contractors to vote for Dr. Sajan as “best plastic surgeon” in the region, according to the release. The staff cast as many votes as websites allowed, despite not being patients of Allure Esthetic.

The practice also allegedly edited before-and-after photos of patients to make their results appear better and kept tens of thousands of dollars in rebates intended for its patients.

In addition to paying $5 million, the consent decree requires Dr. Sajan and his practice also:

• Stop posting or influencing consumer reviews; perform a full audit of all public reviews on Google, Yelp, and other third-party review platforms; and request removal of every review Allure Esthetic was involved in creating, posting, or shaping in any manner.
• Remove all misleading “before-and-after” photographs of plastic surgery procedures from its website and social media and stop altering photographs of future procedures.
• Cease use of and attempts to enforce all illegal NDAs and notify patients who previously signed them that they are released from the terms of those NDAs.
• Pay a third-party forensic accounting firm to perform a full, independent audit of Allure Esthetic’s consumer rebate program to identify consumers who are owed rebates that were unlawfully claimed by Allure Esthetic.

Additionally, the attorney general’s office will continue to monitor Allure Esthetic, and upon request, the practice must provide information that demonstrates its compliance with the consent decree for the next 10 years.

The practice must also develop internal policies and implement a training program to educate staff about nondeceptive advertising and compliance with consumer protection laws.

Dr. Sajan and his practice agreed to the terms of the consent decree, and the settlement is not considered an admission of liability.

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

A Seattle plastic surgeon who illegally restricted patients from posting negative reviews about his practice and directed his staff to post fake positive reviews will pay $5 million for violating Washington state’s consumer protection law.

According to a July 1 consent decree, Javad Sajan, MD, and his practice Allure Esthetic must pay $1.5 million in restitution to 21,000 patients and $3.5 million to the state for manipulation of patient ratings.

The settlement resolves a federal lawsuit brought by Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson that accused the doctor of illegally suppressing patients’ negative reviews by “forcing” them to sign nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) before they received care. In an April decision, US District Judge Ricardo S. Martinez sided with the state, ruling that Allure Esthetic’s actions violated the federal Consumer Review Fairness Act (CRFA).

“Writing a truthful review about a business should not subject you to threats or intimidation,” Mr. Ferguson said in a July 2 statement. “Consumers rely on reviews when determining who to trust, especially services that affect their health and safety. This resolution holds Allure accountable for brazenly violating that trust — and the law — and ensures the clinic stops its harmful conduct.”

In court documents, Dr. Sajan’s attorneys had argued that the agreements did not violate CRFA because patients had the opportunity to modify the language or decline signing them.

The surgeon’s practice is “pleased to have resolved its case with the Attorney General’s Office,” according to a statement provided by Dr. Sajan’s attorney. “The cooperative settlement, while not admitting fault and resolving claims asserted by both sides, allows Allure Esthetic to continue to focus on its core mission of providing compassionate care to patients and serving the community. The decision to settle was not an easy one, but it was necessary to allocate time and resources where they matter most — the patients.” 

The dispute stemmed from NDAs that Dr. Sajan’s practice required patients to sign starting in 2017, according to Mr. Ferguson’s complaint. The terms instructed patients to contact the business directly if they had concerns rather than post a negative review.

If patients posted negative reviews, the clinic, in some cases, threatened litigation, according to the lawsuit. In other cases, patients were allegedly offered money and free services in exchange for taking the reviews down. Patients who accepted cash or services were required to sign a second agreement forbidding them from posting future negative reviews and imposing a $250,000 penalty for failure to comply, according to court documents.

In addition, Mr. Ferguson accused Dr. Sajan of creating fake positive accounts of patient experiences and buying fake followers on social media. State investigators found Dr. Sajan directed Allure Esthetic’s employees to create fake Gmail accounts to post the false reviews, many of which are still online today, according to the state’s complaint.

Mr. Ferguson also claimed Dr. Sajan and his practice manipulated social media to appear more popular by purchasing followers through an online vendor. The practice also allegedly used a social media bot tool to buy thousands of fake likes on Instagram, YouTube, and other social media.

After filing the lawsuit, Mr. Ferguson’s office uncovered further evidence of Dr. Sajan’s efforts to influence his professional reputation through fabrication, according to the July 2 release. Allure Esthetic “rigged” “best doctor” competitions hosted by local media outlets by paying staff and contractors to vote for Dr. Sajan as “best plastic surgeon” in the region, according to the release. The staff cast as many votes as websites allowed, despite not being patients of Allure Esthetic.

The practice also allegedly edited before-and-after photos of patients to make their results appear better and kept tens of thousands of dollars in rebates intended for its patients.

In addition to paying $5 million, the consent decree requires Dr. Sajan and his practice also:

• Stop posting or influencing consumer reviews; perform a full audit of all public reviews on Google, Yelp, and other third-party review platforms; and request removal of every review Allure Esthetic was involved in creating, posting, or shaping in any manner.
• Remove all misleading “before-and-after” photographs of plastic surgery procedures from its website and social media and stop altering photographs of future procedures.
• Cease use of and attempts to enforce all illegal NDAs and notify patients who previously signed them that they are released from the terms of those NDAs.
• Pay a third-party forensic accounting firm to perform a full, independent audit of Allure Esthetic’s consumer rebate program to identify consumers who are owed rebates that were unlawfully claimed by Allure Esthetic.

Additionally, the attorney general’s office will continue to monitor Allure Esthetic, and upon request, the practice must provide information that demonstrates its compliance with the consent decree for the next 10 years.

The practice must also develop internal policies and implement a training program to educate staff about nondeceptive advertising and compliance with consumer protection laws.

Dr. Sajan and his practice agreed to the terms of the consent decree, and the settlement is not considered an admission of liability.

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

Moving for any new opportunity in medicine can feel like starting a new life, not just a new job. This is especially true for residency or fellowships, as taking a step forward in your career is exciting. But in the process, you may be leaving family and friends for an unknown city or region where you will need to find a community. And the changes could be long-term. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges’ 2023 Report on Residents, 57.1% of the individuals who completed residency training between 2013 and 2022 are still practicing in the state where they completed their residency.

The process of planning out the right timeline; securing a comfortable, convenient, and affordable place to live; and meeting people while working long hours in an unfamiliar location can be overwhelming. And in the case of many residency programs and healthcare settings, financial assistance, relocation information, and other resources are scarce.

This news organization spoke to recent residents and medical school faculty members about how to navigate a medical move and set yourself up for success.
 

1. Find Relocation Resources

First things first. Find out what your program or hospital has to offer.

Some institutions help incoming residents by providing housing options or information. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Real Estate Division, for example, provides off-campus housing resources that guide new residents and faculty toward safe, convenient places to live in New York City. It also guarantees on-campus or block-leased housing offers to all incoming residents who apply.

Michael Leitman, MD, FACS, professor of surgery and medical education and dean for Graduate Medical Education at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, recommends connecting with colleagues at your program for guidance on navigating a new city and a new healthcare setting. He encourages incoming residents to use the contact information they receive during the interview and orientation processes to reach out to co-residents and faculty members.

Other residency programs offer partial reimbursement or need-based financial aid to help with the expense of relocation. But this is unlikely to cover all or even most of the cost of a cross-country move.

When Morgen Owens, MD, moved from Alabama to New York City for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency at Mount Sinai in 2021, her program offered subsidized housing options. But there was little reimbursement for relocation. She paid around $3000 for a one-way rental truck, gas, one night in a hotel, and movers to unload her belongings. She says driving herself kept the price down because full-service movers would have cost her between $4000 and $6000.

If this will strain your finances, several banks offer loans specifically for medical school graduates to cover residency and internship expenses. But be aware that these loans tend to have higher interest rates than federal student loans because they are based on credit score rather than fixed.
 

2. Reach Out and Buddy Up

Reaching out to more senior residents is essential, and some programs facilitate a buddy system for relocation advice.

Family physician Mursal Sekandari, MD, known as “Dr. Mursi,” attended a residency program at St. Luke’s University Hospital–Bethlehem Campus, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The program’s official buddy system paired her with a senior resident who advised her on the area and gave tips for her apartment search.

On the other hand, when America Revere, MD, moved from Texas to Georgia for a surgery residency, she found that her program offered little relocation assistance, financial or otherwise. She leaned on her co-residents, and especially senior ones, for support while she settled in.

Dr. Revere also discovered the importance of accepting invitations to events hosted by both her fellow residents and her program itself, especially in the early stages of residency. “Accepting social invitations is really the only way to get to know people,” she said. “Sure, you’ll meet people at work and get to know their ‘work’ personalities.” But Dr. Revere’s attendings also threw parties, which she says were a great way to connect with a wider group and build a community.

To meet people both within and beyond her own residency program, Dr. Owens joined a group chat for physical medicine and rehab residents in the New York City area. She suggests looking into GroupMe or WhatsApp groups specific to your specialty.
 

3. Play the ‘Doctor Card’

Finding a place to live in an unfamiliar and competitive housing market can be one of the biggest challenges of any move. Dr. Owens’ options were limited by owning a dog, which wouldn’t be allowed in her hospital’s subsidized housing. Instead, she opted to find her own apartment in New York City. Her strategy: Playing the “doctor card.”

“I explained my situation: ‘I’m a doctor moving from out of state,’ ” Owens said. “Own that! These companies and brokers will look at you as a student and think, ‘Oh, she has no money, she has no savings, she’s got all of these loans, how is she going to pay for this apartment?’ But you have to say, ‘I’m a doctor. I’m an incoming resident who has X amount of years of job security. I’m not going to lose my job while living here.’ ”
 

4. Move Early

Dr. Revere found it important to move into her new home 2 weeks before the start of her residency program. Moving in early allowed her to settle in, get to know her area, neighbors, and co-residents, and generally prepare for her first day. It also gave her time to put furniture together — her new vanity alone took 12 hours.

Having a larger window of time before residency can also benefit those who hire movers or have their furniture shipped. When it comes to a cross-country move, it can take a few days to a few weeks for the truck to arrive — which could translate to a few nights or a few weeks without a bed.

“When residency comes, it comes fast,” Dr. Revere said. “It’s very confusing, and the last thing you need is to have half of your stuff unpacked or have no idea where you are or know nobody around you.”
 

5. Make Your New Home Your Sanctuary

During the stress of residency, your home can be a source of peace, and finding that might require trade-offs.

Dr. Sekandari’s parents urged her to live with roommates to save money on rent, but she insisted that spending more for solitude would be worth it. For her first year of residency, she barely saw her apartment. But when she did, she felt grateful to be in such a tranquil place to ease some of the stress of studying. “If you feel uncomfortable while you’re dealing with something stressful, the stress just exponentially increases,” she said. Creating an environment where you can really relax “makes a difference in how you respond to everything else around you.”

Dr. Revere agrees, urging medical professionals — and particularly residents — to invest in the most comfortable mattresses and bedding they can. Whether you are working nights, she also recommends blackout curtains to help facilitate daytime naps or better sleep in general, especially among the bright lights of bigger cities.

“You’re going to need somewhere to decompress,” she said. “That will look different for everyone. But I would definitely invest in your apartment to make it a sanctuary away from work.”
 

6. Consider a ‘Live’ Stress Reliever

When it comes to crucial stress relief during residency, “I like mine live,” Dr. Revere said in a YouTube vlog while petting her cat, Calyx.

Taking on the added responsibility of a pet during residency or any medical role may seem counterintuitive. But Revere has zero regrets about bringing Calyx along on her journey. “Cats are very easy,” she said. “I have nothing but wonderful things to say about having a cat during my difficult surgical residency.”

Dr. Owens admits that moving to New York City with her dog was difficult during her first years of residency. She worked an average of 80 hours each week and had little time for walks. She made room in her budget for dog walkers. Thankfully, her hours have eased up as she has progressed through her program, and she can now take her dog on longer walks every day. “He definitely has a better life now that I work fewer hours,” she said.

Once you’ve prepared, made the move, and found your village, it’s time for the real work to begin. “The first couple of months are certainly a challenge of adjusting to a new hospital, a new electronic medical record, a new culture, and a new geographic location,” said Dr. Leitman, who has relocated several times. “But at the end of the day ... it’s you and the patient.” By minimizing stress and getting the support you need, it can even be “a fun process,” Dr. Mursi added, “so make it an exciting chapter in your life.”

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

Moving for any new opportunity in medicine can feel like starting a new life, not just a new job. This is especially true for residency or fellowships, as taking a step forward in your career is exciting. But in the process, you may be leaving family and friends for an unknown city or region where you will need to find a community. And the changes could be long-term. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges’ 2023 Report on Residents, 57.1% of the individuals who completed residency training between 2013 and 2022 are still practicing in the state where they completed their residency.

The process of planning out the right timeline; securing a comfortable, convenient, and affordable place to live; and meeting people while working long hours in an unfamiliar location can be overwhelming. And in the case of many residency programs and healthcare settings, financial assistance, relocation information, and other resources are scarce.

This news organization spoke to recent residents and medical school faculty members about how to navigate a medical move and set yourself up for success.
 

1. Find Relocation Resources

First things first. Find out what your program or hospital has to offer.

Some institutions help incoming residents by providing housing options or information. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Real Estate Division, for example, provides off-campus housing resources that guide new residents and faculty toward safe, convenient places to live in New York City. It also guarantees on-campus or block-leased housing offers to all incoming residents who apply.

Michael Leitman, MD, FACS, professor of surgery and medical education and dean for Graduate Medical Education at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, recommends connecting with colleagues at your program for guidance on navigating a new city and a new healthcare setting. He encourages incoming residents to use the contact information they receive during the interview and orientation processes to reach out to co-residents and faculty members.

Other residency programs offer partial reimbursement or need-based financial aid to help with the expense of relocation. But this is unlikely to cover all or even most of the cost of a cross-country move.

When Morgen Owens, MD, moved from Alabama to New York City for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency at Mount Sinai in 2021, her program offered subsidized housing options. But there was little reimbursement for relocation. She paid around $3000 for a one-way rental truck, gas, one night in a hotel, and movers to unload her belongings. She says driving herself kept the price down because full-service movers would have cost her between $4000 and $6000.

If this will strain your finances, several banks offer loans specifically for medical school graduates to cover residency and internship expenses. But be aware that these loans tend to have higher interest rates than federal student loans because they are based on credit score rather than fixed.
 

2. Reach Out and Buddy Up

Reaching out to more senior residents is essential, and some programs facilitate a buddy system for relocation advice.

Family physician Mursal Sekandari, MD, known as “Dr. Mursi,” attended a residency program at St. Luke’s University Hospital–Bethlehem Campus, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The program’s official buddy system paired her with a senior resident who advised her on the area and gave tips for her apartment search.

On the other hand, when America Revere, MD, moved from Texas to Georgia for a surgery residency, she found that her program offered little relocation assistance, financial or otherwise. She leaned on her co-residents, and especially senior ones, for support while she settled in.

Dr. Revere also discovered the importance of accepting invitations to events hosted by both her fellow residents and her program itself, especially in the early stages of residency. “Accepting social invitations is really the only way to get to know people,” she said. “Sure, you’ll meet people at work and get to know their ‘work’ personalities.” But Dr. Revere’s attendings also threw parties, which she says were a great way to connect with a wider group and build a community.

To meet people both within and beyond her own residency program, Dr. Owens joined a group chat for physical medicine and rehab residents in the New York City area. She suggests looking into GroupMe or WhatsApp groups specific to your specialty.
 

3. Play the ‘Doctor Card’

Finding a place to live in an unfamiliar and competitive housing market can be one of the biggest challenges of any move. Dr. Owens’ options were limited by owning a dog, which wouldn’t be allowed in her hospital’s subsidized housing. Instead, she opted to find her own apartment in New York City. Her strategy: Playing the “doctor card.”

“I explained my situation: ‘I’m a doctor moving from out of state,’ ” Owens said. “Own that! These companies and brokers will look at you as a student and think, ‘Oh, she has no money, she has no savings, she’s got all of these loans, how is she going to pay for this apartment?’ But you have to say, ‘I’m a doctor. I’m an incoming resident who has X amount of years of job security. I’m not going to lose my job while living here.’ ”
 

4. Move Early

Dr. Revere found it important to move into her new home 2 weeks before the start of her residency program. Moving in early allowed her to settle in, get to know her area, neighbors, and co-residents, and generally prepare for her first day. It also gave her time to put furniture together — her new vanity alone took 12 hours.

Having a larger window of time before residency can also benefit those who hire movers or have their furniture shipped. When it comes to a cross-country move, it can take a few days to a few weeks for the truck to arrive — which could translate to a few nights or a few weeks without a bed.

“When residency comes, it comes fast,” Dr. Revere said. “It’s very confusing, and the last thing you need is to have half of your stuff unpacked or have no idea where you are or know nobody around you.”
 

5. Make Your New Home Your Sanctuary

During the stress of residency, your home can be a source of peace, and finding that might require trade-offs.

Dr. Sekandari’s parents urged her to live with roommates to save money on rent, but she insisted that spending more for solitude would be worth it. For her first year of residency, she barely saw her apartment. But when she did, she felt grateful to be in such a tranquil place to ease some of the stress of studying. “If you feel uncomfortable while you’re dealing with something stressful, the stress just exponentially increases,” she said. Creating an environment where you can really relax “makes a difference in how you respond to everything else around you.”

Dr. Revere agrees, urging medical professionals — and particularly residents — to invest in the most comfortable mattresses and bedding they can. Whether you are working nights, she also recommends blackout curtains to help facilitate daytime naps or better sleep in general, especially among the bright lights of bigger cities.

“You’re going to need somewhere to decompress,” she said. “That will look different for everyone. But I would definitely invest in your apartment to make it a sanctuary away from work.”
 

6. Consider a ‘Live’ Stress Reliever

When it comes to crucial stress relief during residency, “I like mine live,” Dr. Revere said in a YouTube vlog while petting her cat, Calyx.

Taking on the added responsibility of a pet during residency or any medical role may seem counterintuitive. But Revere has zero regrets about bringing Calyx along on her journey. “Cats are very easy,” she said. “I have nothing but wonderful things to say about having a cat during my difficult surgical residency.”

Dr. Owens admits that moving to New York City with her dog was difficult during her first years of residency. She worked an average of 80 hours each week and had little time for walks. She made room in her budget for dog walkers. Thankfully, her hours have eased up as she has progressed through her program, and she can now take her dog on longer walks every day. “He definitely has a better life now that I work fewer hours,” she said.

Once you’ve prepared, made the move, and found your village, it’s time for the real work to begin. “The first couple of months are certainly a challenge of adjusting to a new hospital, a new electronic medical record, a new culture, and a new geographic location,” said Dr. Leitman, who has relocated several times. “But at the end of the day ... it’s you and the patient.” By minimizing stress and getting the support you need, it can even be “a fun process,” Dr. Mursi added, “so make it an exciting chapter in your life.”

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

Moving for any new opportunity in medicine can feel like starting a new life, not just a new job. This is especially true for residency or fellowships, as taking a step forward in your career is exciting. But in the process, you may be leaving family and friends for an unknown city or region where you will need to find a community. And the changes could be long-term. According to the Association of American Medical Colleges’ 2023 Report on Residents, 57.1% of the individuals who completed residency training between 2013 and 2022 are still practicing in the state where they completed their residency.

The process of planning out the right timeline; securing a comfortable, convenient, and affordable place to live; and meeting people while working long hours in an unfamiliar location can be overwhelming. And in the case of many residency programs and healthcare settings, financial assistance, relocation information, and other resources are scarce.

This news organization spoke to recent residents and medical school faculty members about how to navigate a medical move and set yourself up for success.
 

1. Find Relocation Resources

First things first. Find out what your program or hospital has to offer.

Some institutions help incoming residents by providing housing options or information. The Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai’s Real Estate Division, for example, provides off-campus housing resources that guide new residents and faculty toward safe, convenient places to live in New York City. It also guarantees on-campus or block-leased housing offers to all incoming residents who apply.

Michael Leitman, MD, FACS, professor of surgery and medical education and dean for Graduate Medical Education at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, recommends connecting with colleagues at your program for guidance on navigating a new city and a new healthcare setting. He encourages incoming residents to use the contact information they receive during the interview and orientation processes to reach out to co-residents and faculty members.

Other residency programs offer partial reimbursement or need-based financial aid to help with the expense of relocation. But this is unlikely to cover all or even most of the cost of a cross-country move.

When Morgen Owens, MD, moved from Alabama to New York City for a physical medicine and rehabilitation residency at Mount Sinai in 2021, her program offered subsidized housing options. But there was little reimbursement for relocation. She paid around $3000 for a one-way rental truck, gas, one night in a hotel, and movers to unload her belongings. She says driving herself kept the price down because full-service movers would have cost her between $4000 and $6000.

If this will strain your finances, several banks offer loans specifically for medical school graduates to cover residency and internship expenses. But be aware that these loans tend to have higher interest rates than federal student loans because they are based on credit score rather than fixed.
 

2. Reach Out and Buddy Up

Reaching out to more senior residents is essential, and some programs facilitate a buddy system for relocation advice.

Family physician Mursal Sekandari, MD, known as “Dr. Mursi,” attended a residency program at St. Luke’s University Hospital–Bethlehem Campus, in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The program’s official buddy system paired her with a senior resident who advised her on the area and gave tips for her apartment search.

On the other hand, when America Revere, MD, moved from Texas to Georgia for a surgery residency, she found that her program offered little relocation assistance, financial or otherwise. She leaned on her co-residents, and especially senior ones, for support while she settled in.

Dr. Revere also discovered the importance of accepting invitations to events hosted by both her fellow residents and her program itself, especially in the early stages of residency. “Accepting social invitations is really the only way to get to know people,” she said. “Sure, you’ll meet people at work and get to know their ‘work’ personalities.” But Dr. Revere’s attendings also threw parties, which she says were a great way to connect with a wider group and build a community.

To meet people both within and beyond her own residency program, Dr. Owens joined a group chat for physical medicine and rehab residents in the New York City area. She suggests looking into GroupMe or WhatsApp groups specific to your specialty.
 

3. Play the ‘Doctor Card’

Finding a place to live in an unfamiliar and competitive housing market can be one of the biggest challenges of any move. Dr. Owens’ options were limited by owning a dog, which wouldn’t be allowed in her hospital’s subsidized housing. Instead, she opted to find her own apartment in New York City. Her strategy: Playing the “doctor card.”

“I explained my situation: ‘I’m a doctor moving from out of state,’ ” Owens said. “Own that! These companies and brokers will look at you as a student and think, ‘Oh, she has no money, she has no savings, she’s got all of these loans, how is she going to pay for this apartment?’ But you have to say, ‘I’m a doctor. I’m an incoming resident who has X amount of years of job security. I’m not going to lose my job while living here.’ ”
 

4. Move Early

Dr. Revere found it important to move into her new home 2 weeks before the start of her residency program. Moving in early allowed her to settle in, get to know her area, neighbors, and co-residents, and generally prepare for her first day. It also gave her time to put furniture together — her new vanity alone took 12 hours.

Having a larger window of time before residency can also benefit those who hire movers or have their furniture shipped. When it comes to a cross-country move, it can take a few days to a few weeks for the truck to arrive — which could translate to a few nights or a few weeks without a bed.

“When residency comes, it comes fast,” Dr. Revere said. “It’s very confusing, and the last thing you need is to have half of your stuff unpacked or have no idea where you are or know nobody around you.”
 

5. Make Your New Home Your Sanctuary

During the stress of residency, your home can be a source of peace, and finding that might require trade-offs.

Dr. Sekandari’s parents urged her to live with roommates to save money on rent, but she insisted that spending more for solitude would be worth it. For her first year of residency, she barely saw her apartment. But when she did, she felt grateful to be in such a tranquil place to ease some of the stress of studying. “If you feel uncomfortable while you’re dealing with something stressful, the stress just exponentially increases,” she said. Creating an environment where you can really relax “makes a difference in how you respond to everything else around you.”

Dr. Revere agrees, urging medical professionals — and particularly residents — to invest in the most comfortable mattresses and bedding they can. Whether you are working nights, she also recommends blackout curtains to help facilitate daytime naps or better sleep in general, especially among the bright lights of bigger cities.

“You’re going to need somewhere to decompress,” she said. “That will look different for everyone. But I would definitely invest in your apartment to make it a sanctuary away from work.”
 

6. Consider a ‘Live’ Stress Reliever

When it comes to crucial stress relief during residency, “I like mine live,” Dr. Revere said in a YouTube vlog while petting her cat, Calyx.

Taking on the added responsibility of a pet during residency or any medical role may seem counterintuitive. But Revere has zero regrets about bringing Calyx along on her journey. “Cats are very easy,” she said. “I have nothing but wonderful things to say about having a cat during my difficult surgical residency.”

Dr. Owens admits that moving to New York City with her dog was difficult during her first years of residency. She worked an average of 80 hours each week and had little time for walks. She made room in her budget for dog walkers. Thankfully, her hours have eased up as she has progressed through her program, and she can now take her dog on longer walks every day. “He definitely has a better life now that I work fewer hours,” she said.

Once you’ve prepared, made the move, and found your village, it’s time for the real work to begin. “The first couple of months are certainly a challenge of adjusting to a new hospital, a new electronic medical record, a new culture, and a new geographic location,” said Dr. Leitman, who has relocated several times. “But at the end of the day ... it’s you and the patient.” By minimizing stress and getting the support you need, it can even be “a fun process,” Dr. Mursi added, “so make it an exciting chapter in your life.”

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

Patients with treatment-refractory cancers who did not meet eligibility criteria for a pan-cancer clinical trial but received waivers allowing them to participate had similar outcomes to patients who participated without waivers, a new analysis revealed.

The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”

Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.

In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.

In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.

Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing. 

The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers. 

Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.

A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.

The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).

“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.

The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.

So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.

Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.

Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”

However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.

“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with treatment-refractory cancers who did not meet eligibility criteria for a pan-cancer clinical trial but received waivers allowing them to participate had similar outcomes to patients who participated without waivers, a new analysis revealed.

The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”

Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.

In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.

In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.

Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing. 

The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers. 

Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.

A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.

The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).

“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.

The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.

So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.

Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.

Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”

However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.

“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with treatment-refractory cancers who did not meet eligibility criteria for a pan-cancer clinical trial but received waivers allowing them to participate had similar outcomes to patients who participated without waivers, a new analysis revealed.

The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”

Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.

In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.

In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.

Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing. 

The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers. 

Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.

A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.

The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).

“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.

The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.

So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.

Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.

Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”

However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.

“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.