Cutaneous eruptions from ibrutinib resembling epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor-induced dermatologic adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Ibrutinib is an oral inhibitor of Bruton tyrosine kinase that is approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for several lymphoproliferative disorders and chronic graft-versus-host disease. OBJECTIVE: To characterize cutaneous eruptions arising from ibrutinib and highlight overlap with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibitor-induced dermatologic adverse events. METHODS: Single-center retrospective cohort of patients referred to the Skin Toxicities Program for treatment of cutaneous eruptions while taking ibrutinib. RESULTS: Among 19 patients, cutaneous eruptions manifested as facial-predominant papulopustular eruptions, petechiae, or ecchymoses, photosensitivity, panniculitis, xerosis, and clinical staphylococcal overgrowth. Most patients were able to continue ibrutinib therapy with focused treatment of their cutaneous toxicities. LIMITATIONS: This study represents cases at a single tertiary care center and is limited to patients referred for toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: With the exception of petechiae, the cutaneous toxicities of ibrutinib overlap with those associated with selective EGFR inhibitors. We observed that these reactions can be successfully managed using approaches for EGFR inhibitor-induced cutaneous adverse events.

Association of Hospital Discharge Against Medical Advice With Readmission and In-Hospital Mortality.

Importance: Hospital readmissions contribute to higher expenditures and may sometimes reflect suboptimal patient care. Individuals discharged against medical advice (AMA) are a vulnerable patient population and may have higher risk for readmission. Objectives: To determine odds of readmission and mortality for patients discharged AMA vs all others, to characterize patient and hospital-level factors associated with readmissions, and to quantify their overall cost burden. Design, Setting, and Participants: Nationally representative, all-payer cohort study using the 2014 National Readmissions Database. Eligible index admissions were nonobstetrical/newborn hospitalizations for patients 18 years and older discharged between January 2014 and November 2014. Admissions were excluded if there was a missing primary diagnosis, discharge disposition, length of stay, or if the patient died during that hospitalization. Data were analyzed between January 2018 and June 2018. Exposures: Discharge AMA and non-AMA discharge. Main Outcomes and Measures: Thirty-day all-cause readmission and in-hospital mortality rate. Results: There were 19.9 million weighted index admissions, of which 1.5% resulted in an AMA discharge. Within the AMA cohort, 85% were younger than 65 years, 63% were male, 55% had Medicaid or other (including uninsured) coverage, and 39% were in the lowest income quartile. Thirty-day all-cause readmission was 21.0% vs 11.9% for AMA vs non-AMA discharge (P < .001), and 30-day in-hospital mortality was 2.5% vs 5.6% (P < .001), respectively. Individuals discharged AMA were more likely to be readmitted to a different hospital compared with non-AMA patients (43.0% vs 23.9%; P < .001). Of all 30-day readmissions, 19.0% occurred within the first day after AMA discharge vs 6.1% for non-AMA patients (P < .001). On multivariable regression, AMA discharge was associated with a 2.01 (95% CI, 1.97-2.05) increased adjusted odds of readmission and a 0.80 (95% CI, 0.74-0.87) decreased adjusted odds of in-hospital mortality compared with non-AMA discharge. Nationwide readmissions after AMA discharge accounted for more than 400 000 inpatient hospitalization days at a total cost of $822 million in 2014. Conclusions and Relevance: Individuals discharged AMA have higher odds of 30-day readmission at significant cost to the health care system and lower in-hospital mortality rates compared with non-AMA patients. Patients discharged AMA are also more likely to be readmitted to different hospitals and to have earlier bounce-back readmissions, which may reflect dissatisfaction with their initial episode of care.

Analysis of Readmissions Following Hospitalization for Cellulitis in the United States.

Importance: Cellulitis commonly results in hospitalization. Limited data on the proportion of cellulitis admissions associated with readmission are available. Objective: To characterize the US national readmission rate associated with hospitalization for treatment of cellulitis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort analysis of cellulitis admissions from the nationally representative 2014 Nationwide Readmissions Database calculated readmission rates for all cellulitis admissions and subsets of admissions. The multicenter population-based cohort included adult patients admitted for conditions other than obstetrical or newborn care. Data were collected from January 1 through November 30, 2014, and analyzed from February 1 through September 18, 2018. Bivariate logistic regression models were used to assess differences in readmission rates by patient characteristics. Costs were calculated for all readmissions after discharge from hospitalization for cellulitis (hereinafter referred to as cellulitis discharge) and by readmission diagnosis. Exposures: Admission with a primary diagnosis of cellulitis. Main Outcomes and Measures: Proportion of cellulitis admissions associated with nonelective readmission within 30 days, characteristics of patients readmitted after cellulitis discharge, and costs associated with cellulitis readmission. Results: A total of 447 080 (95% CI, 429 927-464 233) index admissions with a primary diagnosis of cellulitis (53.8% male [95% CI, 53.5%-54.2%]; mean [SD] age, 56.1 [18.9] years) were included. Overall 30-day all-cause nonelective readmission rate after cellulitis discharge was 9.8% (95% CI, 9.6%-10.0%). Among patients with cellulitis, age (odds ratio for 45-64 years, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.75-0.81; P = .001) and insurance status (odds ratio for Medicare, 2.45; 95% CI, 2.33-2.58; P < .001) were associated with increased readmission rates. The most common diagnosis of readmissions included skin and subcutaneous tissue infections. The total cost associated with nonelective readmissions attributed to skin and subcutaneous infections within 30 days of a cellulitis discharge during the study period was $114.4 million (95% CI, $106.8-$122.0 million). Conclusions and Relevance: Readmission after hospitalization for cellulitis is common and costly and may be preventable with improved diagnostics, therapeutics, and discharge care coordination.

Clinicopathologic features correlated with paradoxical outcomes in stage IIC versus IIIA melanoma patients.

Under current AJCC staging criteria, stage IIC patients paradoxically have worse outcomes than IIIA patients despite the lack of nodal metastatic disease. This study sought to identify additional clinicopathologic characteristics correlated with worse patient outcomes. Retrospective chart review of stage IIC and IIIA melanoma patients were evaluated between 1995 and 2011 with clinical follow-up through 2015. Records were reviewed for demographics, clinical characteristics, and tumor pathology. Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon's rank-sum test were used to assess group differences. Clinicopathologic features were evaluated relative to overall survival (OS), time to distant metastases, and local/regional recurrence. Overall, 128 patients were included (45 stage IIC and 83 stage IIIA) with a median follow-up time of 5.7 years. Compared with stage IIIA patients, stage IIC patients were older, and their melanomas were more likely to be nodular, amelanotic, thicker, have higher mitotic rate, tumor lymphocytic infiltrate, no radial growth phase, and less likely to have associated precursor lesions. Stage IIC patients had shorter OS and time to distant metastases; multivariate regression revealed that older age (>55 years) and mitotic rate (>5 mitoses/mm) were independent predictors of OS. Melanomas in stage IIC disease may be biologically distinct from those that are seen in stage IIIA. While sentinel node biopsies remain the standard-of-care, these results suggest that clinicians may want to assess the clinicopathologic characteristics described above to aggressively counsel, screen for distant disease, and consider adjuvant therapy, in particular for older patients and higher mitotic rates in thicker primary tumors, regardless of nodal status.

Trends in phototherapy utilization among Medicare beneficiaries in the United States, 2000 to 2015.

BACKGROUND: Phototherapy is a cost-effective treatment for many dermatoses, yet the emergence of alternative therapies such as biologics led many to think that phototherapy utilization was declining. OBJECTIVE: To characterize national, historical phototherapy utilization and costs among Medicare beneficiaries. METHODS: Longitudinal analysis of the Medicare Part B National Summary Data File from 2000 to 2015 for phototherapy billing codes. Geographic distribution of clinics and provider type obtained from the Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data for 2012 to 2015. RESULTS: The overall volume of phototherapy services billed to Medicare from 2000 to 2015 increased by 5% annually, from 334,670 to 692,093. Ultraviolet B therapy comprised 77% of phototherapy volume, utilization of psoralen plus ultraviolet A therapy declined by 9% annually, and excimer laser services grew by 29% annually. The number of phototherapy clinics is increasing but remains concentrated in only 11% of US counties. Between 2012 and 2015, dermatologists accounted for 92% of phototherapy volume. LIMITATIONS: Commercial payers and institutional claims (hospital-based physicians) are excluded. Clinical indications for phototherapy use are not reported in this database. CONCLUSION: Phototherapy utilization has grown, though the service mix has shifted toward ultraviolet B and laser excimer therapy and away from psoralen plus ultraviolet A therapy. Dermatologists manage most phototherapy. Uneven geographic distribution of phototherapy clinics limits access in nonurban areas, and further evaluation is needed to determine its impact on rural communities.

Association of Dermatologist Density With the Volume and Costs of Dermatology Procedures Among Medicare Beneficiaries.

Importance: The persistent shortage of dermatologists in the United States affects access to care and patient outcomes. Objective: To characterize the effect of geographic variations in dermatologist density on the provision of dermatology procedures within Medicare. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a cross-sectional study using the 2013 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Database. Dermatology-related procedures were defined by the top 50 billing codes accounting for more than 95% of procedures billed by dermatologists. Billing codes corresponding to evaluation and monitoring visits and dermatopathology were excluded. Total costs were estimated from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services physician fee schedule, based on the nonfacility national payment amount with no modifiers. Nationally representative administrative database that includes 100% of charges billed by noninstitutional clinicians covered under Medicare Part B. A total of 10 391 dermatologists practicing within the 50 states and Washington, DC, were included. The Medicare-eligible population was defined as all persons 65 years or older. Exposures: Density of dermatologists, categorized into first (5.3 per 100 000 persons ≥65 years) through fifth (54.8 per 100 000 persons ≥65 years) quintiles. Main Outcomes and Measures: Utilization of dermatology procedures (mean volume per 100 000 persons ≥65 years) and total cost (mean amount billed per person ≥65 years) by clinician type across quintiles of dermatologist density. Results: In 2013, dermatologists billed Medicare for 28 million procedures costing $2.21 billion. Mean billed amount by dermatologists per person 65 years or older was $15.87 in the lowest-density quintile vs $92.02 in the highest-density quintile. This trend suggests that each interval increase of 10 dermatologists per 100 000 persons 65 years or older is correlated with a $14.81 increase in Medicare spending on dermatology procedures (95% CI, 8.28-21.34; P = .005). Utilization of these procedures differed among clinician types, with dermatologists largely performing destruction of premalignant lesions and PCPs primarily doing injections. Conclusions and Relevance: There is evidence of supply-sensitive variation in the provision of dermatology procedures for the Medicare-eligible population; higher dermatologist density is correlated with increased utilization of dermatology procedures and subsequent billed charges to Medicare. Further research is needed to determine the effect of such variations on outcomes and whether incentives can better align dermatologists with areas of clinical need.