Key clinical point: Women with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and a history of gestational diabetes (GD) are at a higher risk for myocardial infarction (MI) and coronary artery disease compared with those with T2D and no GD history.

Major finding: Among women with T2D, those with a history of GD had a significantly higher risk for MI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.53; 95% CI 1.18-5.40) and a borderline increased risk for coronary artery disease (aOR 2.15; 95% CI 1.00-4.66) compared with those without GD history.

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 2494 women aged ≥20 years with T2D, of which 385 (15.4%) had a history of GD.

Disclosures: This study received no specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Cui Y et al. Impact of prior gestational diabetes on long-term type 2 diabetes complications. J Diabetes Complications. 2022;36(9):108282 (Aug 2). Doi: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2022.108282

Key clinical point: Women with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and a history of gestational diabetes (GD) are at a higher risk for myocardial infarction (MI) and coronary artery disease compared with those with T2D and no GD history.

Major finding: Among women with T2D, those with a history of GD had a significantly higher risk for MI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.53; 95% CI 1.18-5.40) and a borderline increased risk for coronary artery disease (aOR 2.15; 95% CI 1.00-4.66) compared with those without GD history.

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 2494 women aged ≥20 years with T2D, of which 385 (15.4%) had a history of GD.

Disclosures: This study received no specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Cui Y et al. Impact of prior gestational diabetes on long-term type 2 diabetes complications. J Diabetes Complications. 2022;36(9):108282 (Aug 2). Doi: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2022.108282

Key clinical point: Women with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and a history of gestational diabetes (GD) are at a higher risk for myocardial infarction (MI) and coronary artery disease compared with those with T2D and no GD history.

Major finding: Among women with T2D, those with a history of GD had a significantly higher risk for MI (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.53; 95% CI 1.18-5.40) and a borderline increased risk for coronary artery disease (aOR 2.15; 95% CI 1.00-4.66) compared with those without GD history.

Study details: This cross-sectional study included 2494 women aged ≥20 years with T2D, of which 385 (15.4%) had a history of GD.

Disclosures: This study received no specific funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Cui Y et al. Impact of prior gestational diabetes on long-term type 2 diabetes complications. J Diabetes Complications. 2022;36(9):108282 (Aug 2). Doi: 10.1016/j.jdiacomp.2022.108282

Q1. Correct answer: D. Lorcaserin (Belviq). 
 
Rationale 
Lorcaserin may cause valvulopathy, attention, or memory disturbance. This patient has normal ECHO and does not work with heavy machinery. Given his other history, this may be the best choice for him. Naltrexone/bupropion extended release is contraindicated in patients with seizure disorder, chronic opioid use, anorexia nervosa, bulimia, and abrupt discontinuation of alcohol, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, or antiepileptic drugs because bupropion lowers the seizure threshold. Liraglutide is contraindicated with personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma or MENII. In addition, GLP1 receptor agonists can increase the risk of pancreatitis in patients with a history of pancreatitis. Phentermine/topiramate can increase the risk of nephrolithiasis. All of these medications are contraindicated in pregnancy and in patients with hypersensitivity to the drug and drug class. 
 
References 
Bays HE et al. Obesity algorithm, presented by the Obesity Medical Association. 2016-2017. https://cmcoem.info/pdf/curso/evaluacion_preoperatoria/oma_obesity-algorithm.pdf.  
Steelman M and Westman E. Obesity: Evaluation and Treatment Essentials. Boca Raton: CRC press, 2016. https://www.abom.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Obesity-Evaluation-and-Treatment-Essentials.pdf.  
Liraglutide Prescribing Information (Saxenda). https://www.novo-pi.com/saxenda.pdf.  
Lorcaserin (Belviq) Prescribing Information. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/022529lbl.pdf.  
Naltrexone HCl/Bupropion HCl Extended Release Prescribing Information (CONTRAVE). https://contrave.com/contrave-pi/.  
Phentermine HCl/Topiramate Extended Release Prescribing Information (Qsymia). https://qsymia.com/patient/include/media/pdf/prescribing-information.pdf

Q1. Correct answer: D. Lorcaserin (Belviq). 
 
Rationale 
Lorcaserin may cause valvulopathy, attention, or memory disturbance. This patient has normal ECHO and does not work with heavy machinery. Given his other history, this may be the best choice for him. Naltrexone/bupropion extended release is contraindicated in patients with seizure disorder, chronic opioid use, anorexia nervosa, bulimia, and abrupt discontinuation of alcohol, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, or antiepileptic drugs because bupropion lowers the seizure threshold. Liraglutide is contraindicated with personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma or MENII. In addition, GLP1 receptor agonists can increase the risk of pancreatitis in patients with a history of pancreatitis. Phentermine/topiramate can increase the risk of nephrolithiasis. All of these medications are contraindicated in pregnancy and in patients with hypersensitivity to the drug and drug class. 
 
References 
Bays HE et al. Obesity algorithm, presented by the Obesity Medical Association. 2016-2017. https://cmcoem.info/pdf/curso/evaluacion_preoperatoria/oma_obesity-algorithm.pdf.  
Steelman M and Westman E. Obesity: Evaluation and Treatment Essentials. Boca Raton: CRC press, 2016. https://www.abom.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Obesity-Evaluation-and-Treatment-Essentials.pdf.  
Liraglutide Prescribing Information (Saxenda). https://www.novo-pi.com/saxenda.pdf.  
Lorcaserin (Belviq) Prescribing Information. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/022529lbl.pdf.  
Naltrexone HCl/Bupropion HCl Extended Release Prescribing Information (CONTRAVE). https://contrave.com/contrave-pi/.  
Phentermine HCl/Topiramate Extended Release Prescribing Information (Qsymia). https://qsymia.com/patient/include/media/pdf/prescribing-information.pdf

Q1. Correct answer: D. Lorcaserin (Belviq). 
 
Rationale 
Lorcaserin may cause valvulopathy, attention, or memory disturbance. This patient has normal ECHO and does not work with heavy machinery. Given his other history, this may be the best choice for him. Naltrexone/bupropion extended release is contraindicated in patients with seizure disorder, chronic opioid use, anorexia nervosa, bulimia, and abrupt discontinuation of alcohol, benzodiazepines, barbiturates, or antiepileptic drugs because bupropion lowers the seizure threshold. Liraglutide is contraindicated with personal or family history of medullary thyroid carcinoma or MENII. In addition, GLP1 receptor agonists can increase the risk of pancreatitis in patients with a history of pancreatitis. Phentermine/topiramate can increase the risk of nephrolithiasis. All of these medications are contraindicated in pregnancy and in patients with hypersensitivity to the drug and drug class. 
 
References 
Bays HE et al. Obesity algorithm, presented by the Obesity Medical Association. 2016-2017. https://cmcoem.info/pdf/curso/evaluacion_preoperatoria/oma_obesity-algorithm.pdf.  
Steelman M and Westman E. Obesity: Evaluation and Treatment Essentials. Boca Raton: CRC press, 2016. https://www.abom.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Obesity-Evaluation-and-Treatment-Essentials.pdf.  
Liraglutide Prescribing Information (Saxenda). https://www.novo-pi.com/saxenda.pdf.  
Lorcaserin (Belviq) Prescribing Information. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2012/022529lbl.pdf.  
Naltrexone HCl/Bupropion HCl Extended Release Prescribing Information (CONTRAVE). https://contrave.com/contrave-pi/.  
Phentermine HCl/Topiramate Extended Release Prescribing Information (Qsymia). https://qsymia.com/patient/include/media/pdf/prescribing-information.pdf

Key clinical point: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who initiated dulaglutide and liraglutide showed good treatment persistence and similar improvement in glycemic control along with weight loss at 12 months.

Major finding: At 12 months, a high probability of treatment persistence (0.88; 95% CI 0.86-0.90, and 0.83; 95% CI 0.80-0.85, respectively) and a significant reduction in the mean glycated hemoglobin level (−1.18% and −1.15%, respectively) were observed in patients initiating dulaglutide and liraglutide, along with body weight reduction in both the dulaglutide (−3.2 kg) and liraglutide (−3.4 kg) groups.

Study details: The data come from a prospective observational study, TROPHIES, including 2005 patients with T2D who initiated the first injectable treatment with dulaglutide (n = 1014) or liraglutide (n = 991).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. The authors declared receiving research support, speaker’s fees, or travel support or serving as a clinical investigator or consultant for various sources, including Eli Lilly. Six authors declared being full-time employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly.

Source: Guerci B et al. The real-world observational prospective study of health outcomes with dulaglutide and liraglutide in type 2 diabetes patients (TROPHIES): Patient disposition, clinical characteristics, and treatment persistence at 12 months diabetes Obes Metab. 2022 (Jul 25). Doi: 10.1111/dom.14823

Key clinical point: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who initiated dulaglutide and liraglutide showed good treatment persistence and similar improvement in glycemic control along with weight loss at 12 months.

Major finding: At 12 months, a high probability of treatment persistence (0.88; 95% CI 0.86-0.90, and 0.83; 95% CI 0.80-0.85, respectively) and a significant reduction in the mean glycated hemoglobin level (−1.18% and −1.15%, respectively) were observed in patients initiating dulaglutide and liraglutide, along with body weight reduction in both the dulaglutide (−3.2 kg) and liraglutide (−3.4 kg) groups.

Study details: The data come from a prospective observational study, TROPHIES, including 2005 patients with T2D who initiated the first injectable treatment with dulaglutide (n = 1014) or liraglutide (n = 991).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. The authors declared receiving research support, speaker’s fees, or travel support or serving as a clinical investigator or consultant for various sources, including Eli Lilly. Six authors declared being full-time employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly.

Source: Guerci B et al. The real-world observational prospective study of health outcomes with dulaglutide and liraglutide in type 2 diabetes patients (TROPHIES): Patient disposition, clinical characteristics, and treatment persistence at 12 months diabetes Obes Metab. 2022 (Jul 25). Doi: 10.1111/dom.14823

Key clinical point: Patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who initiated dulaglutide and liraglutide showed good treatment persistence and similar improvement in glycemic control along with weight loss at 12 months.

Major finding: At 12 months, a high probability of treatment persistence (0.88; 95% CI 0.86-0.90, and 0.83; 95% CI 0.80-0.85, respectively) and a significant reduction in the mean glycated hemoglobin level (−1.18% and −1.15%, respectively) were observed in patients initiating dulaglutide and liraglutide, along with body weight reduction in both the dulaglutide (−3.2 kg) and liraglutide (−3.4 kg) groups.

Study details: The data come from a prospective observational study, TROPHIES, including 2005 patients with T2D who initiated the first injectable treatment with dulaglutide (n = 1014) or liraglutide (n = 991).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Eli Lilly and Company. The authors declared receiving research support, speaker’s fees, or travel support or serving as a clinical investigator or consultant for various sources, including Eli Lilly. Six authors declared being full-time employees and shareholders of Eli Lilly.

Source: Guerci B et al. The real-world observational prospective study of health outcomes with dulaglutide and liraglutide in type 2 diabetes patients (TROPHIES): Patient disposition, clinical characteristics, and treatment persistence at 12 months diabetes Obes Metab. 2022 (Jul 25). Doi: 10.1111/dom.14823

Key clinical point: Switching from low-dose to high-dose empagliflozin led to significant clinical benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and inadequate glycemic control.

Major finding: Increasing the dose of empagliflozin from 10 mg to 25 mg for 6 months significantly improved the fasting plasma glucose and glycated hemoglobin levels by −12.7 mg/dL and −13%, respectively (P < .01), along with a significant reduction in body weight (−0.6 kg), triglyceride level (−22.1 mg/dL), and c-glutamyl transpeptidase level (−6.6 U/L; P < .01) and increase in hematocrit by 0.9% after 3 months.

Study details: This was a retrospective study including 52 patients with T2D and inadequate glycemic control whose dose of empagliflozin was increased from 10 mg to 25 mg once daily.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Shimazu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Matsumura T et al. Clinical benefit of switching from low-dose to high-dose empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Ther. 2022 (Jul 15). Doi: 10.1007/s13300-022-01296-y

Key clinical point: Switching from low-dose to high-dose empagliflozin led to significant clinical benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and inadequate glycemic control.

Major finding: Increasing the dose of empagliflozin from 10 mg to 25 mg for 6 months significantly improved the fasting plasma glucose and glycated hemoglobin levels by −12.7 mg/dL and −13%, respectively (P < .01), along with a significant reduction in body weight (−0.6 kg), triglyceride level (−22.1 mg/dL), and c-glutamyl transpeptidase level (−6.6 U/L; P < .01) and increase in hematocrit by 0.9% after 3 months.

Study details: This was a retrospective study including 52 patients with T2D and inadequate glycemic control whose dose of empagliflozin was increased from 10 mg to 25 mg once daily.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Shimazu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Matsumura T et al. Clinical benefit of switching from low-dose to high-dose empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Ther. 2022 (Jul 15). Doi: 10.1007/s13300-022-01296-y

Key clinical point: Switching from low-dose to high-dose empagliflozin led to significant clinical benefits in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and inadequate glycemic control.

Major finding: Increasing the dose of empagliflozin from 10 mg to 25 mg for 6 months significantly improved the fasting plasma glucose and glycated hemoglobin levels by −12.7 mg/dL and −13%, respectively (P < .01), along with a significant reduction in body weight (−0.6 kg), triglyceride level (−22.1 mg/dL), and c-glutamyl transpeptidase level (−6.6 U/L; P < .01) and increase in hematocrit by 0.9% after 3 months.

Study details: This was a retrospective study including 52 patients with T2D and inadequate glycemic control whose dose of empagliflozin was increased from 10 mg to 25 mg once daily.

Disclosures: This study was sponsored by Shimazu Corporation, Kyoto, Japan. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Matsumura T et al. Clinical benefit of switching from low-dose to high-dose empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Ther. 2022 (Jul 15). Doi: 10.1007/s13300-022-01296-y

Key clinical point: Dapagliflozin consistently reduced the risk for cardiovascular (CV) death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) and kidney disease progression irrespective of the background CV medication in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with a consistent safety profile.

Major finding: Dapagliflozin vs placebo led to a consistent reduction in the composite of CV death/HHF, HHF alone, and kidney-specific outcomes irrespective of the background CV medications (P_interaction > .05), with patients not using diuretics showing better kidney specific outcomes (P_interaction  =  .003). Serious adverse events were not significantly different between the dapagliflozin and placebo groups.

Study details: Findings are from a prespecified secondary analysis of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial including 17,160 patients with T2D and either atherosclerotic disease or multiple CV risk factors.

Disclosures: The DECLAR-TIMI 58 trial was supported by AstraZeneca. One author reported being an employee and shareholder of AstraZeneca. Some authors reported receiving research funding or support, honoraria, personal fees, or consulting or speaker fees, or serving as advisory board members for various sources, including AstraZeneca.

Source: Oyama K et al. Efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin according to background use of cardiovascular medications in patients with type 2 diabetes: A prespecified secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2022 (Jul 20). Doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2022.2006

Key clinical point: Dapagliflozin consistently reduced the risk for cardiovascular (CV) death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) and kidney disease progression irrespective of the background CV medication in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with a consistent safety profile.

Major finding: Dapagliflozin vs placebo led to a consistent reduction in the composite of CV death/HHF, HHF alone, and kidney-specific outcomes irrespective of the background CV medications (P_interaction > .05), with patients not using diuretics showing better kidney specific outcomes (P_interaction  =  .003). Serious adverse events were not significantly different between the dapagliflozin and placebo groups.

Study details: Findings are from a prespecified secondary analysis of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial including 17,160 patients with T2D and either atherosclerotic disease or multiple CV risk factors.

Disclosures: The DECLAR-TIMI 58 trial was supported by AstraZeneca. One author reported being an employee and shareholder of AstraZeneca. Some authors reported receiving research funding or support, honoraria, personal fees, or consulting or speaker fees, or serving as advisory board members for various sources, including AstraZeneca.

Source: Oyama K et al. Efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin according to background use of cardiovascular medications in patients with type 2 diabetes: A prespecified secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2022 (Jul 20). Doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2022.2006

Key clinical point: Dapagliflozin consistently reduced the risk for cardiovascular (CV) death or hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) and kidney disease progression irrespective of the background CV medication in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) with a consistent safety profile.

Major finding: Dapagliflozin vs placebo led to a consistent reduction in the composite of CV death/HHF, HHF alone, and kidney-specific outcomes irrespective of the background CV medications (P_interaction > .05), with patients not using diuretics showing better kidney specific outcomes (P_interaction  =  .003). Serious adverse events were not significantly different between the dapagliflozin and placebo groups.

Study details: Findings are from a prespecified secondary analysis of the DECLARE-TIMI 58 trial including 17,160 patients with T2D and either atherosclerotic disease or multiple CV risk factors.

Disclosures: The DECLAR-TIMI 58 trial was supported by AstraZeneca. One author reported being an employee and shareholder of AstraZeneca. Some authors reported receiving research funding or support, honoraria, personal fees, or consulting or speaker fees, or serving as advisory board members for various sources, including AstraZeneca.

Source: Oyama K et al. Efficacy and safety of dapagliflozin according to background use of cardiovascular medications in patients with type 2 diabetes: A prespecified secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol. 2022 (Jul 20). Doi: 10.1001/jamacardio.2022.2006

Key clinical point: Initiation of 300 units/mL insulin glargine (Gla-300) or 100 units/mL degludec (Deg-100) was associated with similar improvements in glycemic control, no weight gain, and low rates of hypoglycemia in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Major finding: After 6 months, both Gla-300 and Deg-100 led to a significant and similar reduction in glycated hemoglobin (between group difference [Δ] −0.01%; P  =  .49) and fasting blood glucose (Δ −2.09 mg/dL; P  =  .74) levels, with no significant changes in body weight in both treatment groups. Overall, the incidence of hypoglycemia was low, with no severe episodes reported.

Study details: This was a retrospective study including insulin-naive patients with T2D who initiated Gla-300 and were propensity matched with those who initiated Deg-100 (n = 357).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Sanofi S.r.l., Milan, Italy. Some authors declared receiving lecture fees, consulting fees, research funding, or speaking honoraria from various sources, including Sanofi. M Larosa declared being an employee and holding stock in Sanofi.

Source: Fadini GP et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of glargine 300 U/mL versus degludec 100 U/mL in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. A multicenter retrospective real-world study (RESTORE-2 NAIVE STUDY). Acta Diabetol. 2022 (Jul 21). Doi: 10.1007/s00592-022-01925-9

Key clinical point: Initiation of 300 units/mL insulin glargine (Gla-300) or 100 units/mL degludec (Deg-100) was associated with similar improvements in glycemic control, no weight gain, and low rates of hypoglycemia in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Major finding: After 6 months, both Gla-300 and Deg-100 led to a significant and similar reduction in glycated hemoglobin (between group difference [Δ] −0.01%; P  =  .49) and fasting blood glucose (Δ −2.09 mg/dL; P  =  .74) levels, with no significant changes in body weight in both treatment groups. Overall, the incidence of hypoglycemia was low, with no severe episodes reported.

Study details: This was a retrospective study including insulin-naive patients with T2D who initiated Gla-300 and were propensity matched with those who initiated Deg-100 (n = 357).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Sanofi S.r.l., Milan, Italy. Some authors declared receiving lecture fees, consulting fees, research funding, or speaking honoraria from various sources, including Sanofi. M Larosa declared being an employee and holding stock in Sanofi.

Source: Fadini GP et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of glargine 300 U/mL versus degludec 100 U/mL in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. A multicenter retrospective real-world study (RESTORE-2 NAIVE STUDY). Acta Diabetol. 2022 (Jul 21). Doi: 10.1007/s00592-022-01925-9

Key clinical point: Initiation of 300 units/mL insulin glargine (Gla-300) or 100 units/mL degludec (Deg-100) was associated with similar improvements in glycemic control, no weight gain, and low rates of hypoglycemia in insulin-naive patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D).

Major finding: After 6 months, both Gla-300 and Deg-100 led to a significant and similar reduction in glycated hemoglobin (between group difference [Δ] −0.01%; P  =  .49) and fasting blood glucose (Δ −2.09 mg/dL; P  =  .74) levels, with no significant changes in body weight in both treatment groups. Overall, the incidence of hypoglycemia was low, with no severe episodes reported.

Study details: This was a retrospective study including insulin-naive patients with T2D who initiated Gla-300 and were propensity matched with those who initiated Deg-100 (n = 357).

Disclosures: This study was funded by Sanofi S.r.l., Milan, Italy. Some authors declared receiving lecture fees, consulting fees, research funding, or speaking honoraria from various sources, including Sanofi. M Larosa declared being an employee and holding stock in Sanofi.

Source: Fadini GP et al. Comparative effectiveness and safety of glargine 300 U/mL versus degludec 100 U/mL in insulin-naïve patients with type 2 diabetes. A multicenter retrospective real-world study (RESTORE-2 NAIVE STUDY). Acta Diabetol. 2022 (Jul 21). Doi: 10.1007/s00592-022-01925-9

Key clinical point: Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA), and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) did not increase the risk for fracture in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) compared with other antidiabetic agents or placebo.

Major finding: DPP-4i was not associated with a higher risk for total fracture compared with insulin (odds ratio [OR] 0.86; 95% CI 0.39-1.90), metformin (OR 1.41; 95% CI 0.48-4.19), sulfonylureas (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.50-1.20), thiazolidinediones (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.27-2.44), α-glucosidase inhibitor (OR 4.92; 95% CI 0.23-103.83), and placebo (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.84-1.29), with findings being similar for GLP-1 RA and SGLT-2i.

Study details: The data come from a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 177 randomized controlled trials including 165,081 patients with T2D.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation, China, and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chai S et al. Risk of fracture with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and network meta-analysis combining 177 randomized controlled trials with a median follow-up of 26 weeks. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:825417 (Jul 1). Doi:  10.3389/fphar.2022.825417

Key clinical point: Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA), and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) did not increase the risk for fracture in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) compared with other antidiabetic agents or placebo.

Major finding: DPP-4i was not associated with a higher risk for total fracture compared with insulin (odds ratio [OR] 0.86; 95% CI 0.39-1.90), metformin (OR 1.41; 95% CI 0.48-4.19), sulfonylureas (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.50-1.20), thiazolidinediones (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.27-2.44), α-glucosidase inhibitor (OR 4.92; 95% CI 0.23-103.83), and placebo (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.84-1.29), with findings being similar for GLP-1 RA and SGLT-2i.

Study details: The data come from a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 177 randomized controlled trials including 165,081 patients with T2D.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation, China, and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chai S et al. Risk of fracture with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and network meta-analysis combining 177 randomized controlled trials with a median follow-up of 26 weeks. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:825417 (Jul 1). Doi:  10.3389/fphar.2022.825417

Key clinical point: Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA), and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i) did not increase the risk for fracture in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) compared with other antidiabetic agents or placebo.

Major finding: DPP-4i was not associated with a higher risk for total fracture compared with insulin (odds ratio [OR] 0.86; 95% CI 0.39-1.90), metformin (OR 1.41; 95% CI 0.48-4.19), sulfonylureas (OR 0.77; 95% CI 0.50-1.20), thiazolidinediones (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.27-2.44), α-glucosidase inhibitor (OR 4.92; 95% CI 0.23-103.83), and placebo (OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.84-1.29), with findings being similar for GLP-1 RA and SGLT-2i.

Study details: The data come from a systematic review and network meta-analysis of 177 randomized controlled trials including 165,081 patients with T2D.

Disclosures: This study was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation, China, and others. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Chai S et al. Risk of fracture with dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, or sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A systematic review and network meta-analysis combining 177 randomized controlled trials with a median follow-up of 26 weeks. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:825417 (Jul 1). Doi:  10.3389/fphar.2022.825417

Key clinical point: Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), but not glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA), significantly increased the risk for acute liver injury in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) compared with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i).

Major finding: Compared with SGLT-2i, DPP-4i (hazard ratio [HR] 1.53; 95% CI 1.02-2.30), but not GLP-1 RA (HR 1.11; 95% CI 0.57-2.16), were associated with a higher risk for acute liver injury; however, the risk was significantly higher in women receiving DPP-4i (HR 3.22; 95% CI 1.67-6.21) and GLP-1 RA (HR 3.23; 95% CI 1.44-7.25).

Study details: Findings are from a population-based study including 2 new-user, active-comparator cohorts; the first cohort included 106,310 and 27,277 new users of DPP-4i and SGLT-2i, respectively, and the second cohort included 9470 and 26,936 new users of GLP-1 RA and SGLT-2i, respectively.

Disclosures: This study was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Foundation Scheme grant. L Azoulay declared receiving consulting fees from Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer outside this work.

Source: Pradhan R et al. Incretin-based drugs and the risk of acute liver injury among patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2022 (Jul 22). Doi: 10.2337/dc22-0712

Key clinical point: Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), but not glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA), significantly increased the risk for acute liver injury in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) compared with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i).

Major finding: Compared with SGLT-2i, DPP-4i (hazard ratio [HR] 1.53; 95% CI 1.02-2.30), but not GLP-1 RA (HR 1.11; 95% CI 0.57-2.16), were associated with a higher risk for acute liver injury; however, the risk was significantly higher in women receiving DPP-4i (HR 3.22; 95% CI 1.67-6.21) and GLP-1 RA (HR 3.23; 95% CI 1.44-7.25).

Study details: Findings are from a population-based study including 2 new-user, active-comparator cohorts; the first cohort included 106,310 and 27,277 new users of DPP-4i and SGLT-2i, respectively, and the second cohort included 9470 and 26,936 new users of GLP-1 RA and SGLT-2i, respectively.

Disclosures: This study was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Foundation Scheme grant. L Azoulay declared receiving consulting fees from Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer outside this work.

Source: Pradhan R et al. Incretin-based drugs and the risk of acute liver injury among patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2022 (Jul 22). Doi: 10.2337/dc22-0712

Key clinical point: Dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), but not glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA), significantly increased the risk for acute liver injury in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) compared with sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors (SGLT-2i).

Major finding: Compared with SGLT-2i, DPP-4i (hazard ratio [HR] 1.53; 95% CI 1.02-2.30), but not GLP-1 RA (HR 1.11; 95% CI 0.57-2.16), were associated with a higher risk for acute liver injury; however, the risk was significantly higher in women receiving DPP-4i (HR 3.22; 95% CI 1.67-6.21) and GLP-1 RA (HR 3.23; 95% CI 1.44-7.25).

Study details: Findings are from a population-based study including 2 new-user, active-comparator cohorts; the first cohort included 106,310 and 27,277 new users of DPP-4i and SGLT-2i, respectively, and the second cohort included 9470 and 26,936 new users of GLP-1 RA and SGLT-2i, respectively.

Disclosures: This study was funded by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Foundation Scheme grant. L Azoulay declared receiving consulting fees from Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Pfizer outside this work.

Source: Pradhan R et al. Incretin-based drugs and the risk of acute liver injury among patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2022 (Jul 22). Doi: 10.2337/dc22-0712

Key clinical point: Once-weekly exenatide was superior to placebo in improving glycemic control and was well tolerated in youth with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who were suboptimally controlled with current treatments. It had a safety profile similar to that in adults.

Major finding: At 24 weeks, the least squares mean change in the glycated hemoglobin level in the exenatide vs placebo group was −0.36% vs 0.49%, respectively, with a between-group difference of −0.85% (P  =  .012) showing the superiority of exenatide over placebo. Adverse events were reported by 61.0% and 73.9% of participants in the exenatide and placebo groups, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from a multicenter, parallel-group, phase 3 study including 72 patients with T2D suboptimally controlled with current treatments who were randomly assigned to receive once-weekly exenatide (n = 49) or placebo (n = 23).

Disclosures: This study was funded by AstraZeneca. N Shehadeh and O Doehring declared receiving support from AstraZeneca. The other authors declared being employees or holding stocks in AstraZeneca.

Source: Tamborlane WV et al. Once-weekly exenatide in youth with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(8):1833–1840 (Jul 26). Doi: 10.2337/dc21-2275

Key clinical point: Once-weekly exenatide was superior to placebo in improving glycemic control and was well tolerated in youth with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who were suboptimally controlled with current treatments. It had a safety profile similar to that in adults.

Major finding: At 24 weeks, the least squares mean change in the glycated hemoglobin level in the exenatide vs placebo group was −0.36% vs 0.49%, respectively, with a between-group difference of −0.85% (P  =  .012) showing the superiority of exenatide over placebo. Adverse events were reported by 61.0% and 73.9% of participants in the exenatide and placebo groups, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from a multicenter, parallel-group, phase 3 study including 72 patients with T2D suboptimally controlled with current treatments who were randomly assigned to receive once-weekly exenatide (n = 49) or placebo (n = 23).

Disclosures: This study was funded by AstraZeneca. N Shehadeh and O Doehring declared receiving support from AstraZeneca. The other authors declared being employees or holding stocks in AstraZeneca.

Source: Tamborlane WV et al. Once-weekly exenatide in youth with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(8):1833–1840 (Jul 26). Doi: 10.2337/dc21-2275

Key clinical point: Once-weekly exenatide was superior to placebo in improving glycemic control and was well tolerated in youth with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who were suboptimally controlled with current treatments. It had a safety profile similar to that in adults.

Major finding: At 24 weeks, the least squares mean change in the glycated hemoglobin level in the exenatide vs placebo group was −0.36% vs 0.49%, respectively, with a between-group difference of −0.85% (P  =  .012) showing the superiority of exenatide over placebo. Adverse events were reported by 61.0% and 73.9% of participants in the exenatide and placebo groups, respectively.

Study details: Findings are from a multicenter, parallel-group, phase 3 study including 72 patients with T2D suboptimally controlled with current treatments who were randomly assigned to receive once-weekly exenatide (n = 49) or placebo (n = 23).

Disclosures: This study was funded by AstraZeneca. N Shehadeh and O Doehring declared receiving support from AstraZeneca. The other authors declared being employees or holding stocks in AstraZeneca.

Source: Tamborlane WV et al. Once-weekly exenatide in youth with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2022;45(8):1833–1840 (Jul 26). Doi: 10.2337/dc21-2275

Residents are confronted daily with situations in clinic that require a foundation in medical ethics to assist in decision-making. Attending physicians require health care services and at times may seek care from resident physicians. If the attending physician has direct oversight over the resident, however, the ethics of the resident treating them need to be addressed. Although patients have autonomy to choose whoever they want as a physician, nonmaleficence dictates that the resident may forego treatment due to concerns for providing suboptimal care; however, this same attending may be treated under specific circumstances. This column explores the ethical implications of both situations.

The Ethical Dilemma of Treating an Attending

Imagine this scenario: You are in your resident general dermatology clinic seeing patients with an attending overseeing your clinical decisions following each encounter. You look on your schedule and see that the next patient is one of your pediatric dermatology attendings for a total-body skin examination (TBSE). You have never treated a physician that oversees you, and you ponder whether you should perform the examination or fetch your attending to perform the encounter alone.

This conundrum then brings other questions to mind: Would changing the reason for the appointment (ie, an acute problem vs a TBSE) alter your decision as to whether or not you would treat this attending? Would the situation be different if this was an attending in a different department?

Ethics Curriculum for Residents

Medical providers face ethical dilemmas daily, and dermatologists and dermatology residents are not excluded. Dermatoethics can provide a framework for the best approach to this hypothetical situation. To equip residents with resources on ethics and a cognitive framework to approach similar situations, the American Board of Dermatology has created an ethics curriculum for residents to learn over their 3 years of training.¹

One study that analyzed the ethical themes portrayed in essays by fourth-year medical students showed that the most common themes included autonomy, social justice, nonmaleficence, beneficence, honesty, and respect.² These themes must be considered in different permutations throughout ethical conundrums.

In the situation of an attending physician who supervises a resident in another clinic voluntarily attending the resident clinic, the physician is aware of the resident’s skills and qualifications and knows that supervision is being provided by an attending physician, which allows informed consent to be made, as a study by Unruh et al³ shows. The patient’s autonomy allows them to choose their treating provider.

However, there are several reasons why the resident may be hesitant to enter the room. One concern may be that during a TBSE the provider usually examines the patient’s genitals, rectum, and breasts.⁴ Because the resident knows the individual personally, the patient and/or the provider may be uncomfortable checking these areas, leaving a portion of the examination unperformed. This neglect may harm the patient (eg, a genital melanoma is missed), violating the tenant of nonmaleficence.

The effect of the medical hierarchy also should be considered. The de facto hierarchy of attendings supervising residents, interns, and medical students, with each group having some oversight over the next, can have positive effects on education and appropriate patient management but also can prove to be detrimental to the patient and provider in some circumstances. Studies have shown that residents may be less willing to disagree with their superior’s opinions for fear of negative reactions and harmful effects on their future careers.^5-7 The hierarchy of medicine also can affect a resident’s moral judgement by intimidating the practitioner to perform tasks or make diagnoses they may not wish to make.^5,6,8,9 For example, the resident may send a prescription for a medication that the attending requested despite no clear indication of need. This mingling of patient and supervisor roles can result in a resident treating their attending physician inconsistently with their standard of care.

Navigating the Ethics of Treating Family Members

The American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics Opinions on Patient-Physician Relationships highlights treating family members as an important ethical topic. Although most residents and attendings are not biologically related, a familial-style relationship exists in many dermatology programs between attendings and residents due to the close-knit nature of dermatology programs. Diagnostic and treatment accuracy may be diminished by the discomfort or disbelief that a condition could affect someone the resident cares about.¹⁰

The American Medical Association also states that a physician can treat family members in an emergency situation or for short-term minor problems. If these 2 exceptions were to be extrapolated to apply to situations involving residents and attendings in addition to family, there would be situations where a dermatology resident could ethically treat their attending physician.¹⁰ If the attending physician was worried about a problem that was deemed potentially life-threatening, such as a rapidly progressive bullous eruption concerning for Stevens-Johnson syndrome following the initiation of a new medication, and they wanted an urgent evaluation and biopsy, an ethicist could argue that urgent treatment is medically indicated as deferring treatment could have negative consequences on the patient’s health. In addition, if the attending found a splinter in their finger following yardwork and needed assistance in removal, this also could be treated by their resident, as it is minimally invasive and has a finite conclusion.

Treating Nonsupervisory Attendings

In the case of performing a TBSE on an attending from another specialty, it would be acceptable and less ethically ambiguous if no close personal relationship existed between the two practitioners, as this patient would have no direct oversight over the resident physician.

Final Thoughts

Each situation that residents face may carry ethical implications with perspectives from the patient, provider, and bystanders. The above scenarios highlight specific instances that a dermatology resident may face and provide insight into how they may approach the situations. At the same time, it is important to remember that every situation is different and requires a unique approach. Fortunately,physicians—specifically dermatologists—are provided many resources to help navigate challenging scenarios.

Acknowledgments—The author thanks Jane M. Grant-Kels, MD (Farmington, Connecticut), for reviewing this paper and providing feedback to improve its content, as well as Warren R. Heymann, MD (Camden, New Jersey), for assisting in the creation of this topic and article.

Residents are confronted daily with situations in clinic that require a foundation in medical ethics to assist in decision-making. Attending physicians require health care services and at times may seek care from resident physicians. If the attending physician has direct oversight over the resident, however, the ethics of the resident treating them need to be addressed. Although patients have autonomy to choose whoever they want as a physician, nonmaleficence dictates that the resident may forego treatment due to concerns for providing suboptimal care; however, this same attending may be treated under specific circumstances. This column explores the ethical implications of both situations.

The Ethical Dilemma of Treating an Attending

Imagine this scenario: You are in your resident general dermatology clinic seeing patients with an attending overseeing your clinical decisions following each encounter. You look on your schedule and see that the next patient is one of your pediatric dermatology attendings for a total-body skin examination (TBSE). You have never treated a physician that oversees you, and you ponder whether you should perform the examination or fetch your attending to perform the encounter alone.

This conundrum then brings other questions to mind: Would changing the reason for the appointment (ie, an acute problem vs a TBSE) alter your decision as to whether or not you would treat this attending? Would the situation be different if this was an attending in a different department?

Ethics Curriculum for Residents

Medical providers face ethical dilemmas daily, and dermatologists and dermatology residents are not excluded. Dermatoethics can provide a framework for the best approach to this hypothetical situation. To equip residents with resources on ethics and a cognitive framework to approach similar situations, the American Board of Dermatology has created an ethics curriculum for residents to learn over their 3 years of training.¹

One study that analyzed the ethical themes portrayed in essays by fourth-year medical students showed that the most common themes included autonomy, social justice, nonmaleficence, beneficence, honesty, and respect.² These themes must be considered in different permutations throughout ethical conundrums.

In the situation of an attending physician who supervises a resident in another clinic voluntarily attending the resident clinic, the physician is aware of the resident’s skills and qualifications and knows that supervision is being provided by an attending physician, which allows informed consent to be made, as a study by Unruh et al³ shows. The patient’s autonomy allows them to choose their treating provider.

However, there are several reasons why the resident may be hesitant to enter the room. One concern may be that during a TBSE the provider usually examines the patient’s genitals, rectum, and breasts.⁴ Because the resident knows the individual personally, the patient and/or the provider may be uncomfortable checking these areas, leaving a portion of the examination unperformed. This neglect may harm the patient (eg, a genital melanoma is missed), violating the tenant of nonmaleficence.

The effect of the medical hierarchy also should be considered. The de facto hierarchy of attendings supervising residents, interns, and medical students, with each group having some oversight over the next, can have positive effects on education and appropriate patient management but also can prove to be detrimental to the patient and provider in some circumstances. Studies have shown that residents may be less willing to disagree with their superior’s opinions for fear of negative reactions and harmful effects on their future careers.^5-7 The hierarchy of medicine also can affect a resident’s moral judgement by intimidating the practitioner to perform tasks or make diagnoses they may not wish to make.^5,6,8,9 For example, the resident may send a prescription for a medication that the attending requested despite no clear indication of need. This mingling of patient and supervisor roles can result in a resident treating their attending physician inconsistently with their standard of care.

Navigating the Ethics of Treating Family Members

The American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics Opinions on Patient-Physician Relationships highlights treating family members as an important ethical topic. Although most residents and attendings are not biologically related, a familial-style relationship exists in many dermatology programs between attendings and residents due to the close-knit nature of dermatology programs. Diagnostic and treatment accuracy may be diminished by the discomfort or disbelief that a condition could affect someone the resident cares about.¹⁰

The American Medical Association also states that a physician can treat family members in an emergency situation or for short-term minor problems. If these 2 exceptions were to be extrapolated to apply to situations involving residents and attendings in addition to family, there would be situations where a dermatology resident could ethically treat their attending physician.¹⁰ If the attending physician was worried about a problem that was deemed potentially life-threatening, such as a rapidly progressive bullous eruption concerning for Stevens-Johnson syndrome following the initiation of a new medication, and they wanted an urgent evaluation and biopsy, an ethicist could argue that urgent treatment is medically indicated as deferring treatment could have negative consequences on the patient’s health. In addition, if the attending found a splinter in their finger following yardwork and needed assistance in removal, this also could be treated by their resident, as it is minimally invasive and has a finite conclusion.

Treating Nonsupervisory Attendings

In the case of performing a TBSE on an attending from another specialty, it would be acceptable and less ethically ambiguous if no close personal relationship existed between the two practitioners, as this patient would have no direct oversight over the resident physician.

Final Thoughts

Each situation that residents face may carry ethical implications with perspectives from the patient, provider, and bystanders. The above scenarios highlight specific instances that a dermatology resident may face and provide insight into how they may approach the situations. At the same time, it is important to remember that every situation is different and requires a unique approach. Fortunately,physicians—specifically dermatologists—are provided many resources to help navigate challenging scenarios.

Acknowledgments—The author thanks Jane M. Grant-Kels, MD (Farmington, Connecticut), for reviewing this paper and providing feedback to improve its content, as well as Warren R. Heymann, MD (Camden, New Jersey), for assisting in the creation of this topic and article.

Residents are confronted daily with situations in clinic that require a foundation in medical ethics to assist in decision-making. Attending physicians require health care services and at times may seek care from resident physicians. If the attending physician has direct oversight over the resident, however, the ethics of the resident treating them need to be addressed. Although patients have autonomy to choose whoever they want as a physician, nonmaleficence dictates that the resident may forego treatment due to concerns for providing suboptimal care; however, this same attending may be treated under specific circumstances. This column explores the ethical implications of both situations.

The Ethical Dilemma of Treating an Attending

Imagine this scenario: You are in your resident general dermatology clinic seeing patients with an attending overseeing your clinical decisions following each encounter. You look on your schedule and see that the next patient is one of your pediatric dermatology attendings for a total-body skin examination (TBSE). You have never treated a physician that oversees you, and you ponder whether you should perform the examination or fetch your attending to perform the encounter alone.

This conundrum then brings other questions to mind: Would changing the reason for the appointment (ie, an acute problem vs a TBSE) alter your decision as to whether or not you would treat this attending? Would the situation be different if this was an attending in a different department?

Ethics Curriculum for Residents

Medical providers face ethical dilemmas daily, and dermatologists and dermatology residents are not excluded. Dermatoethics can provide a framework for the best approach to this hypothetical situation. To equip residents with resources on ethics and a cognitive framework to approach similar situations, the American Board of Dermatology has created an ethics curriculum for residents to learn over their 3 years of training.¹

One study that analyzed the ethical themes portrayed in essays by fourth-year medical students showed that the most common themes included autonomy, social justice, nonmaleficence, beneficence, honesty, and respect.² These themes must be considered in different permutations throughout ethical conundrums.

In the situation of an attending physician who supervises a resident in another clinic voluntarily attending the resident clinic, the physician is aware of the resident’s skills and qualifications and knows that supervision is being provided by an attending physician, which allows informed consent to be made, as a study by Unruh et al³ shows. The patient’s autonomy allows them to choose their treating provider.

However, there are several reasons why the resident may be hesitant to enter the room. One concern may be that during a TBSE the provider usually examines the patient’s genitals, rectum, and breasts.⁴ Because the resident knows the individual personally, the patient and/or the provider may be uncomfortable checking these areas, leaving a portion of the examination unperformed. This neglect may harm the patient (eg, a genital melanoma is missed), violating the tenant of nonmaleficence.

The effect of the medical hierarchy also should be considered. The de facto hierarchy of attendings supervising residents, interns, and medical students, with each group having some oversight over the next, can have positive effects on education and appropriate patient management but also can prove to be detrimental to the patient and provider in some circumstances. Studies have shown that residents may be less willing to disagree with their superior’s opinions for fear of negative reactions and harmful effects on their future careers.^5-7 The hierarchy of medicine also can affect a resident’s moral judgement by intimidating the practitioner to perform tasks or make diagnoses they may not wish to make.^5,6,8,9 For example, the resident may send a prescription for a medication that the attending requested despite no clear indication of need. This mingling of patient and supervisor roles can result in a resident treating their attending physician inconsistently with their standard of care.

Navigating the Ethics of Treating Family Members

The American Medical Association Code of Medical Ethics Opinions on Patient-Physician Relationships highlights treating family members as an important ethical topic. Although most residents and attendings are not biologically related, a familial-style relationship exists in many dermatology programs between attendings and residents due to the close-knit nature of dermatology programs. Diagnostic and treatment accuracy may be diminished by the discomfort or disbelief that a condition could affect someone the resident cares about.¹⁰

The American Medical Association also states that a physician can treat family members in an emergency situation or for short-term minor problems. If these 2 exceptions were to be extrapolated to apply to situations involving residents and attendings in addition to family, there would be situations where a dermatology resident could ethically treat their attending physician.¹⁰ If the attending physician was worried about a problem that was deemed potentially life-threatening, such as a rapidly progressive bullous eruption concerning for Stevens-Johnson syndrome following the initiation of a new medication, and they wanted an urgent evaluation and biopsy, an ethicist could argue that urgent treatment is medically indicated as deferring treatment could have negative consequences on the patient’s health. In addition, if the attending found a splinter in their finger following yardwork and needed assistance in removal, this also could be treated by their resident, as it is minimally invasive and has a finite conclusion.

Treating Nonsupervisory Attendings

In the case of performing a TBSE on an attending from another specialty, it would be acceptable and less ethically ambiguous if no close personal relationship existed between the two practitioners, as this patient would have no direct oversight over the resident physician.

Final Thoughts

Each situation that residents face may carry ethical implications with perspectives from the patient, provider, and bystanders. The above scenarios highlight specific instances that a dermatology resident may face and provide insight into how they may approach the situations. At the same time, it is important to remember that every situation is different and requires a unique approach. Fortunately,physicians—specifically dermatologists—are provided many resources to help navigate challenging scenarios.

Acknowledgments—The author thanks Jane M. Grant-Kels, MD (Farmington, Connecticut), for reviewing this paper and providing feedback to improve its content, as well as Warren R. Heymann, MD (Camden, New Jersey), for assisting in the creation of this topic and article.