Doug Brunk

In an experiment that pitted the wits of pediatric dermatologists against ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 to answer board examination–type questions, pediatric dermatologists outperformed both iterations of the artificial intelligence (AI)–based tool, results from a small single-center study showed.

“We were relieved to find that the pediatric dermatologists in our study performed better than ChatGPT on both multiple choice and case-based questions; however, the latest iteration of ChatGPT (4.0) was very close,” one of the study’s first authors Charles Huang, a fourth-year medical student at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “Something else that was interesting in our data was that the pediatric dermatologists performed much better than ChatGPT on questions related to procedural dermatology/surgical techniques, perhaps indicating that knowledge/reasoning gained through practical experience isn’t easily replicated in AI tools such as ChatGPT.”

koduclethoswojuwrijidusiwivostathashothilitrovesobusokuniphuclocotrawrohewruchacephatrosishawapavadudoseclachoclufrujauuprebibibujuuacuclenecrosporecriguruteswushatrege

For the study, which was published on May 9 in Pediatric Dermatology, Mr. Huang, and co-first author Esther Zhang, BS, a medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthors from the Department of Dermatology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, asked five pediatric dermatologists to answer 24 text-based questions including 16 single-answer, multiple-choice questions and two multiple answer questions drawn from the American Board of Dermatology 2021 Certification Sample Test and six free-response case-based questions drawn from the “Photoquiz” section of Pediatric Dermatology between July 2022 and July 2023. The researchers then processed the same set of questions through ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 and used statistical analysis to compare responses between the pediatric dermatologists and ChatGPT. A 5-point scale adapted from current AI tools was used to score replies to case-based questions.

On average, study participants had 5.6 years of clinical experience. Pediatric dermatologists performed significantly better than ChatGPT version 3.5 on multiple-choice and multiple answer questions (91.4% vs 76.2%, respectively; P = .021) but not significantly better than ChatGPT version 4.0 (90.5%; P = .44). As for replies to case-based questions, the average performance based on the 5-point scale was 3.81 for pediatric dermatologists and 3.53 for ChatGPT overall. The mean scores were significantly greater for pediatric dermatologists than for ChatGPT version 3.5 (P = .039) but not ChatGPT version 4.0 (P = .43).

[embed:render:related:node:261216]

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the evolving nature of AI tools, which may affect the reproducibility of results with subsequent model updates. And, while participating pediatric dermatologists said they were unfamiliar with the questions and cases used in the study, “there is potential for prior exposure through other dermatology board examination review processes,” they wrote.

“AI tools such as ChatGPT and similar large language models can be a valuable tool in your clinical practice, but be aware of potential pitfalls such as patient privacy, medical inaccuracies, [and] intrinsic biases in the tools,” Mr. Huang told this news organization. “As these technologies continue to advance, it is essential for all of us as medical clinicians to gain familiarity and stay abreast of new developments, just as we adapted to electronic health records and the use of the Internet.”

Maria Buethe, MD, PhD, a pediatric dermatology fellow at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego, who was asked to comment on the study, said she found it “interesting” that ChatGPT’s version 4.0 started to produce comparable results to clinician responses in some of the tested scenarios.

wadoshecetrubrucriphotriswustabrothupujocristonustadrashespothujitutracreswopholalomavislichachetaspawastanutrakadrikijuwrebivaprufrakeslamochathiprispajinatroki

“The authors propose a set of best practices for pediatric dermatology clinicians using ChatGPT and other AI tools,” said Dr. Buethe, who was senior author of a recent literature review on AI and its application to pediatric dermatology. It was published in SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine. “One interesting recommended use for AI tools is to utilize it to generate differential diagnosis, which can broaden the list of pathologies previously considered.”

Asked to comment on the study, Erum Ilyas, MD, who practices dermatology in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, and is a member of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, said she was not surprised that ChatGPT “can perform fairly well on multiple-choice questions as we find available in testing circumstances,” as presented in the study. “Just as board questions only support testing a base of medical knowledge and facts for clinicians to master, they do not necessarily provide real-life circumstances that apply to caring for patients, which is inherently nuanced.”

dresleguphouodececodrebebrustuclipecidajewagispuchunaspusememidrispujadraclobacrucaphiswuhuthadanikowristirabrerebacroslespeclanerotoslatrocrushethauiuudavewodojenihurupatipurithowuthastishagubropruwawricouislathatretufraclejastetridruno

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

In an experiment that pitted the wits of pediatric dermatologists against ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 to answer board examination–type questions, pediatric dermatologists outperformed both iterations of the artificial intelligence (AI)–based tool, results from a small single-center study showed.

“We were relieved to find that the pediatric dermatologists in our study performed better than ChatGPT on both multiple choice and case-based questions; however, the latest iteration of ChatGPT (4.0) was very close,” one of the study’s first authors Charles Huang, a fourth-year medical student at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “Something else that was interesting in our data was that the pediatric dermatologists performed much better than ChatGPT on questions related to procedural dermatology/surgical techniques, perhaps indicating that knowledge/reasoning gained through practical experience isn’t easily replicated in AI tools such as ChatGPT.”

koduclethoswojuwrijidusiwivostathashothilitrovesobusokuniphuclocotrawrohewruchacephatrosishawapavadudoseclachoclufrujauuprebibibujuuacuclenecrosporecriguruteswushatrege

For the study, which was published on May 9 in Pediatric Dermatology, Mr. Huang, and co-first author Esther Zhang, BS, a medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthors from the Department of Dermatology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, asked five pediatric dermatologists to answer 24 text-based questions including 16 single-answer, multiple-choice questions and two multiple answer questions drawn from the American Board of Dermatology 2021 Certification Sample Test and six free-response case-based questions drawn from the “Photoquiz” section of Pediatric Dermatology between July 2022 and July 2023. The researchers then processed the same set of questions through ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 and used statistical analysis to compare responses between the pediatric dermatologists and ChatGPT. A 5-point scale adapted from current AI tools was used to score replies to case-based questions.

On average, study participants had 5.6 years of clinical experience. Pediatric dermatologists performed significantly better than ChatGPT version 3.5 on multiple-choice and multiple answer questions (91.4% vs 76.2%, respectively; P = .021) but not significantly better than ChatGPT version 4.0 (90.5%; P = .44). As for replies to case-based questions, the average performance based on the 5-point scale was 3.81 for pediatric dermatologists and 3.53 for ChatGPT overall. The mean scores were significantly greater for pediatric dermatologists than for ChatGPT version 3.5 (P = .039) but not ChatGPT version 4.0 (P = .43).

[embed:render:related:node:261216]

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the evolving nature of AI tools, which may affect the reproducibility of results with subsequent model updates. And, while participating pediatric dermatologists said they were unfamiliar with the questions and cases used in the study, “there is potential for prior exposure through other dermatology board examination review processes,” they wrote.

“AI tools such as ChatGPT and similar large language models can be a valuable tool in your clinical practice, but be aware of potential pitfalls such as patient privacy, medical inaccuracies, [and] intrinsic biases in the tools,” Mr. Huang told this news organization. “As these technologies continue to advance, it is essential for all of us as medical clinicians to gain familiarity and stay abreast of new developments, just as we adapted to electronic health records and the use of the Internet.”

Maria Buethe, MD, PhD, a pediatric dermatology fellow at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego, who was asked to comment on the study, said she found it “interesting” that ChatGPT’s version 4.0 started to produce comparable results to clinician responses in some of the tested scenarios.

wadoshecetrubrucriphotriswustabrothupujocristonustadrashespothujitutracreswopholalomavislichachetaspawastanutrakadrikijuwrebivaprufrakeslamochathiprispajinatroki

“The authors propose a set of best practices for pediatric dermatology clinicians using ChatGPT and other AI tools,” said Dr. Buethe, who was senior author of a recent literature review on AI and its application to pediatric dermatology. It was published in SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine. “One interesting recommended use for AI tools is to utilize it to generate differential diagnosis, which can broaden the list of pathologies previously considered.”

Asked to comment on the study, Erum Ilyas, MD, who practices dermatology in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, and is a member of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, said she was not surprised that ChatGPT “can perform fairly well on multiple-choice questions as we find available in testing circumstances,” as presented in the study. “Just as board questions only support testing a base of medical knowledge and facts for clinicians to master, they do not necessarily provide real-life circumstances that apply to caring for patients, which is inherently nuanced.”

dresleguphouodececodrebebrustuclipecidajewagispuchunaspusememidrispujadraclobacrucaphiswuhuthadanikowristirabrerebacroslespeclanerotoslatrocrushethauiuudavewodojenihurupatipurithowuthastishagubropruwawricouislathatretufraclejastetridruno

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

In an experiment that pitted the wits of pediatric dermatologists against ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 to answer board examination–type questions, pediatric dermatologists outperformed both iterations of the artificial intelligence (AI)–based tool, results from a small single-center study showed.

“We were relieved to find that the pediatric dermatologists in our study performed better than ChatGPT on both multiple choice and case-based questions; however, the latest iteration of ChatGPT (4.0) was very close,” one of the study’s first authors Charles Huang, a fourth-year medical student at Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview. “Something else that was interesting in our data was that the pediatric dermatologists performed much better than ChatGPT on questions related to procedural dermatology/surgical techniques, perhaps indicating that knowledge/reasoning gained through practical experience isn’t easily replicated in AI tools such as ChatGPT.”

koduclethoswojuwrijidusiwivostathashothilitrovesobusokuniphuclocotrawrohewruchacephatrosishawapavadudoseclachoclufrujauuprebibibujuuacuclenecrosporecriguruteswushatrege

For the study, which was published on May 9 in Pediatric Dermatology, Mr. Huang, and co-first author Esther Zhang, BS, a medical student at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, and coauthors from the Department of Dermatology, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, asked five pediatric dermatologists to answer 24 text-based questions including 16 single-answer, multiple-choice questions and two multiple answer questions drawn from the American Board of Dermatology 2021 Certification Sample Test and six free-response case-based questions drawn from the “Photoquiz” section of Pediatric Dermatology between July 2022 and July 2023. The researchers then processed the same set of questions through ChatGPT versions 3.5 and 4.0 and used statistical analysis to compare responses between the pediatric dermatologists and ChatGPT. A 5-point scale adapted from current AI tools was used to score replies to case-based questions.

On average, study participants had 5.6 years of clinical experience. Pediatric dermatologists performed significantly better than ChatGPT version 3.5 on multiple-choice and multiple answer questions (91.4% vs 76.2%, respectively; P = .021) but not significantly better than ChatGPT version 4.0 (90.5%; P = .44). As for replies to case-based questions, the average performance based on the 5-point scale was 3.81 for pediatric dermatologists and 3.53 for ChatGPT overall. The mean scores were significantly greater for pediatric dermatologists than for ChatGPT version 3.5 (P = .039) but not ChatGPT version 4.0 (P = .43).

[embed:render:related:node:261216]

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the evolving nature of AI tools, which may affect the reproducibility of results with subsequent model updates. And, while participating pediatric dermatologists said they were unfamiliar with the questions and cases used in the study, “there is potential for prior exposure through other dermatology board examination review processes,” they wrote.

“AI tools such as ChatGPT and similar large language models can be a valuable tool in your clinical practice, but be aware of potential pitfalls such as patient privacy, medical inaccuracies, [and] intrinsic biases in the tools,” Mr. Huang told this news organization. “As these technologies continue to advance, it is essential for all of us as medical clinicians to gain familiarity and stay abreast of new developments, just as we adapted to electronic health records and the use of the Internet.”

Maria Buethe, MD, PhD, a pediatric dermatology fellow at Rady Children’s Hospital–San Diego, who was asked to comment on the study, said she found it “interesting” that ChatGPT’s version 4.0 started to produce comparable results to clinician responses in some of the tested scenarios.

wadoshecetrubrucriphotriswustabrothupujocristonustadrashespothujitutracreswopholalomavislichachetaspawastanutrakadrikijuwrebivaprufrakeslamochathiprispajinatroki

“The authors propose a set of best practices for pediatric dermatology clinicians using ChatGPT and other AI tools,” said Dr. Buethe, who was senior author of a recent literature review on AI and its application to pediatric dermatology. It was published in SKIN The Journal of Cutaneous Medicine. “One interesting recommended use for AI tools is to utilize it to generate differential diagnosis, which can broaden the list of pathologies previously considered.”

Asked to comment on the study, Erum Ilyas, MD, who practices dermatology in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, and is a member of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, said she was not surprised that ChatGPT “can perform fairly well on multiple-choice questions as we find available in testing circumstances,” as presented in the study. “Just as board questions only support testing a base of medical knowledge and facts for clinicians to master, they do not necessarily provide real-life circumstances that apply to caring for patients, which is inherently nuanced.”

dresleguphouodececodrebebrustuclipecidajewagispuchunaspusememidrispujadraclobacrucaphiswuhuthadanikowristirabrerebacroslespeclanerotoslatrocrushethauiuudavewodojenihurupatipurithowuthastishagubropruwawricouislathatretufraclejastetridruno

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

SAN DIEGO — Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were more likely to correctly classify and grade dermatologic adverse events from cancer therapies, results from a multicenter survey showed.

“New cancer therapies have brought a diversity of treatment-related dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) beyond those experienced with conventional chemotherapy, which has demanded an evolving assessment of toxicities,” researchers led by Nicole R. LeBoeuf, MD, MPH, of the Department of Dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Center for Cutaneous Oncology at the Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, wrote in a poster presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting.

The authors noted that “Version 5.0 of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v5.0)” serves as the current, broadly accepted criteria for classification and grading during routine medical care and clinical trials. But despite extensive utilization of CTCAE, there is little data regarding its application.”

To evaluate how CTCAE is being used in clinical practice, they sent a four-case survey of dAEs to 81 dermatologists and 182 medical oncologists at six US-based academic institutions. For three of the cases, respondents were asked to classify and grade morbilliform, psoriasiform, and papulopustular rashes based on a review of photographs and text descriptions. For the fourth case, respondents were asked to grade a dAE using only a clinic note text description. The researchers used chi-square tests in R software to compare survey responses.

Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were significantly more likely to provide correct responses in characterizing morbilliform and psoriasiform eruptions. “As low as 12%” of medical oncologists were correct, and “as low as 87%” of dermatologists were correct (P < .001). Similarly, dermatologists were significantly more likely to grade the psoriasiform, papulopustular, and written cases correctly compared with medical oncologists (P < .001 for all associations).

“These cases demonstrated poor concordance of classification and grading between specialties and across medical oncology,” the authors concluded in their poster, noting that 87% of medical oncologists were interested in additional educational tools on dAEs. “With correct classification as low as 12%, medical oncologists may have more difficulty delivering appropriate, toxicity-specific therapy and may consider banal eruptions dangerous.”

Poor concordance of grading among the two groups of clinicians “raises the question of whether CTCAE v5.0 is an appropriate determinant for patient continuation on therapy or in trials,” they added. “As anticancer therapy becomes more complex — with new toxicities from novel agents and combinations — we must ensure we have a grading system that is valid across investigators and does not harm patients by instituting unnecessary treatment stops.”

Future studies, they said, “can explore what interventions beyond involvement of dermatologists improve classification and grading in practice.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, noted that with the continued expansion and introduction of new targeted and immunotherapies in the oncology space, “you can be sure we will continue to appreciate the importance and value of the field of supportive oncodermatology, as hair, skin, and nails are almost guaranteed collateral damage in this story.

“Ensuring early identification and consistent grading severity is not only important for the plethora of patients who are currently developing the litany of cutaneous adverse events but to evaluate potential mitigation strategies and even push along countermeasures down the FDA approval pathway,” Dr. Friedman said. In this study, the investigators demonstrated that work “is sorely needed, not just in dermatology but even more so for our colleagues across the aisle. A central tenet of supportive oncodermatology must also be education for all stakeholders, and the good news is our oncology partners will welcome it.”

Dr. LeBoeuf disclosed that she is a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Silverback, Fortress Biotech, and Synox Therapeutics outside the submitted work. No other authors reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman directs the supportive oncodermatology program at GW that received independent funding from La Roche-Posay.
 

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

SAN DIEGO — Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were more likely to correctly classify and grade dermatologic adverse events from cancer therapies, results from a multicenter survey showed.

“New cancer therapies have brought a diversity of treatment-related dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) beyond those experienced with conventional chemotherapy, which has demanded an evolving assessment of toxicities,” researchers led by Nicole R. LeBoeuf, MD, MPH, of the Department of Dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Center for Cutaneous Oncology at the Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, wrote in a poster presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting.

The authors noted that “Version 5.0 of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v5.0)” serves as the current, broadly accepted criteria for classification and grading during routine medical care and clinical trials. But despite extensive utilization of CTCAE, there is little data regarding its application.”

To evaluate how CTCAE is being used in clinical practice, they sent a four-case survey of dAEs to 81 dermatologists and 182 medical oncologists at six US-based academic institutions. For three of the cases, respondents were asked to classify and grade morbilliform, psoriasiform, and papulopustular rashes based on a review of photographs and text descriptions. For the fourth case, respondents were asked to grade a dAE using only a clinic note text description. The researchers used chi-square tests in R software to compare survey responses.

Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were significantly more likely to provide correct responses in characterizing morbilliform and psoriasiform eruptions. “As low as 12%” of medical oncologists were correct, and “as low as 87%” of dermatologists were correct (P < .001). Similarly, dermatologists were significantly more likely to grade the psoriasiform, papulopustular, and written cases correctly compared with medical oncologists (P < .001 for all associations).

“These cases demonstrated poor concordance of classification and grading between specialties and across medical oncology,” the authors concluded in their poster, noting that 87% of medical oncologists were interested in additional educational tools on dAEs. “With correct classification as low as 12%, medical oncologists may have more difficulty delivering appropriate, toxicity-specific therapy and may consider banal eruptions dangerous.”

Poor concordance of grading among the two groups of clinicians “raises the question of whether CTCAE v5.0 is an appropriate determinant for patient continuation on therapy or in trials,” they added. “As anticancer therapy becomes more complex — with new toxicities from novel agents and combinations — we must ensure we have a grading system that is valid across investigators and does not harm patients by instituting unnecessary treatment stops.”

Future studies, they said, “can explore what interventions beyond involvement of dermatologists improve classification and grading in practice.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, noted that with the continued expansion and introduction of new targeted and immunotherapies in the oncology space, “you can be sure we will continue to appreciate the importance and value of the field of supportive oncodermatology, as hair, skin, and nails are almost guaranteed collateral damage in this story.

“Ensuring early identification and consistent grading severity is not only important for the plethora of patients who are currently developing the litany of cutaneous adverse events but to evaluate potential mitigation strategies and even push along countermeasures down the FDA approval pathway,” Dr. Friedman said. In this study, the investigators demonstrated that work “is sorely needed, not just in dermatology but even more so for our colleagues across the aisle. A central tenet of supportive oncodermatology must also be education for all stakeholders, and the good news is our oncology partners will welcome it.”

Dr. LeBoeuf disclosed that she is a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Silverback, Fortress Biotech, and Synox Therapeutics outside the submitted work. No other authors reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman directs the supportive oncodermatology program at GW that received independent funding from La Roche-Posay.
 

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

SAN DIEGO — Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were more likely to correctly classify and grade dermatologic adverse events from cancer therapies, results from a multicenter survey showed.

“New cancer therapies have brought a diversity of treatment-related dermatologic adverse events (dAEs) beyond those experienced with conventional chemotherapy, which has demanded an evolving assessment of toxicities,” researchers led by Nicole R. LeBoeuf, MD, MPH, of the Department of Dermatology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and the Center for Cutaneous Oncology at the Dana-Farber Brigham Cancer Center, Boston, wrote in a poster presented at the American Academy of Dermatology annual meeting.

The authors noted that “Version 5.0 of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE v5.0)” serves as the current, broadly accepted criteria for classification and grading during routine medical care and clinical trials. But despite extensive utilization of CTCAE, there is little data regarding its application.”

To evaluate how CTCAE is being used in clinical practice, they sent a four-case survey of dAEs to 81 dermatologists and 182 medical oncologists at six US-based academic institutions. For three of the cases, respondents were asked to classify and grade morbilliform, psoriasiform, and papulopustular rashes based on a review of photographs and text descriptions. For the fourth case, respondents were asked to grade a dAE using only a clinic note text description. The researchers used chi-square tests in R software to compare survey responses.

Compared with medical oncologists, dermatologists were significantly more likely to provide correct responses in characterizing morbilliform and psoriasiform eruptions. “As low as 12%” of medical oncologists were correct, and “as low as 87%” of dermatologists were correct (P < .001). Similarly, dermatologists were significantly more likely to grade the psoriasiform, papulopustular, and written cases correctly compared with medical oncologists (P < .001 for all associations).

“These cases demonstrated poor concordance of classification and grading between specialties and across medical oncology,” the authors concluded in their poster, noting that 87% of medical oncologists were interested in additional educational tools on dAEs. “With correct classification as low as 12%, medical oncologists may have more difficulty delivering appropriate, toxicity-specific therapy and may consider banal eruptions dangerous.”

Poor concordance of grading among the two groups of clinicians “raises the question of whether CTCAE v5.0 is an appropriate determinant for patient continuation on therapy or in trials,” they added. “As anticancer therapy becomes more complex — with new toxicities from novel agents and combinations — we must ensure we have a grading system that is valid across investigators and does not harm patients by instituting unnecessary treatment stops.”

Future studies, they said, “can explore what interventions beyond involvement of dermatologists improve classification and grading in practice.”

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, noted that with the continued expansion and introduction of new targeted and immunotherapies in the oncology space, “you can be sure we will continue to appreciate the importance and value of the field of supportive oncodermatology, as hair, skin, and nails are almost guaranteed collateral damage in this story.

“Ensuring early identification and consistent grading severity is not only important for the plethora of patients who are currently developing the litany of cutaneous adverse events but to evaluate potential mitigation strategies and even push along countermeasures down the FDA approval pathway,” Dr. Friedman said. In this study, the investigators demonstrated that work “is sorely needed, not just in dermatology but even more so for our colleagues across the aisle. A central tenet of supportive oncodermatology must also be education for all stakeholders, and the good news is our oncology partners will welcome it.”

Dr. LeBoeuf disclosed that she is a consultant to and has received honoraria from Bayer, Seattle Genetics, Sanofi, Silverback, Fortress Biotech, and Synox Therapeutics outside the submitted work. No other authors reported having financial disclosures. Dr. Friedman directs the supportive oncodermatology program at GW that received independent funding from La Roche-Posay.
 

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

Darker skin tones were underrepresented in images on patient-facing online educational material about skin cancer, an analysis of photos from six different federal and organization websites showed.

“Given the known disparities patients with darker skin tones face in terms of increased skin cancer morbidity and mortality, this lack of representation further disadvantages those patients by not providing them with an adequate representation of how skin cancers manifest on their skin tones,” the study’s first author, Alana Sadur, who recently completed her third year at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, said in an interview. “By not having images to refer to, patients are less likely to self-identify and seek treatment for concerning skin lesions.”

For the study, which was published in Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, Ms. Sadur and coauthors evaluated the inclusivity and representation of skin tones in photos of skin cancer on the following patient-facing websites: CDC.gov, NIH.gov, skincancer.org, americancancerfund.org, mayoclinic.org, and cancer.org. The researchers counted each individual person or image showing skin as a separate representation, and three independent reviewers used the 5-color Pantone swatch as described in a dermatology atlas to categorize representations as “lighter-toned skin” (Pantones A-B or lighter) or “darker-toned skin” (Pantones C-E or darker). 

Of the 372 total representations identified on the websites, only 49 (13.2%) showed darker skin tones. Of these, 44.9% depicted Pantone C, 34.7% depicted Pantone D, and 20.4% depicted Pantone E. The researchers also found that only 11% of nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSC) and 5.8% of melanoma skin cancers (MSC) were shown on darker skin tones, while no cartoon portrayals of NMSC or MSC included darker skin tones.

In findings related to nondisease representations on the websites, darker skin tones were depicted in just 22.7% of stock photos and 26.1% of website front pages.

The study’s senior author, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized the need for trusted sources like national organizations and federally funded agencies to be purposeful with their selection of images to “ensure all visitors to the site are represented,” he told this news organization.

“This is very important when dealing with skin cancer as a lack of representation could easily be misinterpreted as epidemiological data, meaning this gap could suggest certain individuals do not get skin cancer because photos in those skin tones are not present,” he added. “This doesn’t even begin to touch upon the diversity of individuals in the stock photos or lack thereof, which can perpetuate the lack of diversity in our specialty. We need to do better.”

The authors reported having no relevant disclosures.

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

Darker skin tones were underrepresented in images on patient-facing online educational material about skin cancer, an analysis of photos from six different federal and organization websites showed.

“Given the known disparities patients with darker skin tones face in terms of increased skin cancer morbidity and mortality, this lack of representation further disadvantages those patients by not providing them with an adequate representation of how skin cancers manifest on their skin tones,” the study’s first author, Alana Sadur, who recently completed her third year at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, said in an interview. “By not having images to refer to, patients are less likely to self-identify and seek treatment for concerning skin lesions.”

For the study, which was published in Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, Ms. Sadur and coauthors evaluated the inclusivity and representation of skin tones in photos of skin cancer on the following patient-facing websites: CDC.gov, NIH.gov, skincancer.org, americancancerfund.org, mayoclinic.org, and cancer.org. The researchers counted each individual person or image showing skin as a separate representation, and three independent reviewers used the 5-color Pantone swatch as described in a dermatology atlas to categorize representations as “lighter-toned skin” (Pantones A-B or lighter) or “darker-toned skin” (Pantones C-E or darker). 

Of the 372 total representations identified on the websites, only 49 (13.2%) showed darker skin tones. Of these, 44.9% depicted Pantone C, 34.7% depicted Pantone D, and 20.4% depicted Pantone E. The researchers also found that only 11% of nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSC) and 5.8% of melanoma skin cancers (MSC) were shown on darker skin tones, while no cartoon portrayals of NMSC or MSC included darker skin tones.

In findings related to nondisease representations on the websites, darker skin tones were depicted in just 22.7% of stock photos and 26.1% of website front pages.

The study’s senior author, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized the need for trusted sources like national organizations and federally funded agencies to be purposeful with their selection of images to “ensure all visitors to the site are represented,” he told this news organization.

“This is very important when dealing with skin cancer as a lack of representation could easily be misinterpreted as epidemiological data, meaning this gap could suggest certain individuals do not get skin cancer because photos in those skin tones are not present,” he added. “This doesn’t even begin to touch upon the diversity of individuals in the stock photos or lack thereof, which can perpetuate the lack of diversity in our specialty. We need to do better.”

The authors reported having no relevant disclosures.

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

Darker skin tones were underrepresented in images on patient-facing online educational material about skin cancer, an analysis of photos from six different federal and organization websites showed.

“Given the known disparities patients with darker skin tones face in terms of increased skin cancer morbidity and mortality, this lack of representation further disadvantages those patients by not providing them with an adequate representation of how skin cancers manifest on their skin tones,” the study’s first author, Alana Sadur, who recently completed her third year at the George Washington School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Washington, said in an interview. “By not having images to refer to, patients are less likely to self-identify and seek treatment for concerning skin lesions.”

For the study, which was published in Journal of Drugs in Dermatology, Ms. Sadur and coauthors evaluated the inclusivity and representation of skin tones in photos of skin cancer on the following patient-facing websites: CDC.gov, NIH.gov, skincancer.org, americancancerfund.org, mayoclinic.org, and cancer.org. The researchers counted each individual person or image showing skin as a separate representation, and three independent reviewers used the 5-color Pantone swatch as described in a dermatology atlas to categorize representations as “lighter-toned skin” (Pantones A-B or lighter) or “darker-toned skin” (Pantones C-E or darker). 

Of the 372 total representations identified on the websites, only 49 (13.2%) showed darker skin tones. Of these, 44.9% depicted Pantone C, 34.7% depicted Pantone D, and 20.4% depicted Pantone E. The researchers also found that only 11% of nonmelanoma skin cancers (NMSC) and 5.8% of melanoma skin cancers (MSC) were shown on darker skin tones, while no cartoon portrayals of NMSC or MSC included darker skin tones.

In findings related to nondisease representations on the websites, darker skin tones were depicted in just 22.7% of stock photos and 26.1% of website front pages.

The study’s senior author, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, emphasized the need for trusted sources like national organizations and federally funded agencies to be purposeful with their selection of images to “ensure all visitors to the site are represented,” he told this news organization.

“This is very important when dealing with skin cancer as a lack of representation could easily be misinterpreted as epidemiological data, meaning this gap could suggest certain individuals do not get skin cancer because photos in those skin tones are not present,” he added. “This doesn’t even begin to touch upon the diversity of individuals in the stock photos or lack thereof, which can perpetuate the lack of diversity in our specialty. We need to do better.”

The authors reported having no relevant disclosures.

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

SAN DIEGO — In the clinical experience of Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, many pediatric dermatology encounters involve shared decision-making (SDM): a collaborative model in which physicians and patients work together to make health care decisions based on the best evidence and on the patient’s values, priorities, and preferences.

“SDM is a cornerstone of person-centered care,” Dr. Cordoro, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, said at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology meeting, held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “We do it all the time. It can be patient-led, clinician-led, or a patient/family dyad approach. If we do it well, it can improve outcomes. Patients report more satisfying interactions with their care team. It brings adolescent patients especially a sense of independence and they adapt faster to their illness.”

AHRQ’s Five-Step Approach

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality developed a five-step approach to SDM known as SHARE: Seek your patient’s participation; Help your patient explore and compare treatment options; Assess your patient’s values and preferences; Reach a decision with your patient, and Evaluate your patient’s decision. “We do this all the time in practice with adult patients, but may not label it as SDM,” said Dr. Cordoro, chief and fellowship director of pediatric dermatology at UCSF.

“Where it gets a little murkier is in pediatric decision-making, which is a complex type of surrogate decision-making.” In this situation the patient — a minor — does not have full autonomy. The challenge for caregivers is that giving or withholding permission for interventions is a difficult role. “Their job is to protect the patient’s well-being while empowering them toward independence,” she said. “It can be hard for caregivers to understand complex information.” The challenge for clinicians, she continued, is to know when to invite SDM. This requires relational and sharp communication skills. “We must consider our patient’s/family’s health literacy and be sure the information we share is understood,” she said. “What are the social and structural determinants of health that are going to influence decision-making? You want to move into a relationship like this with cultural humility so you can understand what their preferences are and how they’re seeing the problem. Because there’s no universal agreement on the age at which minors should be deemed decision-making competent in health care, the approach is nuanced and depends on each individual patient and family.”

[embed:render:related:node:263508]

Dr. Cordoro proposed the following four-step approach to SDM to use in pediatric dermatology:

Step 1: Share relevant information about the condition and treatment options in a clear and understandable manner. The average US resident is at the seventh-to eighth-grade level, “so we have to avoid medical jargon and use plain language,” Dr. Cordoro said. Then, use the teach-back approach to assess their understanding. “Ask, ‘What is your understanding of the most important points that we talked about?’ Or, ‘Please share with me what you heard so I’m sure we all understand the plan.’ Using these techniques will reduce the barriers to care such as health literacy.”

Step 2: Solicit and understand patient/patient family perspectives, preferences and priorities. The goal here is to uncover their beliefs, concerns, and assumptions that may influence their decisions. “Be mindful of power asymmetry,” she noted. “Many families still believe the doctor is the boss and they are there to be told what to do. Be clear that the patient has a say. Talk directly to the patient about their interests if developmentally appropriate.”

Step 3: Invite patients/family into a shared decision-making conversation. Consider statements like, “There are many reasonable options here. Let’s work together to come up with the decision that’s right for you.” Or, “Let’s start by exploring your specific goals and concerns. As you think about the options I just talked to you about, what’s important to you?” Or, “Do you want to think about this decision with anyone else?”

Step 4: Check back in frequently. Pause between significant points and check in. “See how they’re doing during the conversation,” she said. “At future appointments, remember to solicit their input on additional decisions.”

In Dr. Cordoro’s opinion, one potential pitfall of SDM is an over-reliance on patient decision aids. “Very few are available in dermatology,” she said. “Some are relevant but none specifically to pediatric dermatology. They are often complex and require a high reading comprehension level. This disadvantages patients and families with low health literacy. Keep it clear and simple. Your patients will appreciate it.”

Dr. Cordoro reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — In the clinical experience of Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, many pediatric dermatology encounters involve shared decision-making (SDM): a collaborative model in which physicians and patients work together to make health care decisions based on the best evidence and on the patient’s values, priorities, and preferences.

“SDM is a cornerstone of person-centered care,” Dr. Cordoro, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, said at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology meeting, held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “We do it all the time. It can be patient-led, clinician-led, or a patient/family dyad approach. If we do it well, it can improve outcomes. Patients report more satisfying interactions with their care team. It brings adolescent patients especially a sense of independence and they adapt faster to their illness.”

AHRQ’s Five-Step Approach

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality developed a five-step approach to SDM known as SHARE: Seek your patient’s participation; Help your patient explore and compare treatment options; Assess your patient’s values and preferences; Reach a decision with your patient, and Evaluate your patient’s decision. “We do this all the time in practice with adult patients, but may not label it as SDM,” said Dr. Cordoro, chief and fellowship director of pediatric dermatology at UCSF.

“Where it gets a little murkier is in pediatric decision-making, which is a complex type of surrogate decision-making.” In this situation the patient — a minor — does not have full autonomy. The challenge for caregivers is that giving or withholding permission for interventions is a difficult role. “Their job is to protect the patient’s well-being while empowering them toward independence,” she said. “It can be hard for caregivers to understand complex information.” The challenge for clinicians, she continued, is to know when to invite SDM. This requires relational and sharp communication skills. “We must consider our patient’s/family’s health literacy and be sure the information we share is understood,” she said. “What are the social and structural determinants of health that are going to influence decision-making? You want to move into a relationship like this with cultural humility so you can understand what their preferences are and how they’re seeing the problem. Because there’s no universal agreement on the age at which minors should be deemed decision-making competent in health care, the approach is nuanced and depends on each individual patient and family.”

[embed:render:related:node:263508]

Dr. Cordoro proposed the following four-step approach to SDM to use in pediatric dermatology:

Step 1: Share relevant information about the condition and treatment options in a clear and understandable manner. The average US resident is at the seventh-to eighth-grade level, “so we have to avoid medical jargon and use plain language,” Dr. Cordoro said. Then, use the teach-back approach to assess their understanding. “Ask, ‘What is your understanding of the most important points that we talked about?’ Or, ‘Please share with me what you heard so I’m sure we all understand the plan.’ Using these techniques will reduce the barriers to care such as health literacy.”

Step 2: Solicit and understand patient/patient family perspectives, preferences and priorities. The goal here is to uncover their beliefs, concerns, and assumptions that may influence their decisions. “Be mindful of power asymmetry,” she noted. “Many families still believe the doctor is the boss and they are there to be told what to do. Be clear that the patient has a say. Talk directly to the patient about their interests if developmentally appropriate.”

Step 3: Invite patients/family into a shared decision-making conversation. Consider statements like, “There are many reasonable options here. Let’s work together to come up with the decision that’s right for you.” Or, “Let’s start by exploring your specific goals and concerns. As you think about the options I just talked to you about, what’s important to you?” Or, “Do you want to think about this decision with anyone else?”

Step 4: Check back in frequently. Pause between significant points and check in. “See how they’re doing during the conversation,” she said. “At future appointments, remember to solicit their input on additional decisions.”

In Dr. Cordoro’s opinion, one potential pitfall of SDM is an over-reliance on patient decision aids. “Very few are available in dermatology,” she said. “Some are relevant but none specifically to pediatric dermatology. They are often complex and require a high reading comprehension level. This disadvantages patients and families with low health literacy. Keep it clear and simple. Your patients will appreciate it.”

Dr. Cordoro reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — In the clinical experience of Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, many pediatric dermatology encounters involve shared decision-making (SDM): a collaborative model in which physicians and patients work together to make health care decisions based on the best evidence and on the patient’s values, priorities, and preferences.

“SDM is a cornerstone of person-centered care,” Dr. Cordoro, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, said at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology meeting, held in advance of the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “We do it all the time. It can be patient-led, clinician-led, or a patient/family dyad approach. If we do it well, it can improve outcomes. Patients report more satisfying interactions with their care team. It brings adolescent patients especially a sense of independence and they adapt faster to their illness.”

AHRQ’s Five-Step Approach

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality developed a five-step approach to SDM known as SHARE: Seek your patient’s participation; Help your patient explore and compare treatment options; Assess your patient’s values and preferences; Reach a decision with your patient, and Evaluate your patient’s decision. “We do this all the time in practice with adult patients, but may not label it as SDM,” said Dr. Cordoro, chief and fellowship director of pediatric dermatology at UCSF.

“Where it gets a little murkier is in pediatric decision-making, which is a complex type of surrogate decision-making.” In this situation the patient — a minor — does not have full autonomy. The challenge for caregivers is that giving or withholding permission for interventions is a difficult role. “Their job is to protect the patient’s well-being while empowering them toward independence,” she said. “It can be hard for caregivers to understand complex information.” The challenge for clinicians, she continued, is to know when to invite SDM. This requires relational and sharp communication skills. “We must consider our patient’s/family’s health literacy and be sure the information we share is understood,” she said. “What are the social and structural determinants of health that are going to influence decision-making? You want to move into a relationship like this with cultural humility so you can understand what their preferences are and how they’re seeing the problem. Because there’s no universal agreement on the age at which minors should be deemed decision-making competent in health care, the approach is nuanced and depends on each individual patient and family.”

[embed:render:related:node:263508]

Dr. Cordoro proposed the following four-step approach to SDM to use in pediatric dermatology:

Step 1: Share relevant information about the condition and treatment options in a clear and understandable manner. The average US resident is at the seventh-to eighth-grade level, “so we have to avoid medical jargon and use plain language,” Dr. Cordoro said. Then, use the teach-back approach to assess their understanding. “Ask, ‘What is your understanding of the most important points that we talked about?’ Or, ‘Please share with me what you heard so I’m sure we all understand the plan.’ Using these techniques will reduce the barriers to care such as health literacy.”

Step 2: Solicit and understand patient/patient family perspectives, preferences and priorities. The goal here is to uncover their beliefs, concerns, and assumptions that may influence their decisions. “Be mindful of power asymmetry,” she noted. “Many families still believe the doctor is the boss and they are there to be told what to do. Be clear that the patient has a say. Talk directly to the patient about their interests if developmentally appropriate.”

Step 3: Invite patients/family into a shared decision-making conversation. Consider statements like, “There are many reasonable options here. Let’s work together to come up with the decision that’s right for you.” Or, “Let’s start by exploring your specific goals and concerns. As you think about the options I just talked to you about, what’s important to you?” Or, “Do you want to think about this decision with anyone else?”

Step 4: Check back in frequently. Pause between significant points and check in. “See how they’re doing during the conversation,” she said. “At future appointments, remember to solicit their input on additional decisions.”

In Dr. Cordoro’s opinion, one potential pitfall of SDM is an over-reliance on patient decision aids. “Very few are available in dermatology,” she said. “Some are relevant but none specifically to pediatric dermatology. They are often complex and require a high reading comprehension level. This disadvantages patients and families with low health literacy. Keep it clear and simple. Your patients will appreciate it.”

Dr. Cordoro reported having no relevant disclosures.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a complete response letter regarding the Biologics License Application (BLA) for prademagene zamikeracel (pz-cel), which is under review for the treatment of patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB), requesting more information from the manufacturer.

Pz-cel, which comprises autologous, COL7A1 gene–corrected epidermal sheets, is being evaluated for its ability to enable normal type VII collagen expression in a patient’s skin cells and to facilitate wound healing and pain reduction in wounds in patients with RDEB after a one-time application procedure. The cause of RDEB is a defect in the COL7A1 gene that “results in the inability to produce type VII collagen,” a press release from the manufacturer noted.

[embed:render:related:node:264410]

On April 22, 2024, the manufacturer Abeona Therapeutics announced that following a meeting with the FDA in March and in a subsequent request for information, the agency requires additional information to satisfy certain Chemistry Manufacturing and Controls requirements before the BLA for pz-cel can be approved. According to a press release from the company, the information pertains to validation requirements for certain manufacturing and release testing methods, including some that were observed during the FDA’s pre-licensing inspection.

The complete response letter did not identify any issues related to the clinical efficacy or safety data in the BLA, and the FDA did not request any new clinical trials or clinical data to support approval, according to the company.

The company anticipates completing the BLA resubmission in the third quarter of 2024. The application is supported by clinical efficacy and safety data from the pivotal phase 3 VIITAL study and a phase 1/2a study in patients with RDEB.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a complete response letter regarding the Biologics License Application (BLA) for prademagene zamikeracel (pz-cel), which is under review for the treatment of patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB), requesting more information from the manufacturer.

Pz-cel, which comprises autologous, COL7A1 gene–corrected epidermal sheets, is being evaluated for its ability to enable normal type VII collagen expression in a patient’s skin cells and to facilitate wound healing and pain reduction in wounds in patients with RDEB after a one-time application procedure. The cause of RDEB is a defect in the COL7A1 gene that “results in the inability to produce type VII collagen,” a press release from the manufacturer noted.

[embed:render:related:node:264410]

On April 22, 2024, the manufacturer Abeona Therapeutics announced that following a meeting with the FDA in March and in a subsequent request for information, the agency requires additional information to satisfy certain Chemistry Manufacturing and Controls requirements before the BLA for pz-cel can be approved. According to a press release from the company, the information pertains to validation requirements for certain manufacturing and release testing methods, including some that were observed during the FDA’s pre-licensing inspection.

The complete response letter did not identify any issues related to the clinical efficacy or safety data in the BLA, and the FDA did not request any new clinical trials or clinical data to support approval, according to the company.

The company anticipates completing the BLA resubmission in the third quarter of 2024. The application is supported by clinical efficacy and safety data from the pivotal phase 3 VIITAL study and a phase 1/2a study in patients with RDEB.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued a complete response letter regarding the Biologics License Application (BLA) for prademagene zamikeracel (pz-cel), which is under review for the treatment of patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB), requesting more information from the manufacturer.

Pz-cel, which comprises autologous, COL7A1 gene–corrected epidermal sheets, is being evaluated for its ability to enable normal type VII collagen expression in a patient’s skin cells and to facilitate wound healing and pain reduction in wounds in patients with RDEB after a one-time application procedure. The cause of RDEB is a defect in the COL7A1 gene that “results in the inability to produce type VII collagen,” a press release from the manufacturer noted.

[embed:render:related:node:264410]

On April 22, 2024, the manufacturer Abeona Therapeutics announced that following a meeting with the FDA in March and in a subsequent request for information, the agency requires additional information to satisfy certain Chemistry Manufacturing and Controls requirements before the BLA for pz-cel can be approved. According to a press release from the company, the information pertains to validation requirements for certain manufacturing and release testing methods, including some that were observed during the FDA’s pre-licensing inspection.

The complete response letter did not identify any issues related to the clinical efficacy or safety data in the BLA, and the FDA did not request any new clinical trials or clinical data to support approval, according to the company.

The company anticipates completing the BLA resubmission in the third quarter of 2024. The application is supported by clinical efficacy and safety data from the pivotal phase 3 VIITAL study and a phase 1/2a study in patients with RDEB.

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

FROM AAD 2024

SAN DIEGO — Moderate to severe atopic dermatitis reduces linear growth in children younger than 12 years, results from an ongoing 10-year observational study showed.

“We need to sort out whether this is reversed by newer treatments, especially in the 6- to 11-year-olds, as well as the factors that underlie it in atopic dermatitis,” said the study’s first author Amy S. Paller, MD, chair of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, following the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session.
 

Atopic Dermatitis Impacts Growth

In the ongoing international study called PEDISTAD, researchers enrolled 1326 children younger than 12 years with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled by topical therapies who were candidates to receive systemic medications. They assessed the percentage of patients above the 50th percentile and the mean percentiles for height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) at baseline against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Learning Management System reference healthy population, by age in months, and compared results to the CDC’s standardized growth curves for healthy children aged 0-12 years.

The investigators found that at baseline, compared with the age-specific population norms, 50% of men and 51% of women in the PEDISTAD study were above the 50th percentile for weight, but only 38% and 52%, respectively, were above the 50th percentile for height. Among patients aged 5-12 years, only 28% of men and 47% of women were above the 50th percentile for height, while 69% of men and 71% of women were above the 50th percentile for BMI.

Dr. Paller said that she was “not really surprised by the reduction in linear growth, since there are so many factors that may contribute,” including chronic inflammation, poor sleep, and the use of topical and systemic steroids. “But [it’s] good to have this data as an opportunity to see if our improved therapies can reverse this.”

She said that she was “a bit surprised by the increase in weight and body mass index, but this could reflect less physical activity/sports [participation and] deserves more investigation,” and added that the findings “mesh nicely with new attention on bone growth with good control of atopic dermatitis in this age group.”

Dr. Paller acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that those enrolled are a heterogeneous cohort with variable treatment regimens.
 

Some Answers, More Questions

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, who was asked to comment on the findings, said that atopic dermatitis “should be considered the cutaneous manifestations of a systemic inflammatory disease, though even if it were not, the impact on daily and nightly activities [such as sleep] could indirectly have systemic medical consequences.”

The data presented “highlights that children with moderate to severe disease have higher BMIs and shorter height than matched counterparts, likely owing to the treasure trove of direct and indirect consequences of uncontrolled type 2 inflammation,” he said. “What I would like to know, and as the authors astutely noted, could treatment, and especially early intervention, prevent or even alter this impact?”

Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Sanofi and Regeneron, the study sponsor. She is also an investigator for AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Krystal, LEO Pharma, and UCB and is a member of the data monitoring safety board for AbbVie, Abeona, Catawba, Galderma, and InMed. Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study, had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

FROM AAD 2024

SAN DIEGO — Moderate to severe atopic dermatitis reduces linear growth in children younger than 12 years, results from an ongoing 10-year observational study showed.

“We need to sort out whether this is reversed by newer treatments, especially in the 6- to 11-year-olds, as well as the factors that underlie it in atopic dermatitis,” said the study’s first author Amy S. Paller, MD, chair of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, following the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session.
 

Atopic Dermatitis Impacts Growth

In the ongoing international study called PEDISTAD, researchers enrolled 1326 children younger than 12 years with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled by topical therapies who were candidates to receive systemic medications. They assessed the percentage of patients above the 50th percentile and the mean percentiles for height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) at baseline against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Learning Management System reference healthy population, by age in months, and compared results to the CDC’s standardized growth curves for healthy children aged 0-12 years.

The investigators found that at baseline, compared with the age-specific population norms, 50% of men and 51% of women in the PEDISTAD study were above the 50th percentile for weight, but only 38% and 52%, respectively, were above the 50th percentile for height. Among patients aged 5-12 years, only 28% of men and 47% of women were above the 50th percentile for height, while 69% of men and 71% of women were above the 50th percentile for BMI.

Dr. Paller said that she was “not really surprised by the reduction in linear growth, since there are so many factors that may contribute,” including chronic inflammation, poor sleep, and the use of topical and systemic steroids. “But [it’s] good to have this data as an opportunity to see if our improved therapies can reverse this.”

She said that she was “a bit surprised by the increase in weight and body mass index, but this could reflect less physical activity/sports [participation and] deserves more investigation,” and added that the findings “mesh nicely with new attention on bone growth with good control of atopic dermatitis in this age group.”

Dr. Paller acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that those enrolled are a heterogeneous cohort with variable treatment regimens.
 

Some Answers, More Questions

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, who was asked to comment on the findings, said that atopic dermatitis “should be considered the cutaneous manifestations of a systemic inflammatory disease, though even if it were not, the impact on daily and nightly activities [such as sleep] could indirectly have systemic medical consequences.”

The data presented “highlights that children with moderate to severe disease have higher BMIs and shorter height than matched counterparts, likely owing to the treasure trove of direct and indirect consequences of uncontrolled type 2 inflammation,” he said. “What I would like to know, and as the authors astutely noted, could treatment, and especially early intervention, prevent or even alter this impact?”

Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Sanofi and Regeneron, the study sponsor. She is also an investigator for AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Krystal, LEO Pharma, and UCB and is a member of the data monitoring safety board for AbbVie, Abeona, Catawba, Galderma, and InMed. Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study, had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

FROM AAD 2024

SAN DIEGO — Moderate to severe atopic dermatitis reduces linear growth in children younger than 12 years, results from an ongoing 10-year observational study showed.

“We need to sort out whether this is reversed by newer treatments, especially in the 6- to 11-year-olds, as well as the factors that underlie it in atopic dermatitis,” said the study’s first author Amy S. Paller, MD, chair of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, following the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, where the study was presented during a poster session.
 

Atopic Dermatitis Impacts Growth

In the ongoing international study called PEDISTAD, researchers enrolled 1326 children younger than 12 years with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis inadequately controlled by topical therapies who were candidates to receive systemic medications. They assessed the percentage of patients above the 50th percentile and the mean percentiles for height, weight, and body mass index (BMI) at baseline against the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) Learning Management System reference healthy population, by age in months, and compared results to the CDC’s standardized growth curves for healthy children aged 0-12 years.

The investigators found that at baseline, compared with the age-specific population norms, 50% of men and 51% of women in the PEDISTAD study were above the 50th percentile for weight, but only 38% and 52%, respectively, were above the 50th percentile for height. Among patients aged 5-12 years, only 28% of men and 47% of women were above the 50th percentile for height, while 69% of men and 71% of women were above the 50th percentile for BMI.

Dr. Paller said that she was “not really surprised by the reduction in linear growth, since there are so many factors that may contribute,” including chronic inflammation, poor sleep, and the use of topical and systemic steroids. “But [it’s] good to have this data as an opportunity to see if our improved therapies can reverse this.”

She said that she was “a bit surprised by the increase in weight and body mass index, but this could reflect less physical activity/sports [participation and] deserves more investigation,” and added that the findings “mesh nicely with new attention on bone growth with good control of atopic dermatitis in this age group.”

Dr. Paller acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that those enrolled are a heterogeneous cohort with variable treatment regimens.
 

Some Answers, More Questions

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, who was asked to comment on the findings, said that atopic dermatitis “should be considered the cutaneous manifestations of a systemic inflammatory disease, though even if it were not, the impact on daily and nightly activities [such as sleep] could indirectly have systemic medical consequences.”

The data presented “highlights that children with moderate to severe disease have higher BMIs and shorter height than matched counterparts, likely owing to the treasure trove of direct and indirect consequences of uncontrolled type 2 inflammation,” he said. “What I would like to know, and as the authors astutely noted, could treatment, and especially early intervention, prevent or even alter this impact?”

Dr. Paller disclosed that she is a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Sanofi and Regeneron, the study sponsor. She is also an investigator for AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Krystal, LEO Pharma, and UCB and is a member of the data monitoring safety board for AbbVie, Abeona, Catawba, Galderma, and InMed. Dr. Friedman, who was not involved with the study, had no relevant disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — Whether you completed your dermatology residency training 20 years ago or 2 years ago, recent advances in treatments for atopic dermatitis (AD) have likely influenced your “go to” interventions when treating children with AD, according to Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD.

“There have been many changes in the understanding of AD and recognition of the variable courses of the disease, and the associated allergic and nonallergic comorbidities,” Dr. Eichenfield, chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego in California, said at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology meeting, held the day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “With our revolutionary systemic and evolving topical therapies, we are in a new day of pediatric management.”

Eczema_foot_baby_web.jpg

Drawing from 2023 American Academy of Dermatology guidelines of care on topical treatments of AD and his own clinical experience, he shared his perspective on “what’s tried and true” in care for patients with persistent eczema:

Both bathing and moisturizing leave skin moist. It’s well established that the use of moisturizers/emollients minimizes xerosis and the amount of prescription anti-inflammatory medications, but limited evidence exists to recommend a particular ingredient and formulation, said Dr. Eichenfield, also professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. “Future studies may tell us whether specific moisturizers work better than others, and/or if early interventions may prevent AD, but that remains a big question mark,” he noted. In addition, applications may sometimes “mobilize” topical prescriptive residual absorption and activity.

As for baths, he said, “avoidance of bathing to avoid drying out skin is a practice without evidence basis. Bathing also may have many benefits in active eczema.”

Bleach baths may enhance skin barrier function, reduce itch, and improve eczema, but the practice remains controversial, he continued. Authors of a systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that while bleach baths are effective in reducing the severity of AD, they do not appear to be more effective than water bath alone. Authors of a more recent study found that bleach baths did not normalize dysbiosis, “but that study did not compare outcomes to bathing without bleach,” Dr. Eichenfield noted.“My sense is there is some benefit to regular bathing, especially in children with moderate to severe AD, especially those with colonized or infected eczema.”

He advises clinicians to be aware of other “standard AD interventions” from around the world, including black tea wet dressings and green tea bath therapy.


 

Eichenfield_Lawrence_CA_web.jpg

Topical corticosteroids. These are “tried and true” for their anti-inflammatory properties and rapid response, relatively low cost, and large range of potency, he said. Potential problems include the burden of topical application and the potential for stinging/burning, atrophy, telangiectasias, adrenal axis suppression, and concerns about withdrawal phenomena. “Being a proponent of topical corticosteroids, but explaining reasonable and appropriate use can be challenging,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “Social media has influenced concerns about topical corticosteroids, with steroid addiction and withdrawal being concerns influencing discomfort with therapies.”

Make sure to measure outcomes. The suggested core outcome measure for recording clinical signs in AD clinical trials is the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, he said. In clinical practice, Dr. Eichenfield favors body surface area (BSA) and the Validated Global Assessment scale (v-IGA) to measure signs of moderate to severe AD. “Documenting extent of disease makes a big difference in families understanding how severe their child’s disease is and how it is doing over time.” Alternatively, he recommends the Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) or the Recap of Atopic Eczema (RECAP) as tools assessing long-term disease control.

Familiarize yourself with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications for care regimens. Options include topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) such as tacrolimus and pimecrolimus; phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE-4) inhibitors such as crisaborole and roflumilast; the aryl-hydrocarbon receptor agonist tapinarof; and topical Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors such as delgocitinib and ruxolitinib as well as others in development. “There is variable status around the world in terms of whether these nonsteroidal options are approved or not,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “Issues of use include cost, availability, side effects, and concerns about potential absorption. I think there’s an evolution in how much we rely on these instead of topical corticosteroids. They’re more commonly used in maintenance regimens rather than for remission induction.”

Dr. Eichenfield encouraged dermatologists to share information about and experiences with evolving treatment options for AD, “because when the studies are done, they are done as monotherapy. We must translate that into clinical practice and figure out how they fit in. Our exchange of information is critical.”

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed conflicts of interest from many pharmaceutical companies, including those with AD treatments.

SAN DIEGO — Whether you completed your dermatology residency training 20 years ago or 2 years ago, recent advances in treatments for atopic dermatitis (AD) have likely influenced your “go to” interventions when treating children with AD, according to Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD.

“There have been many changes in the understanding of AD and recognition of the variable courses of the disease, and the associated allergic and nonallergic comorbidities,” Dr. Eichenfield, chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego in California, said at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology meeting, held the day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “With our revolutionary systemic and evolving topical therapies, we are in a new day of pediatric management.”

Eczema_foot_baby_web.jpg

Drawing from 2023 American Academy of Dermatology guidelines of care on topical treatments of AD and his own clinical experience, he shared his perspective on “what’s tried and true” in care for patients with persistent eczema:

Both bathing and moisturizing leave skin moist. It’s well established that the use of moisturizers/emollients minimizes xerosis and the amount of prescription anti-inflammatory medications, but limited evidence exists to recommend a particular ingredient and formulation, said Dr. Eichenfield, also professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. “Future studies may tell us whether specific moisturizers work better than others, and/or if early interventions may prevent AD, but that remains a big question mark,” he noted. In addition, applications may sometimes “mobilize” topical prescriptive residual absorption and activity.

As for baths, he said, “avoidance of bathing to avoid drying out skin is a practice without evidence basis. Bathing also may have many benefits in active eczema.”

Bleach baths may enhance skin barrier function, reduce itch, and improve eczema, but the practice remains controversial, he continued. Authors of a systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that while bleach baths are effective in reducing the severity of AD, they do not appear to be more effective than water bath alone. Authors of a more recent study found that bleach baths did not normalize dysbiosis, “but that study did not compare outcomes to bathing without bleach,” Dr. Eichenfield noted.“My sense is there is some benefit to regular bathing, especially in children with moderate to severe AD, especially those with colonized or infected eczema.”

He advises clinicians to be aware of other “standard AD interventions” from around the world, including black tea wet dressings and green tea bath therapy.


 

Eichenfield_Lawrence_CA_web.jpg

Topical corticosteroids. These are “tried and true” for their anti-inflammatory properties and rapid response, relatively low cost, and large range of potency, he said. Potential problems include the burden of topical application and the potential for stinging/burning, atrophy, telangiectasias, adrenal axis suppression, and concerns about withdrawal phenomena. “Being a proponent of topical corticosteroids, but explaining reasonable and appropriate use can be challenging,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “Social media has influenced concerns about topical corticosteroids, with steroid addiction and withdrawal being concerns influencing discomfort with therapies.”

Make sure to measure outcomes. The suggested core outcome measure for recording clinical signs in AD clinical trials is the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, he said. In clinical practice, Dr. Eichenfield favors body surface area (BSA) and the Validated Global Assessment scale (v-IGA) to measure signs of moderate to severe AD. “Documenting extent of disease makes a big difference in families understanding how severe their child’s disease is and how it is doing over time.” Alternatively, he recommends the Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) or the Recap of Atopic Eczema (RECAP) as tools assessing long-term disease control.

Familiarize yourself with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications for care regimens. Options include topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) such as tacrolimus and pimecrolimus; phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE-4) inhibitors such as crisaborole and roflumilast; the aryl-hydrocarbon receptor agonist tapinarof; and topical Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors such as delgocitinib and ruxolitinib as well as others in development. “There is variable status around the world in terms of whether these nonsteroidal options are approved or not,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “Issues of use include cost, availability, side effects, and concerns about potential absorption. I think there’s an evolution in how much we rely on these instead of topical corticosteroids. They’re more commonly used in maintenance regimens rather than for remission induction.”

Dr. Eichenfield encouraged dermatologists to share information about and experiences with evolving treatment options for AD, “because when the studies are done, they are done as monotherapy. We must translate that into clinical practice and figure out how they fit in. Our exchange of information is critical.”

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed conflicts of interest from many pharmaceutical companies, including those with AD treatments.

SAN DIEGO — Whether you completed your dermatology residency training 20 years ago or 2 years ago, recent advances in treatments for atopic dermatitis (AD) have likely influenced your “go to” interventions when treating children with AD, according to Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD.

“There have been many changes in the understanding of AD and recognition of the variable courses of the disease, and the associated allergic and nonallergic comorbidities,” Dr. Eichenfield, chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children’s Hospital-San Diego in California, said at the Society for Pediatric Dermatology meeting, held the day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. “With our revolutionary systemic and evolving topical therapies, we are in a new day of pediatric management.”

Eczema_foot_baby_web.jpg

Drawing from 2023 American Academy of Dermatology guidelines of care on topical treatments of AD and his own clinical experience, he shared his perspective on “what’s tried and true” in care for patients with persistent eczema:

Both bathing and moisturizing leave skin moist. It’s well established that the use of moisturizers/emollients minimizes xerosis and the amount of prescription anti-inflammatory medications, but limited evidence exists to recommend a particular ingredient and formulation, said Dr. Eichenfield, also professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. “Future studies may tell us whether specific moisturizers work better than others, and/or if early interventions may prevent AD, but that remains a big question mark,” he noted. In addition, applications may sometimes “mobilize” topical prescriptive residual absorption and activity.

As for baths, he said, “avoidance of bathing to avoid drying out skin is a practice without evidence basis. Bathing also may have many benefits in active eczema.”

Bleach baths may enhance skin barrier function, reduce itch, and improve eczema, but the practice remains controversial, he continued. Authors of a systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that while bleach baths are effective in reducing the severity of AD, they do not appear to be more effective than water bath alone. Authors of a more recent study found that bleach baths did not normalize dysbiosis, “but that study did not compare outcomes to bathing without bleach,” Dr. Eichenfield noted.“My sense is there is some benefit to regular bathing, especially in children with moderate to severe AD, especially those with colonized or infected eczema.”

He advises clinicians to be aware of other “standard AD interventions” from around the world, including black tea wet dressings and green tea bath therapy.


 

Eichenfield_Lawrence_CA_web.jpg

Topical corticosteroids. These are “tried and true” for their anti-inflammatory properties and rapid response, relatively low cost, and large range of potency, he said. Potential problems include the burden of topical application and the potential for stinging/burning, atrophy, telangiectasias, adrenal axis suppression, and concerns about withdrawal phenomena. “Being a proponent of topical corticosteroids, but explaining reasonable and appropriate use can be challenging,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “Social media has influenced concerns about topical corticosteroids, with steroid addiction and withdrawal being concerns influencing discomfort with therapies.”

Make sure to measure outcomes. The suggested core outcome measure for recording clinical signs in AD clinical trials is the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) score, he said. In clinical practice, Dr. Eichenfield favors body surface area (BSA) and the Validated Global Assessment scale (v-IGA) to measure signs of moderate to severe AD. “Documenting extent of disease makes a big difference in families understanding how severe their child’s disease is and how it is doing over time.” Alternatively, he recommends the Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) or the Recap of Atopic Eczema (RECAP) as tools assessing long-term disease control.

Familiarize yourself with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medications for care regimens. Options include topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs) such as tacrolimus and pimecrolimus; phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE-4) inhibitors such as crisaborole and roflumilast; the aryl-hydrocarbon receptor agonist tapinarof; and topical Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors such as delgocitinib and ruxolitinib as well as others in development. “There is variable status around the world in terms of whether these nonsteroidal options are approved or not,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “Issues of use include cost, availability, side effects, and concerns about potential absorption. I think there’s an evolution in how much we rely on these instead of topical corticosteroids. They’re more commonly used in maintenance regimens rather than for remission induction.”

Dr. Eichenfield encouraged dermatologists to share information about and experiences with evolving treatment options for AD, “because when the studies are done, they are done as monotherapy. We must translate that into clinical practice and figure out how they fit in. Our exchange of information is critical.”

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed conflicts of interest from many pharmaceutical companies, including those with AD treatments.

SAN DIEGO — Compared with the use of topical minoxidil for hair loss, the used of low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) can be considered when topical minoxidil is more expensive or logistically challenging, has plateaued in efficacy, leaves unwanted product residue, causes skin irritation, or exacerbates the inflammatory process.

Those are among the key recommendations that resulted from a modified eDelphi consensus of experts who convened to develop guidelines for LDOM prescribing and monitoring.

“Topical minoxidil is safe, effective, over-the-counter, and FDA-approved to treat the most common form of hair loss, androgenetic alopecia,” one of the study authors, Jennifer Fu, MD, a dermatologist who directs the Hair Disorders Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. The results of the expert consensus were presented during a poster session at the meeting. “It is often used off label for other types of hair loss, yet clinicians who treat hair loss know that patient compliance with topical minoxidil can be poor for a variety of reasons,” she said. “Patients report that it can be difficult to apply and complicate hair styling. For many patients, topical minoxidil can be drying or cause irritant or allergic contact reactions.”

Fu_Jennifer_CA_web.jpg

LDOM has become a popular alternative for patients for whom topical minoxidil is logistically challenging, irritating, or ineffective, she continued. Although oral minoxidil is no longer a first-line antihypertensive agent given the risk of cardiovascular adverse effects at higher antihypertensive dosing (10-40 mg daily), a growing number of small studies have documented the use of LDOM at doses ranging from 0.25 mg to 5 mg daily as a safe, effective option for various types of hair loss.

“Given the current absence of larger trials on this topic, our research group identified a need for expert-based guidelines for prescribing and monitoring LDOM use in hair loss patients,” Dr. Fu said. “Our goal was to provide clinicians who treat hair loss patients a road map for using LDOM effectively, maximizing hair growth, and minimizing potential cardiovascular adverse effects.”


 

Arriving at a Consensus

The process involved 43 hair loss specialists from 12 countries with an average of 6.29 years of experience with LDOM for hair loss, who participated in a multi-round modified Delphi process. They considered questions that addressed LDOM safety, efficacy, dosing, and monitoring for hair loss, and consensus was reached if at least 70% of participants indicated “agree” or “strongly agree” on a five-point Likert scale. Round 1 consisted of 180 open-ended, multiple-choice, or Likert-scale questions, while round 2 involved 121 Likert-scale questions, round 3 consisted of 16 Likert-scale questions, and round 4 included 11 Likert-scale questions. In all, 94 items achieved Likert-scale consensus.

Specifically, experts on the panel found a direct benefit of LDOM for androgenetic alopecia, age-related patterned thinning, alopecia areata, telogen effluvium, traction alopecia, persistent chemotherapy-induced alopecia, and endocrine therapy-induced alopecia. They found a supportive benefit of LDOM for lichen planopilaris, frontal fibrosing alopecia, central centrifugal alopecia, and fibrosing alopecia in a patterned distribution.

“LDOM can be considered when topical minoxidil is more expensive, logistically challenging, has plateaued in efficacy, results in undesirable product residue/skin irritation,” or exacerbates inflammatory processes (ie eczema, psoriasis), they added.

Contraindications to LDOM listed in the consensus recommendations include hypersensitivity to minoxidil, significant drug-drug interactions with LDOM, a history of pericardial effusion/tamponade, pericarditis, heart failure, pulmonary hypertension associated with mitral stenosis, pheochromocytoma, and pregnancy/breastfeeding. Cited precautions of LDOM use include a history of tachycardia or arrhythmia, hypotension, renal impairment, and being on dialysis.

Dr. Fu and colleagues noted that the earliest time point at which LDOM should be expected to demonstrate efficacy is 3-6 months. “Baseline testing is not routine but may be considered in case of identified precautions,” they wrote. They also noted that LDOM can possibly be co-administered with beta-blockers with a specialty consultation, and with spironolactone in biologic female or transgender female patients with hirsutism, acne, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and with lower extremity and facial edema.

According to the consensus statement, the most frequently prescribed LDOM dosing regimen in adult females aged 18 years and older includes a starting dose of 1.25 mg daily, with a dosing range between 0.625 mg and 5 mg daily. For adult males, the most frequently prescribed dosing regimen is a starting dose of 2.5 daily, with a dosing range between 1.25 mg and 5 mg daily. The most frequently prescribed LDOM dosing regimen in adolescent females aged 12-17 years is a starting dose of 0.625 mg daily, with a dosing range of 0.625 to 2.5 mg daily. For adolescent males, the recommended regimen is a starting dose of 1.25 mg daily, with a dosing range of 1.25 mg to 5 mg daily.

“We hope that this consensus statement will guide our colleagues who would like to use LDOM to treat hair loss in their adult and adolescent patients,” Dr. Fu told this news organization. “These recommendations may be used to inform clinical practice until additional evidence-based data becomes available.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the effort, including the fact that the expert panel was underrepresented in treating hair loss in pediatric patients, “and therefore failed to reach consensus on LDOM pediatric use and dosing,” she said. “We encourage our pediatric dermatology colleagues to further research LDOM in pediatric patients.”

In an interview, Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical dermatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was asked to comment, but was not involved with the work, characterized the consensus as a “helpful, concise reference guide for dermatologists.”

Lipner_Shari_R_NY_web.jpg

The advantages of the study are the standardized methods used, “and the experience of the panel,” she said. “Study limitations include the response rate, which was less than 60%, and the risk of potential side effects are not stratified by age, sex, or comorbidities,” she added.

Dr. Fu disclosed that she is a consultant to Pfizer. Dr. Lipner reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Compared with the use of topical minoxidil for hair loss, the used of low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) can be considered when topical minoxidil is more expensive or logistically challenging, has plateaued in efficacy, leaves unwanted product residue, causes skin irritation, or exacerbates the inflammatory process.

Those are among the key recommendations that resulted from a modified eDelphi consensus of experts who convened to develop guidelines for LDOM prescribing and monitoring.

“Topical minoxidil is safe, effective, over-the-counter, and FDA-approved to treat the most common form of hair loss, androgenetic alopecia,” one of the study authors, Jennifer Fu, MD, a dermatologist who directs the Hair Disorders Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. The results of the expert consensus were presented during a poster session at the meeting. “It is often used off label for other types of hair loss, yet clinicians who treat hair loss know that patient compliance with topical minoxidil can be poor for a variety of reasons,” she said. “Patients report that it can be difficult to apply and complicate hair styling. For many patients, topical minoxidil can be drying or cause irritant or allergic contact reactions.”

Fu_Jennifer_CA_web.jpg

LDOM has become a popular alternative for patients for whom topical minoxidil is logistically challenging, irritating, or ineffective, she continued. Although oral minoxidil is no longer a first-line antihypertensive agent given the risk of cardiovascular adverse effects at higher antihypertensive dosing (10-40 mg daily), a growing number of small studies have documented the use of LDOM at doses ranging from 0.25 mg to 5 mg daily as a safe, effective option for various types of hair loss.

“Given the current absence of larger trials on this topic, our research group identified a need for expert-based guidelines for prescribing and monitoring LDOM use in hair loss patients,” Dr. Fu said. “Our goal was to provide clinicians who treat hair loss patients a road map for using LDOM effectively, maximizing hair growth, and minimizing potential cardiovascular adverse effects.”


 

Arriving at a Consensus

The process involved 43 hair loss specialists from 12 countries with an average of 6.29 years of experience with LDOM for hair loss, who participated in a multi-round modified Delphi process. They considered questions that addressed LDOM safety, efficacy, dosing, and monitoring for hair loss, and consensus was reached if at least 70% of participants indicated “agree” or “strongly agree” on a five-point Likert scale. Round 1 consisted of 180 open-ended, multiple-choice, or Likert-scale questions, while round 2 involved 121 Likert-scale questions, round 3 consisted of 16 Likert-scale questions, and round 4 included 11 Likert-scale questions. In all, 94 items achieved Likert-scale consensus.

Specifically, experts on the panel found a direct benefit of LDOM for androgenetic alopecia, age-related patterned thinning, alopecia areata, telogen effluvium, traction alopecia, persistent chemotherapy-induced alopecia, and endocrine therapy-induced alopecia. They found a supportive benefit of LDOM for lichen planopilaris, frontal fibrosing alopecia, central centrifugal alopecia, and fibrosing alopecia in a patterned distribution.

“LDOM can be considered when topical minoxidil is more expensive, logistically challenging, has plateaued in efficacy, results in undesirable product residue/skin irritation,” or exacerbates inflammatory processes (ie eczema, psoriasis), they added.

Contraindications to LDOM listed in the consensus recommendations include hypersensitivity to minoxidil, significant drug-drug interactions with LDOM, a history of pericardial effusion/tamponade, pericarditis, heart failure, pulmonary hypertension associated with mitral stenosis, pheochromocytoma, and pregnancy/breastfeeding. Cited precautions of LDOM use include a history of tachycardia or arrhythmia, hypotension, renal impairment, and being on dialysis.

Dr. Fu and colleagues noted that the earliest time point at which LDOM should be expected to demonstrate efficacy is 3-6 months. “Baseline testing is not routine but may be considered in case of identified precautions,” they wrote. They also noted that LDOM can possibly be co-administered with beta-blockers with a specialty consultation, and with spironolactone in biologic female or transgender female patients with hirsutism, acne, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and with lower extremity and facial edema.

According to the consensus statement, the most frequently prescribed LDOM dosing regimen in adult females aged 18 years and older includes a starting dose of 1.25 mg daily, with a dosing range between 0.625 mg and 5 mg daily. For adult males, the most frequently prescribed dosing regimen is a starting dose of 2.5 daily, with a dosing range between 1.25 mg and 5 mg daily. The most frequently prescribed LDOM dosing regimen in adolescent females aged 12-17 years is a starting dose of 0.625 mg daily, with a dosing range of 0.625 to 2.5 mg daily. For adolescent males, the recommended regimen is a starting dose of 1.25 mg daily, with a dosing range of 1.25 mg to 5 mg daily.

“We hope that this consensus statement will guide our colleagues who would like to use LDOM to treat hair loss in their adult and adolescent patients,” Dr. Fu told this news organization. “These recommendations may be used to inform clinical practice until additional evidence-based data becomes available.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the effort, including the fact that the expert panel was underrepresented in treating hair loss in pediatric patients, “and therefore failed to reach consensus on LDOM pediatric use and dosing,” she said. “We encourage our pediatric dermatology colleagues to further research LDOM in pediatric patients.”

In an interview, Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical dermatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was asked to comment, but was not involved with the work, characterized the consensus as a “helpful, concise reference guide for dermatologists.”

Lipner_Shari_R_NY_web.jpg

The advantages of the study are the standardized methods used, “and the experience of the panel,” she said. “Study limitations include the response rate, which was less than 60%, and the risk of potential side effects are not stratified by age, sex, or comorbidities,” she added.

Dr. Fu disclosed that she is a consultant to Pfizer. Dr. Lipner reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — Compared with the use of topical minoxidil for hair loss, the used of low-dose oral minoxidil (LDOM) can be considered when topical minoxidil is more expensive or logistically challenging, has plateaued in efficacy, leaves unwanted product residue, causes skin irritation, or exacerbates the inflammatory process.

Those are among the key recommendations that resulted from a modified eDelphi consensus of experts who convened to develop guidelines for LDOM prescribing and monitoring.

“Topical minoxidil is safe, effective, over-the-counter, and FDA-approved to treat the most common form of hair loss, androgenetic alopecia,” one of the study authors, Jennifer Fu, MD, a dermatologist who directs the Hair Disorders Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, told this news organization following the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology. The results of the expert consensus were presented during a poster session at the meeting. “It is often used off label for other types of hair loss, yet clinicians who treat hair loss know that patient compliance with topical minoxidil can be poor for a variety of reasons,” she said. “Patients report that it can be difficult to apply and complicate hair styling. For many patients, topical minoxidil can be drying or cause irritant or allergic contact reactions.”

Fu_Jennifer_CA_web.jpg

LDOM has become a popular alternative for patients for whom topical minoxidil is logistically challenging, irritating, or ineffective, she continued. Although oral minoxidil is no longer a first-line antihypertensive agent given the risk of cardiovascular adverse effects at higher antihypertensive dosing (10-40 mg daily), a growing number of small studies have documented the use of LDOM at doses ranging from 0.25 mg to 5 mg daily as a safe, effective option for various types of hair loss.

“Given the current absence of larger trials on this topic, our research group identified a need for expert-based guidelines for prescribing and monitoring LDOM use in hair loss patients,” Dr. Fu said. “Our goal was to provide clinicians who treat hair loss patients a road map for using LDOM effectively, maximizing hair growth, and minimizing potential cardiovascular adverse effects.”


 

Arriving at a Consensus

The process involved 43 hair loss specialists from 12 countries with an average of 6.29 years of experience with LDOM for hair loss, who participated in a multi-round modified Delphi process. They considered questions that addressed LDOM safety, efficacy, dosing, and monitoring for hair loss, and consensus was reached if at least 70% of participants indicated “agree” or “strongly agree” on a five-point Likert scale. Round 1 consisted of 180 open-ended, multiple-choice, or Likert-scale questions, while round 2 involved 121 Likert-scale questions, round 3 consisted of 16 Likert-scale questions, and round 4 included 11 Likert-scale questions. In all, 94 items achieved Likert-scale consensus.

Specifically, experts on the panel found a direct benefit of LDOM for androgenetic alopecia, age-related patterned thinning, alopecia areata, telogen effluvium, traction alopecia, persistent chemotherapy-induced alopecia, and endocrine therapy-induced alopecia. They found a supportive benefit of LDOM for lichen planopilaris, frontal fibrosing alopecia, central centrifugal alopecia, and fibrosing alopecia in a patterned distribution.

“LDOM can be considered when topical minoxidil is more expensive, logistically challenging, has plateaued in efficacy, results in undesirable product residue/skin irritation,” or exacerbates inflammatory processes (ie eczema, psoriasis), they added.

Contraindications to LDOM listed in the consensus recommendations include hypersensitivity to minoxidil, significant drug-drug interactions with LDOM, a history of pericardial effusion/tamponade, pericarditis, heart failure, pulmonary hypertension associated with mitral stenosis, pheochromocytoma, and pregnancy/breastfeeding. Cited precautions of LDOM use include a history of tachycardia or arrhythmia, hypotension, renal impairment, and being on dialysis.

Dr. Fu and colleagues noted that the earliest time point at which LDOM should be expected to demonstrate efficacy is 3-6 months. “Baseline testing is not routine but may be considered in case of identified precautions,” they wrote. They also noted that LDOM can possibly be co-administered with beta-blockers with a specialty consultation, and with spironolactone in biologic female or transgender female patients with hirsutism, acne, polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and with lower extremity and facial edema.

According to the consensus statement, the most frequently prescribed LDOM dosing regimen in adult females aged 18 years and older includes a starting dose of 1.25 mg daily, with a dosing range between 0.625 mg and 5 mg daily. For adult males, the most frequently prescribed dosing regimen is a starting dose of 2.5 daily, with a dosing range between 1.25 mg and 5 mg daily. The most frequently prescribed LDOM dosing regimen in adolescent females aged 12-17 years is a starting dose of 0.625 mg daily, with a dosing range of 0.625 to 2.5 mg daily. For adolescent males, the recommended regimen is a starting dose of 1.25 mg daily, with a dosing range of 1.25 mg to 5 mg daily.

“We hope that this consensus statement will guide our colleagues who would like to use LDOM to treat hair loss in their adult and adolescent patients,” Dr. Fu told this news organization. “These recommendations may be used to inform clinical practice until additional evidence-based data becomes available.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the effort, including the fact that the expert panel was underrepresented in treating hair loss in pediatric patients, “and therefore failed to reach consensus on LDOM pediatric use and dosing,” she said. “We encourage our pediatric dermatology colleagues to further research LDOM in pediatric patients.”

In an interview, Shari Lipner, MD, PhD, associate professor of clinical dermatology, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, who was asked to comment, but was not involved with the work, characterized the consensus as a “helpful, concise reference guide for dermatologists.”

Lipner_Shari_R_NY_web.jpg

The advantages of the study are the standardized methods used, “and the experience of the panel,” she said. “Study limitations include the response rate, which was less than 60%, and the risk of potential side effects are not stratified by age, sex, or comorbidities,” she added.

Dr. Fu disclosed that she is a consultant to Pfizer. Dr. Lipner reported having no relevant disclosures.

At least 19 people from nine states have reported serious reactions after receiving botulinum toxin injections from unlicensed or untrained individuals or in non-healthcare settings, such as homes and spas, according to an announcement of an investigation into these reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted online April 15.

Reactions have included blurry vision, double vision, drooping eyelids, difficult swallowing or breathing, and other symptoms of botulism.

Of the 19 individuals — all of whom identified as female and had a mean age of 39 years — 9 (60%) were hospitalized and 4 (21%) were treated with botulism antitoxin because of concerns that the botulinum toxin could have spread beyond the injection site. Also, five were tested for botulism and their results were negative.

The CDC, several state and local health departments, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are investigating these reports, according to the announcement.

CDC_icon_web.jpg

States reporting these cases include Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, and Washington. According to the CDC summary, some of the individuals “received injections with counterfeit products or products with unverified sources. Investigation into the sources of these products is ongoing.” All but one report involved receiving botulinum toxin injections for cosmetic purposes.

Recent cases of botulism-like illnesses possibly related to counterfeit botulinum toxin reported in Illinois and Tennessee, prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas, the ASDSA announced on April 12.

[embed:render:related:node:267216]

The CDC summary advises clinicians to consider the possibility of adverse effects from botulinum toxin injection, including for cosmetic reasons, when patients present with signs and symptoms consistent with botulism near the injection site. Symptoms of botulism include blurry or double vision, drooping eyelids, difficulty swallowing, difficulty breathing, and muscle weakness.

For people who are considering botulinum toxin for cosmetic or medical reasons, recommendations from the CDC include asking the provider and setting, such as a clinic or spa, if they are licensed and trained to provide these injections, and to ask if the product is approved by the FDA and from a reliable source, and, “if in doubt, don’t get the injection.”

This ‘Should Never Happen’

“The report of people getting botulism from botulinum toxin injections is frightening, and should never happen,” Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization.

Green_Lawrence_J_MD_web.jpg

These reports show “how important it is to receive botulinum toxin injections only in a medical office, and from or under the direction of a qualified, trained, and licensed individual, like a board certified dermatologist,” added Dr. Green, who practices in Rockville, Maryland. “Other types of practitioners may not adhere to the same standards of professionalism, especially not always putting patient safety first.”

Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

For cases of suspected systemic botulism, the CDC recommends calling the local or state health department for consultation and antitoxin release (as well as information on reporting adverse events). Alternatively, the 24/7 phone number for the CDC clinical botulism service is 770-488-7100.

At least 19 people from nine states have reported serious reactions after receiving botulinum toxin injections from unlicensed or untrained individuals or in non-healthcare settings, such as homes and spas, according to an announcement of an investigation into these reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted online April 15.

Reactions have included blurry vision, double vision, drooping eyelids, difficult swallowing or breathing, and other symptoms of botulism.

Of the 19 individuals — all of whom identified as female and had a mean age of 39 years — 9 (60%) were hospitalized and 4 (21%) were treated with botulism antitoxin because of concerns that the botulinum toxin could have spread beyond the injection site. Also, five were tested for botulism and their results were negative.

The CDC, several state and local health departments, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are investigating these reports, according to the announcement.

CDC_icon_web.jpg

States reporting these cases include Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, and Washington. According to the CDC summary, some of the individuals “received injections with counterfeit products or products with unverified sources. Investigation into the sources of these products is ongoing.” All but one report involved receiving botulinum toxin injections for cosmetic purposes.

Recent cases of botulism-like illnesses possibly related to counterfeit botulinum toxin reported in Illinois and Tennessee, prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas, the ASDSA announced on April 12.

[embed:render:related:node:267216]

The CDC summary advises clinicians to consider the possibility of adverse effects from botulinum toxin injection, including for cosmetic reasons, when patients present with signs and symptoms consistent with botulism near the injection site. Symptoms of botulism include blurry or double vision, drooping eyelids, difficulty swallowing, difficulty breathing, and muscle weakness.

For people who are considering botulinum toxin for cosmetic or medical reasons, recommendations from the CDC include asking the provider and setting, such as a clinic or spa, if they are licensed and trained to provide these injections, and to ask if the product is approved by the FDA and from a reliable source, and, “if in doubt, don’t get the injection.”

This ‘Should Never Happen’

“The report of people getting botulism from botulinum toxin injections is frightening, and should never happen,” Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization.

Green_Lawrence_J_MD_web.jpg

These reports show “how important it is to receive botulinum toxin injections only in a medical office, and from or under the direction of a qualified, trained, and licensed individual, like a board certified dermatologist,” added Dr. Green, who practices in Rockville, Maryland. “Other types of practitioners may not adhere to the same standards of professionalism, especially not always putting patient safety first.”

Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

For cases of suspected systemic botulism, the CDC recommends calling the local or state health department for consultation and antitoxin release (as well as information on reporting adverse events). Alternatively, the 24/7 phone number for the CDC clinical botulism service is 770-488-7100.

At least 19 people from nine states have reported serious reactions after receiving botulinum toxin injections from unlicensed or untrained individuals or in non-healthcare settings, such as homes and spas, according to an announcement of an investigation into these reports from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention posted online April 15.

Reactions have included blurry vision, double vision, drooping eyelids, difficult swallowing or breathing, and other symptoms of botulism.

Of the 19 individuals — all of whom identified as female and had a mean age of 39 years — 9 (60%) were hospitalized and 4 (21%) were treated with botulism antitoxin because of concerns that the botulinum toxin could have spread beyond the injection site. Also, five were tested for botulism and their results were negative.

The CDC, several state and local health departments, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are investigating these reports, according to the announcement.

CDC_icon_web.jpg

States reporting these cases include Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Tennessee, and Washington. According to the CDC summary, some of the individuals “received injections with counterfeit products or products with unverified sources. Investigation into the sources of these products is ongoing.” All but one report involved receiving botulinum toxin injections for cosmetic purposes.

Recent cases of botulism-like illnesses possibly related to counterfeit botulinum toxin reported in Illinois and Tennessee, prompted the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association (ASDSA) to call on states to increase oversight of medical care in all settings, including medical spas, the ASDSA announced on April 12.

[embed:render:related:node:267216]

The CDC summary advises clinicians to consider the possibility of adverse effects from botulinum toxin injection, including for cosmetic reasons, when patients present with signs and symptoms consistent with botulism near the injection site. Symptoms of botulism include blurry or double vision, drooping eyelids, difficulty swallowing, difficulty breathing, and muscle weakness.

For people who are considering botulinum toxin for cosmetic or medical reasons, recommendations from the CDC include asking the provider and setting, such as a clinic or spa, if they are licensed and trained to provide these injections, and to ask if the product is approved by the FDA and from a reliable source, and, “if in doubt, don’t get the injection.”

This ‘Should Never Happen’

“The report of people getting botulism from botulinum toxin injections is frightening, and should never happen,” Lawrence J. Green, MD, clinical professor of dermatology, George Washington University, Washington, told this news organization.

Green_Lawrence_J_MD_web.jpg

These reports show “how important it is to receive botulinum toxin injections only in a medical office, and from or under the direction of a qualified, trained, and licensed individual, like a board certified dermatologist,” added Dr. Green, who practices in Rockville, Maryland. “Other types of practitioners may not adhere to the same standards of professionalism, especially not always putting patient safety first.”

Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.
 

For cases of suspected systemic botulism, the CDC recommends calling the local or state health department for consultation and antitoxin release (as well as information on reporting adverse events). Alternatively, the 24/7 phone number for the CDC clinical botulism service is 770-488-7100.

SAN DIEGO — Patients with mild hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) treated with ruxolitinib cream experienced a greater reduction in the abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count from baseline to week 16 than those who applied a vehicle cream, in a phase 2 trial.

“HS is a chronic, recurring inflammatory skin disease that is associated with painful inflammatory modules and abscesses,” said presenting author Martina J. Porter, MD, a dermatologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Porter presented the data during a late-breaking session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Over time, these patients may progress to having tunnels, ulcerations, malodorous discharge, and permanent scarring,” she said. “Currently, there are no approved therapies for milder HS, and the standard treatments that we apply in clinical practice are often inadequate.”

Ruxolitinib is a selective Janus kinase (JAK) 1/JAK2 inhibitor that has demonstrated efficacy in other inflammatory and autoimmune skin diseases. Ruxolitinib cream, 1.5%, is approved for treating mild to moderate atopic dermatitis and nonsegmental vitiligo in patients ages 12 years and older.

The phase 2 double-blind, vehicle-controlled trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib cream for mild HS. Researchers assigned 69 adults with Hurley stage I or II HS to receive 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle cream twice daily for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in AN count at week 16. To be eligible, patients had to have an AN count between 3 and 10.

“This is much more mild than what we have seen in any systemic therapy trials,” Dr. Porter said. “And, if patients had 3 lesions, they all needed to be in one anatomic area, but if they had 4-10 lesions, they had to have two anatomic areas involved. Also, no patients with active draining tunnels were allowed in the study.”

Of the 69 patients, 34 received ruxolitinib cream and 35 received vehicle. About 51% of patients in the vehicle arm were Black and 34% were White, while about 32% of patients in the ruxolitinib arm were Black and 56% were White.

[embed:render:related:node:268385]

The mean age of patients overall was 29 years, and about half the patients in both study arms had Hurley stage I disease, while the other half had Hurley stage II disease. Their average AN count ranged between 5.3 and 5.6 — mostly inflammatory nodules and few abscesses. Patients were not allowed to receive any type of intervention or rescue therapy during the study.

Dr. Porter reported that the least square mean change in AN count from baseline to week 16 was -2.42 in the vehicle arm vs -3.61 in the ruxolitinib cream arm (P <.05). The proportion of patients who achieved a 50% decrease in AN count was 79.2% in the ruxolitinib cream arm, compared with 56.5% of patients in the vehicle arm, respectively. More patients in the ruxolitinib cream arm achieved a 75% decrease in AN count (54.2% vs 25%), a 90% decrease in AN count (20.8 vs 12.5%), and a 100% decrease in AN count (20.8% vs 12.5%).

In other findings, 79.2% of patients in the ruxolitinib cream arm achieved a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response score from baseline through week 16, compared with 50% of those in the vehicle group. The International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System results favored the ruxolitinib cream arm (-4.46 vs -2.66 in the vehicle arm). Skin Pain and Itch numeric rating scale scores were moderate at baseline and improved similarly in both groups during the study.

Ruxolitinib cream was generally well tolerated over 16 weeks. No serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported. The most common adverse event reported in the ruxolitinib cream group was COVID-19 and nasopharyngitis (two cases each) and one case of an application site reaction.

“Twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream was effective in patients with milder HS,” Dr. Porter concluded. “Modifications to our traditionally accepted clinical endpoints may be needed in studies of patients with milder HS.”

Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, a dermatologist who directs the HS clinic at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who was asked to comment on the results, characterized the study as exciting for several reasons.

Hsiao_Jennifer_CALIFweb1.jpg

“First, with the global push in recent years to increase HS awareness, I am already seeing more patients earlier in their disease course with milder disease, and there is currently a gap in approved therapies for this patient population,” she told this news organization.

“Second, patients are very interested in topical therapies for HS and are thrilled whenever they learn that topical options are under investigation. This study had small patient numbers, but it was encouraging to see the positive results for ruxolitinib cream and that the treatment appeared well-tolerated.”

The trial was sponsored by the Incyte Corporation. Dr. Porter disclosed that she has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Alumis, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Prometheus Laboratories, Sanofi, Sonoma Biotherapeutics, Trifecta Clinical, and UCB. Dr. Hsiao disclosed that she is a member of the board of directors for the HS Foundation. She has also served as a consultant for AbbVie, Aclaris, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Novartis, and UCB; as a speaker for AbbVie, Novartis, and UCB; and as an investigator for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Incyte.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

SAN DIEGO — Patients with mild hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) treated with ruxolitinib cream experienced a greater reduction in the abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count from baseline to week 16 than those who applied a vehicle cream, in a phase 2 trial.

“HS is a chronic, recurring inflammatory skin disease that is associated with painful inflammatory modules and abscesses,” said presenting author Martina J. Porter, MD, a dermatologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Porter presented the data during a late-breaking session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Over time, these patients may progress to having tunnels, ulcerations, malodorous discharge, and permanent scarring,” she said. “Currently, there are no approved therapies for milder HS, and the standard treatments that we apply in clinical practice are often inadequate.”

Ruxolitinib is a selective Janus kinase (JAK) 1/JAK2 inhibitor that has demonstrated efficacy in other inflammatory and autoimmune skin diseases. Ruxolitinib cream, 1.5%, is approved for treating mild to moderate atopic dermatitis and nonsegmental vitiligo in patients ages 12 years and older.

The phase 2 double-blind, vehicle-controlled trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib cream for mild HS. Researchers assigned 69 adults with Hurley stage I or II HS to receive 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle cream twice daily for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in AN count at week 16. To be eligible, patients had to have an AN count between 3 and 10.

“This is much more mild than what we have seen in any systemic therapy trials,” Dr. Porter said. “And, if patients had 3 lesions, they all needed to be in one anatomic area, but if they had 4-10 lesions, they had to have two anatomic areas involved. Also, no patients with active draining tunnels were allowed in the study.”

Of the 69 patients, 34 received ruxolitinib cream and 35 received vehicle. About 51% of patients in the vehicle arm were Black and 34% were White, while about 32% of patients in the ruxolitinib arm were Black and 56% were White.

[embed:render:related:node:268385]

The mean age of patients overall was 29 years, and about half the patients in both study arms had Hurley stage I disease, while the other half had Hurley stage II disease. Their average AN count ranged between 5.3 and 5.6 — mostly inflammatory nodules and few abscesses. Patients were not allowed to receive any type of intervention or rescue therapy during the study.

Dr. Porter reported that the least square mean change in AN count from baseline to week 16 was -2.42 in the vehicle arm vs -3.61 in the ruxolitinib cream arm (P <.05). The proportion of patients who achieved a 50% decrease in AN count was 79.2% in the ruxolitinib cream arm, compared with 56.5% of patients in the vehicle arm, respectively. More patients in the ruxolitinib cream arm achieved a 75% decrease in AN count (54.2% vs 25%), a 90% decrease in AN count (20.8 vs 12.5%), and a 100% decrease in AN count (20.8% vs 12.5%).

In other findings, 79.2% of patients in the ruxolitinib cream arm achieved a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response score from baseline through week 16, compared with 50% of those in the vehicle group. The International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System results favored the ruxolitinib cream arm (-4.46 vs -2.66 in the vehicle arm). Skin Pain and Itch numeric rating scale scores were moderate at baseline and improved similarly in both groups during the study.

Ruxolitinib cream was generally well tolerated over 16 weeks. No serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported. The most common adverse event reported in the ruxolitinib cream group was COVID-19 and nasopharyngitis (two cases each) and one case of an application site reaction.

“Twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream was effective in patients with milder HS,” Dr. Porter concluded. “Modifications to our traditionally accepted clinical endpoints may be needed in studies of patients with milder HS.”

Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, a dermatologist who directs the HS clinic at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who was asked to comment on the results, characterized the study as exciting for several reasons.

Hsiao_Jennifer_CALIFweb1.jpg

“First, with the global push in recent years to increase HS awareness, I am already seeing more patients earlier in their disease course with milder disease, and there is currently a gap in approved therapies for this patient population,” she told this news organization.

“Second, patients are very interested in topical therapies for HS and are thrilled whenever they learn that topical options are under investigation. This study had small patient numbers, but it was encouraging to see the positive results for ruxolitinib cream and that the treatment appeared well-tolerated.”

The trial was sponsored by the Incyte Corporation. Dr. Porter disclosed that she has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Alumis, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Prometheus Laboratories, Sanofi, Sonoma Biotherapeutics, Trifecta Clinical, and UCB. Dr. Hsiao disclosed that she is a member of the board of directors for the HS Foundation. She has also served as a consultant for AbbVie, Aclaris, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Novartis, and UCB; as a speaker for AbbVie, Novartis, and UCB; and as an investigator for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Incyte.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .

SAN DIEGO — Patients with mild hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) treated with ruxolitinib cream experienced a greater reduction in the abscess and inflammatory nodule (AN) count from baseline to week 16 than those who applied a vehicle cream, in a phase 2 trial.

“HS is a chronic, recurring inflammatory skin disease that is associated with painful inflammatory modules and abscesses,” said presenting author Martina J. Porter, MD, a dermatologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, both in Boston, Massachusetts. Dr. Porter presented the data during a late-breaking session at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

“Over time, these patients may progress to having tunnels, ulcerations, malodorous discharge, and permanent scarring,” she said. “Currently, there are no approved therapies for milder HS, and the standard treatments that we apply in clinical practice are often inadequate.”

Ruxolitinib is a selective Janus kinase (JAK) 1/JAK2 inhibitor that has demonstrated efficacy in other inflammatory and autoimmune skin diseases. Ruxolitinib cream, 1.5%, is approved for treating mild to moderate atopic dermatitis and nonsegmental vitiligo in patients ages 12 years and older.

The phase 2 double-blind, vehicle-controlled trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of ruxolitinib cream for mild HS. Researchers assigned 69 adults with Hurley stage I or II HS to receive 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle cream twice daily for 16 weeks. The primary endpoint was the change from baseline in AN count at week 16. To be eligible, patients had to have an AN count between 3 and 10.

“This is much more mild than what we have seen in any systemic therapy trials,” Dr. Porter said. “And, if patients had 3 lesions, they all needed to be in one anatomic area, but if they had 4-10 lesions, they had to have two anatomic areas involved. Also, no patients with active draining tunnels were allowed in the study.”

Of the 69 patients, 34 received ruxolitinib cream and 35 received vehicle. About 51% of patients in the vehicle arm were Black and 34% were White, while about 32% of patients in the ruxolitinib arm were Black and 56% were White.

[embed:render:related:node:268385]

The mean age of patients overall was 29 years, and about half the patients in both study arms had Hurley stage I disease, while the other half had Hurley stage II disease. Their average AN count ranged between 5.3 and 5.6 — mostly inflammatory nodules and few abscesses. Patients were not allowed to receive any type of intervention or rescue therapy during the study.

Dr. Porter reported that the least square mean change in AN count from baseline to week 16 was -2.42 in the vehicle arm vs -3.61 in the ruxolitinib cream arm (P <.05). The proportion of patients who achieved a 50% decrease in AN count was 79.2% in the ruxolitinib cream arm, compared with 56.5% of patients in the vehicle arm, respectively. More patients in the ruxolitinib cream arm achieved a 75% decrease in AN count (54.2% vs 25%), a 90% decrease in AN count (20.8 vs 12.5%), and a 100% decrease in AN count (20.8% vs 12.5%).

In other findings, 79.2% of patients in the ruxolitinib cream arm achieved a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response score from baseline through week 16, compared with 50% of those in the vehicle group. The International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System results favored the ruxolitinib cream arm (-4.46 vs -2.66 in the vehicle arm). Skin Pain and Itch numeric rating scale scores were moderate at baseline and improved similarly in both groups during the study.

Ruxolitinib cream was generally well tolerated over 16 weeks. No serious treatment-emergent adverse events were reported. The most common adverse event reported in the ruxolitinib cream group was COVID-19 and nasopharyngitis (two cases each) and one case of an application site reaction.

“Twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream was effective in patients with milder HS,” Dr. Porter concluded. “Modifications to our traditionally accepted clinical endpoints may be needed in studies of patients with milder HS.”

Jennifer L. Hsiao, MD, a dermatologist who directs the HS clinic at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles, who was asked to comment on the results, characterized the study as exciting for several reasons.

Hsiao_Jennifer_CALIFweb1.jpg

“First, with the global push in recent years to increase HS awareness, I am already seeing more patients earlier in their disease course with milder disease, and there is currently a gap in approved therapies for this patient population,” she told this news organization.

“Second, patients are very interested in topical therapies for HS and are thrilled whenever they learn that topical options are under investigation. This study had small patient numbers, but it was encouraging to see the positive results for ruxolitinib cream and that the treatment appeared well-tolerated.”

The trial was sponsored by the Incyte Corporation. Dr. Porter disclosed that she has received consulting fees from AbbVie, Alumis, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, Prometheus Laboratories, Sanofi, Sonoma Biotherapeutics, Trifecta Clinical, and UCB. Dr. Hsiao disclosed that she is a member of the board of directors for the HS Foundation. She has also served as a consultant for AbbVie, Aclaris, Boehringer Ingelheim, Incyte, Novartis, and UCB; as a speaker for AbbVie, Novartis, and UCB; and as an investigator for Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Incyte.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com .