Dermatology News

A new prospective, observational study from the Lupus Research Alliance (LRA) aims to enroll 3,500 patients in an effort to accelerate the development of personalized treatments for individuals living with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

The LRA on May 23 announced the launch of the Lupus Landmark Study (LLS). The study will be conducted in partnership with Lupus Therapeutics, the clinical research affiliate of the LRA.

The study will be a key feature of the Lupus Nexus, a unique combination of lupus patient registry, biorepository, and portal for data sharing and analysis.

“The aim of the Lupus Nexus is to transform lupus research and drug development through unprecedented information exchange capabilities,” according to the LRA press release.

“SLE is a debilitating autoimmune disease that disproportionately impacts women and people from minority groups, but the cause of lupus is unknown, and no single laboratory test can definitively identify lupus,” lead investigator S. Sam Lim, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization.

“Nevertheless, early detection and treatment can often lessen the progression and severity of the disease. Although there are numerous contributing factors to the lag in research discoveries and new treatments for patients with lupus, limited access to standardized, high-quality biological samples and natural history data provides a significant roadblock to advancing lupus research,” Dr. Lim said.

“Existing registry and biorepository resources in the lupus field are largely siloed, mostly limited to relatively small or discrete patient populations, and frequently not designed for broad sharing across all stakeholders of the research community,” Dr. Lim said. The LRA and its affiliate Lupus Therapeutics are committed to developing Lupus Nexus, a first-of-its-kind registry and biorepository, to serve as a collaborative research platform for lupus and a leading source of prospective, longitudinal patient data and biological samples for the research community, Dr. Lim added.

“The Lupus Landmark Study will form the foundation of this registry and biorepository and will provide a critical resource to enable the understanding of lupus heterogeneity at the molecular level,” Dr. Lim said. The molecular data can be linked to clinical phenotypes, he explained, “while providing an opportunity to better understand the holistic experience of patients with lupus, thus helping patients address the daily life challenges they face.”

The Lupus Accelerating Breakthroughs Consortium (Lupus ABC) was announced earlier this spring by the LRA. It represents a collaboration between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the lupus community to improve and accelerate the development of safer and more effective treatments for people with lupus, Dr. Lim said. “Data and other results from the LLS will inform this collaboration,” he said.

“The LLS will provide greater insight into the pathogenesis and evolution of the condition, providing much needed information and guidance to clinicians so that the disease can be detected and treated earlier and with better precision,” Dr. Lim said. “The partnership with patients will ensure that advances will not only be meaningful to clinicians but their patients and caregivers as well,” he added.

Individuals living with lupus were essential to the development of the Lupus Nexus, and patients will continue to be engaged through participation in the LLS, which will not only generate data to promote patient-centered treatments but will also give participants more insight into their health data, according to the LRA press release.

The clinical coordinating center and biorepository elements of the Lupus Nexus will be managed by Embleema and Azenta Life Sciences, respectively, according the LRA.

Biomarker analysis will be conducted by DxTerity Diagnostics via the company’s proprietary DxCollection MicroCollection Device and Modular Immune Profile platform.

The LLS is scheduled to begin enrolling patients through select academic medical centers in the Lupus Therapeutics Lupus Clinical Investigators Network later in 2023, with an expanded roll-out in 2024, according to the press release. More information about the Lupus Landmark Study is available from Lupus Nexus at LupusNexus@lupusresearch.org.

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

A new prospective, observational study from the Lupus Research Alliance (LRA) aims to enroll 3,500 patients in an effort to accelerate the development of personalized treatments for individuals living with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

The LRA on May 23 announced the launch of the Lupus Landmark Study (LLS). The study will be conducted in partnership with Lupus Therapeutics, the clinical research affiliate of the LRA.

The study will be a key feature of the Lupus Nexus, a unique combination of lupus patient registry, biorepository, and portal for data sharing and analysis.

“The aim of the Lupus Nexus is to transform lupus research and drug development through unprecedented information exchange capabilities,” according to the LRA press release.

“SLE is a debilitating autoimmune disease that disproportionately impacts women and people from minority groups, but the cause of lupus is unknown, and no single laboratory test can definitively identify lupus,” lead investigator S. Sam Lim, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization.

“Nevertheless, early detection and treatment can often lessen the progression and severity of the disease. Although there are numerous contributing factors to the lag in research discoveries and new treatments for patients with lupus, limited access to standardized, high-quality biological samples and natural history data provides a significant roadblock to advancing lupus research,” Dr. Lim said.

“Existing registry and biorepository resources in the lupus field are largely siloed, mostly limited to relatively small or discrete patient populations, and frequently not designed for broad sharing across all stakeholders of the research community,” Dr. Lim said. The LRA and its affiliate Lupus Therapeutics are committed to developing Lupus Nexus, a first-of-its-kind registry and biorepository, to serve as a collaborative research platform for lupus and a leading source of prospective, longitudinal patient data and biological samples for the research community, Dr. Lim added.

“The Lupus Landmark Study will form the foundation of this registry and biorepository and will provide a critical resource to enable the understanding of lupus heterogeneity at the molecular level,” Dr. Lim said. The molecular data can be linked to clinical phenotypes, he explained, “while providing an opportunity to better understand the holistic experience of patients with lupus, thus helping patients address the daily life challenges they face.”

The Lupus Accelerating Breakthroughs Consortium (Lupus ABC) was announced earlier this spring by the LRA. It represents a collaboration between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the lupus community to improve and accelerate the development of safer and more effective treatments for people with lupus, Dr. Lim said. “Data and other results from the LLS will inform this collaboration,” he said.

“The LLS will provide greater insight into the pathogenesis and evolution of the condition, providing much needed information and guidance to clinicians so that the disease can be detected and treated earlier and with better precision,” Dr. Lim said. “The partnership with patients will ensure that advances will not only be meaningful to clinicians but their patients and caregivers as well,” he added.

Individuals living with lupus were essential to the development of the Lupus Nexus, and patients will continue to be engaged through participation in the LLS, which will not only generate data to promote patient-centered treatments but will also give participants more insight into their health data, according to the LRA press release.

The clinical coordinating center and biorepository elements of the Lupus Nexus will be managed by Embleema and Azenta Life Sciences, respectively, according the LRA.

Biomarker analysis will be conducted by DxTerity Diagnostics via the company’s proprietary DxCollection MicroCollection Device and Modular Immune Profile platform.

The LLS is scheduled to begin enrolling patients through select academic medical centers in the Lupus Therapeutics Lupus Clinical Investigators Network later in 2023, with an expanded roll-out in 2024, according to the press release. More information about the Lupus Landmark Study is available from Lupus Nexus at LupusNexus@lupusresearch.org.

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

A new prospective, observational study from the Lupus Research Alliance (LRA) aims to enroll 3,500 patients in an effort to accelerate the development of personalized treatments for individuals living with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

The LRA on May 23 announced the launch of the Lupus Landmark Study (LLS). The study will be conducted in partnership with Lupus Therapeutics, the clinical research affiliate of the LRA.

The study will be a key feature of the Lupus Nexus, a unique combination of lupus patient registry, biorepository, and portal for data sharing and analysis.

“The aim of the Lupus Nexus is to transform lupus research and drug development through unprecedented information exchange capabilities,” according to the LRA press release.

“SLE is a debilitating autoimmune disease that disproportionately impacts women and people from minority groups, but the cause of lupus is unknown, and no single laboratory test can definitively identify lupus,” lead investigator S. Sam Lim, MD, of Emory University, Atlanta, told this news organization.

“Nevertheless, early detection and treatment can often lessen the progression and severity of the disease. Although there are numerous contributing factors to the lag in research discoveries and new treatments for patients with lupus, limited access to standardized, high-quality biological samples and natural history data provides a significant roadblock to advancing lupus research,” Dr. Lim said.

“Existing registry and biorepository resources in the lupus field are largely siloed, mostly limited to relatively small or discrete patient populations, and frequently not designed for broad sharing across all stakeholders of the research community,” Dr. Lim said. The LRA and its affiliate Lupus Therapeutics are committed to developing Lupus Nexus, a first-of-its-kind registry and biorepository, to serve as a collaborative research platform for lupus and a leading source of prospective, longitudinal patient data and biological samples for the research community, Dr. Lim added.

“The Lupus Landmark Study will form the foundation of this registry and biorepository and will provide a critical resource to enable the understanding of lupus heterogeneity at the molecular level,” Dr. Lim said. The molecular data can be linked to clinical phenotypes, he explained, “while providing an opportunity to better understand the holistic experience of patients with lupus, thus helping patients address the daily life challenges they face.”

The Lupus Accelerating Breakthroughs Consortium (Lupus ABC) was announced earlier this spring by the LRA. It represents a collaboration between the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the lupus community to improve and accelerate the development of safer and more effective treatments for people with lupus, Dr. Lim said. “Data and other results from the LLS will inform this collaboration,” he said.

“The LLS will provide greater insight into the pathogenesis and evolution of the condition, providing much needed information and guidance to clinicians so that the disease can be detected and treated earlier and with better precision,” Dr. Lim said. “The partnership with patients will ensure that advances will not only be meaningful to clinicians but their patients and caregivers as well,” he added.

Individuals living with lupus were essential to the development of the Lupus Nexus, and patients will continue to be engaged through participation in the LLS, which will not only generate data to promote patient-centered treatments but will also give participants more insight into their health data, according to the LRA press release.

The clinical coordinating center and biorepository elements of the Lupus Nexus will be managed by Embleema and Azenta Life Sciences, respectively, according the LRA.

Biomarker analysis will be conducted by DxTerity Diagnostics via the company’s proprietary DxCollection MicroCollection Device and Modular Immune Profile platform.

The LLS is scheduled to begin enrolling patients through select academic medical centers in the Lupus Therapeutics Lupus Clinical Investigators Network later in 2023, with an expanded roll-out in 2024, according to the press release. More information about the Lupus Landmark Study is available from Lupus Nexus at LupusNexus@lupusresearch.org.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 22 approved a new autoinjection option for adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), a biosimilar to AbbVie’s adalimumab (Humira), ahead of Cyltezo’s commercial launch on July 1, 2023.

Cyltezo was approved by the FDA in 2017 as a prefilled syringe and was the first biosimilar deemed to be interchangeable with Humira in 2021. It is indicated to treat multiple chronic inflammatory conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and hidradenitis suppurativa. This new design, which features one-button, three-step activation, has been certified as an “Ease of Use” product by the Arthritis Foundation, Boehringer Ingelheim said in a press release. The 40-mg, prefilled Cyltezo Pen will be available in two-, four-, and six-pack options.

“The FDA approval of the Cyltezo Pen is great news for patients living with chronic inflammatory diseases who may prefer administering the medication needed to manage their conditions via an autoinjector,” said Stephen Pagnotta, the executive director and biosimilar commercial lead at Boehringer Ingelheim in a statement; “we’re excited to be able to offer the Cyltezo Pen as an additional option to patients at Cyltezo’s launch on July 1.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 22 approved a new autoinjection option for adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), a biosimilar to AbbVie’s adalimumab (Humira), ahead of Cyltezo’s commercial launch on July 1, 2023.

Cyltezo was approved by the FDA in 2017 as a prefilled syringe and was the first biosimilar deemed to be interchangeable with Humira in 2021. It is indicated to treat multiple chronic inflammatory conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and hidradenitis suppurativa. This new design, which features one-button, three-step activation, has been certified as an “Ease of Use” product by the Arthritis Foundation, Boehringer Ingelheim said in a press release. The 40-mg, prefilled Cyltezo Pen will be available in two-, four-, and six-pack options.

“The FDA approval of the Cyltezo Pen is great news for patients living with chronic inflammatory diseases who may prefer administering the medication needed to manage their conditions via an autoinjector,” said Stephen Pagnotta, the executive director and biosimilar commercial lead at Boehringer Ingelheim in a statement; “we’re excited to be able to offer the Cyltezo Pen as an additional option to patients at Cyltezo’s launch on July 1.”

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration on May 22 approved a new autoinjection option for adalimumab-adbm (Cyltezo), a biosimilar to AbbVie’s adalimumab (Humira), ahead of Cyltezo’s commercial launch on July 1, 2023.

Cyltezo was approved by the FDA in 2017 as a prefilled syringe and was the first biosimilar deemed to be interchangeable with Humira in 2021. It is indicated to treat multiple chronic inflammatory conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, plaque psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, ulcerative colitis, and hidradenitis suppurativa. This new design, which features one-button, three-step activation, has been certified as an “Ease of Use” product by the Arthritis Foundation, Boehringer Ingelheim said in a press release. The 40-mg, prefilled Cyltezo Pen will be available in two-, four-, and six-pack options.

“The FDA approval of the Cyltezo Pen is great news for patients living with chronic inflammatory diseases who may prefer administering the medication needed to manage their conditions via an autoinjector,” said Stephen Pagnotta, the executive director and biosimilar commercial lead at Boehringer Ingelheim in a statement; “we’re excited to be able to offer the Cyltezo Pen as an additional option to patients at Cyltezo’s launch on July 1.”

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

Twice-daily esmolol hydrochloride gel (Galnobax, NovaLead) appears to significantly improve closure of diabetic foot ulcers, particularly in patients with risk factors for impeded wound healing, say Indian researchers.
 

Esmolol is a short-acting beta-adrenergic receptor blocker that is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for cardiac indications such as short-term use for supraventricular tachycardia.

As a gel, esmolol hydrochloride is administered topically to stimulate wound healing via mechanisms such as the migration of keratinocytes, fibroblasts, and endothelial cells into wound tissue.

The current trial enrolled patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, finding that, among 140 assessed, target ulcer closure within 12 weeks was more than twice as likely in those assigned esmolol gel plus standard of care than those given standard of care alone.

The impact of adding esmolol gel to standard of care was even greater in patients with a body mass index (BMI) over 25 kg/m² and in those who weighed more than 80 kg (176 lb).

“The use of esmolol in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers in addition to standard of care may be an important addition to the endeavor of healing diabetic foot ulcers,” wrote Ashu Rastogi, MD, DM, department of endocrinology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, and colleagues, in their article recently published in JAMA Network Open.

Dr. Rastogi first presented the findings at the 2022 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The results were well received, with one clinician describing them as “astounding.”

However, Andrew Boulton, MD, PhD, said in an interview that, although the final published data are “interesting,” they “need further confirmation” because “there are one or two unusual features” about the study. Dr. Boulton is a professor of medicine, division of diabetes, endocrinology & gastroenterology, at the University of Manchester (England).

He highlighted that the study was of “basically neuropathic ulcers, many of which were plantar and should be able to heal without any specific additional therapy.”

In addition, the inclusion criteria state that the ulcers could be below the malleoli or 5 cm above them, which Dr. Boulton explained is “very unusual and would therefore include some atypical and not truly diabetic ‘foot’ ulcers.”

And Frances Game, MBBCh, department of diabetes and endocrinology, University Hospitals of Derby (England) and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, added that there are questions about the study methodology.

She said in an interview that although it is a “fascinating study,” the main comparison group did not receive vehicle, or placebo, gel in addition to standard of care. “How were they blinded [to treatment]?”

The “biggest problem” with the study, however, is that the primary outcome was reported as a per-protocol endpoint, not as a standard intention-to-treat analysis, which allowed the researchers to exclude patients whose ulcers increased in size by over 30% on two consecutive visits.

“That kind of makes [esmolol gel] look better than it is because they’ve taken out the ones who got worse,” Dr. Game noted. However, the findings, while not conclusive, do warrant further study of esmolol gel.

The authors noted that diabetic foot ulcers are a severe complication of diabetes, with a prevalence of 1.3%-12.0% across various countries, And the complication contributes to patient morbidity and mortality, with a 5-year mortality that is substantially higher than that of many cancers.

Moreover, “even with the best therapy,” such as advanced moist wound therapy, bioengineered tissue or skin substitutes, peptides, growth factors, electric stimulation, and negative-pressure wound therapy, just 30% of wounds linked to diabetes heal and recurrence is as high as 70%.

Against this backdrop, topical esmolol 14% gel was shown in a phase 1/2 study to be associated with ulcer area reduction and earlier wound closure versus standard of care plus a control vehicle gel.

The current phase 3, randomized, controlled trial involved individuals aged 18-75 years with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and noninfected diabetic foot ulcers classified as grade 1A and 1C on the University of Texas Wound Classification System, which had been open for at least 6 weeks and had an area of 2-25 cm2.

Patients from 27 tertiary care centers across India were enrolled in 2018-2020. They were randomized in a 3:3:1 ratio to one of three groups: esmolol 14% gel plus standard of care, standard of care only, or vehicle plus standard of care.

The study lasted 25 weeks and included a 1-week screening phase, during which all patients received standard of care, a 12-week treatment phase, and a 12-week follow-up phase. The latter included a closure confirmation period of 4 weeks and an observation period of 8 weeks.

Patients were assessed once a week during the treatment phase, and then at weeks 14, 16, 20, and 24.

In all, 176 patients were enrolled. Participants were a mean age of 56.4 years and 69.3% were men. Average hemoglobin A1c was 8.6%. Mean diabetic foot ulcer area was 4.7 cm² and the average ulcer duration was 49.8 weeks.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved target ulcer closure during the 12-week treatment phase and was assessed in 140 patients.

Overall, 60.3% of patients treated with esmolol gel plus standard of care achieved target ulcer closure versus 41.7% of those in the standard of care alone group (odds ratio, 2.13; P = .03).

The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients with target ulcer closure by the study end and was assessed in 120 patients.

In total, 77.2% of patients in the esmolol gel plus standard of care group met the secondary endpoint, compared with 55.6% of those receiving standard of care alone (OR, 1.72; P = .01).

Further analysis suggested the benefit seen with esmolol gel plus standard of care was greater in patients with a weight greater than 80 kg versus standard of care alone (OR, 4.04; P = .04), and in those with a BMI greater than 25 (OR, 2.72; P = .03).

Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 33 (18.8%) participants, with 12 events deemed serious. “However, none of the serious adverse events were considered as drug-related by the investigators,” concluded the researchers.

The study was partly funded by NovaLead Pharma and the Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council, New Delhi, set up by the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India. Dr. Rastogi reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Twice-daily esmolol hydrochloride gel (Galnobax, NovaLead) appears to significantly improve closure of diabetic foot ulcers, particularly in patients with risk factors for impeded wound healing, say Indian researchers.
 

Esmolol is a short-acting beta-adrenergic receptor blocker that is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for cardiac indications such as short-term use for supraventricular tachycardia.

As a gel, esmolol hydrochloride is administered topically to stimulate wound healing via mechanisms such as the migration of keratinocytes, fibroblasts, and endothelial cells into wound tissue.

The current trial enrolled patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, finding that, among 140 assessed, target ulcer closure within 12 weeks was more than twice as likely in those assigned esmolol gel plus standard of care than those given standard of care alone.

The impact of adding esmolol gel to standard of care was even greater in patients with a body mass index (BMI) over 25 kg/m² and in those who weighed more than 80 kg (176 lb).

“The use of esmolol in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers in addition to standard of care may be an important addition to the endeavor of healing diabetic foot ulcers,” wrote Ashu Rastogi, MD, DM, department of endocrinology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, and colleagues, in their article recently published in JAMA Network Open.

Dr. Rastogi first presented the findings at the 2022 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The results were well received, with one clinician describing them as “astounding.”

However, Andrew Boulton, MD, PhD, said in an interview that, although the final published data are “interesting,” they “need further confirmation” because “there are one or two unusual features” about the study. Dr. Boulton is a professor of medicine, division of diabetes, endocrinology & gastroenterology, at the University of Manchester (England).

He highlighted that the study was of “basically neuropathic ulcers, many of which were plantar and should be able to heal without any specific additional therapy.”

In addition, the inclusion criteria state that the ulcers could be below the malleoli or 5 cm above them, which Dr. Boulton explained is “very unusual and would therefore include some atypical and not truly diabetic ‘foot’ ulcers.”

And Frances Game, MBBCh, department of diabetes and endocrinology, University Hospitals of Derby (England) and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, added that there are questions about the study methodology.

She said in an interview that although it is a “fascinating study,” the main comparison group did not receive vehicle, or placebo, gel in addition to standard of care. “How were they blinded [to treatment]?”

The “biggest problem” with the study, however, is that the primary outcome was reported as a per-protocol endpoint, not as a standard intention-to-treat analysis, which allowed the researchers to exclude patients whose ulcers increased in size by over 30% on two consecutive visits.

“That kind of makes [esmolol gel] look better than it is because they’ve taken out the ones who got worse,” Dr. Game noted. However, the findings, while not conclusive, do warrant further study of esmolol gel.

The authors noted that diabetic foot ulcers are a severe complication of diabetes, with a prevalence of 1.3%-12.0% across various countries, And the complication contributes to patient morbidity and mortality, with a 5-year mortality that is substantially higher than that of many cancers.

Moreover, “even with the best therapy,” such as advanced moist wound therapy, bioengineered tissue or skin substitutes, peptides, growth factors, electric stimulation, and negative-pressure wound therapy, just 30% of wounds linked to diabetes heal and recurrence is as high as 70%.

Against this backdrop, topical esmolol 14% gel was shown in a phase 1/2 study to be associated with ulcer area reduction and earlier wound closure versus standard of care plus a control vehicle gel.

The current phase 3, randomized, controlled trial involved individuals aged 18-75 years with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and noninfected diabetic foot ulcers classified as grade 1A and 1C on the University of Texas Wound Classification System, which had been open for at least 6 weeks and had an area of 2-25 cm2.

Patients from 27 tertiary care centers across India were enrolled in 2018-2020. They were randomized in a 3:3:1 ratio to one of three groups: esmolol 14% gel plus standard of care, standard of care only, or vehicle plus standard of care.

The study lasted 25 weeks and included a 1-week screening phase, during which all patients received standard of care, a 12-week treatment phase, and a 12-week follow-up phase. The latter included a closure confirmation period of 4 weeks and an observation period of 8 weeks.

Patients were assessed once a week during the treatment phase, and then at weeks 14, 16, 20, and 24.

In all, 176 patients were enrolled. Participants were a mean age of 56.4 years and 69.3% were men. Average hemoglobin A1c was 8.6%. Mean diabetic foot ulcer area was 4.7 cm² and the average ulcer duration was 49.8 weeks.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved target ulcer closure during the 12-week treatment phase and was assessed in 140 patients.

Overall, 60.3% of patients treated with esmolol gel plus standard of care achieved target ulcer closure versus 41.7% of those in the standard of care alone group (odds ratio, 2.13; P = .03).

The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients with target ulcer closure by the study end and was assessed in 120 patients.

In total, 77.2% of patients in the esmolol gel plus standard of care group met the secondary endpoint, compared with 55.6% of those receiving standard of care alone (OR, 1.72; P = .01).

Further analysis suggested the benefit seen with esmolol gel plus standard of care was greater in patients with a weight greater than 80 kg versus standard of care alone (OR, 4.04; P = .04), and in those with a BMI greater than 25 (OR, 2.72; P = .03).

Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 33 (18.8%) participants, with 12 events deemed serious. “However, none of the serious adverse events were considered as drug-related by the investigators,” concluded the researchers.

The study was partly funded by NovaLead Pharma and the Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council, New Delhi, set up by the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India. Dr. Rastogi reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Twice-daily esmolol hydrochloride gel (Galnobax, NovaLead) appears to significantly improve closure of diabetic foot ulcers, particularly in patients with risk factors for impeded wound healing, say Indian researchers.
 

Esmolol is a short-acting beta-adrenergic receptor blocker that is currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration for cardiac indications such as short-term use for supraventricular tachycardia.

As a gel, esmolol hydrochloride is administered topically to stimulate wound healing via mechanisms such as the migration of keratinocytes, fibroblasts, and endothelial cells into wound tissue.

The current trial enrolled patients with type 1 or 2 diabetes, finding that, among 140 assessed, target ulcer closure within 12 weeks was more than twice as likely in those assigned esmolol gel plus standard of care than those given standard of care alone.

The impact of adding esmolol gel to standard of care was even greater in patients with a body mass index (BMI) over 25 kg/m² and in those who weighed more than 80 kg (176 lb).

“The use of esmolol in the treatment of diabetic foot ulcers in addition to standard of care may be an important addition to the endeavor of healing diabetic foot ulcers,” wrote Ashu Rastogi, MD, DM, department of endocrinology, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India, and colleagues, in their article recently published in JAMA Network Open.

Dr. Rastogi first presented the findings at the 2022 annual meeting of the European Association for the Study of Diabetes. The results were well received, with one clinician describing them as “astounding.”

However, Andrew Boulton, MD, PhD, said in an interview that, although the final published data are “interesting,” they “need further confirmation” because “there are one or two unusual features” about the study. Dr. Boulton is a professor of medicine, division of diabetes, endocrinology & gastroenterology, at the University of Manchester (England).

He highlighted that the study was of “basically neuropathic ulcers, many of which were plantar and should be able to heal without any specific additional therapy.”

In addition, the inclusion criteria state that the ulcers could be below the malleoli or 5 cm above them, which Dr. Boulton explained is “very unusual and would therefore include some atypical and not truly diabetic ‘foot’ ulcers.”

And Frances Game, MBBCh, department of diabetes and endocrinology, University Hospitals of Derby (England) and Burton NHS Foundation Trust, added that there are questions about the study methodology.

She said in an interview that although it is a “fascinating study,” the main comparison group did not receive vehicle, or placebo, gel in addition to standard of care. “How were they blinded [to treatment]?”

The “biggest problem” with the study, however, is that the primary outcome was reported as a per-protocol endpoint, not as a standard intention-to-treat analysis, which allowed the researchers to exclude patients whose ulcers increased in size by over 30% on two consecutive visits.

“That kind of makes [esmolol gel] look better than it is because they’ve taken out the ones who got worse,” Dr. Game noted. However, the findings, while not conclusive, do warrant further study of esmolol gel.

The authors noted that diabetic foot ulcers are a severe complication of diabetes, with a prevalence of 1.3%-12.0% across various countries, And the complication contributes to patient morbidity and mortality, with a 5-year mortality that is substantially higher than that of many cancers.

Moreover, “even with the best therapy,” such as advanced moist wound therapy, bioengineered tissue or skin substitutes, peptides, growth factors, electric stimulation, and negative-pressure wound therapy, just 30% of wounds linked to diabetes heal and recurrence is as high as 70%.

Against this backdrop, topical esmolol 14% gel was shown in a phase 1/2 study to be associated with ulcer area reduction and earlier wound closure versus standard of care plus a control vehicle gel.

The current phase 3, randomized, controlled trial involved individuals aged 18-75 years with type 1 or type 2 diabetes and noninfected diabetic foot ulcers classified as grade 1A and 1C on the University of Texas Wound Classification System, which had been open for at least 6 weeks and had an area of 2-25 cm2.

Patients from 27 tertiary care centers across India were enrolled in 2018-2020. They were randomized in a 3:3:1 ratio to one of three groups: esmolol 14% gel plus standard of care, standard of care only, or vehicle plus standard of care.

The study lasted 25 weeks and included a 1-week screening phase, during which all patients received standard of care, a 12-week treatment phase, and a 12-week follow-up phase. The latter included a closure confirmation period of 4 weeks and an observation period of 8 weeks.

Patients were assessed once a week during the treatment phase, and then at weeks 14, 16, 20, and 24.

In all, 176 patients were enrolled. Participants were a mean age of 56.4 years and 69.3% were men. Average hemoglobin A1c was 8.6%. Mean diabetic foot ulcer area was 4.7 cm² and the average ulcer duration was 49.8 weeks.

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who achieved target ulcer closure during the 12-week treatment phase and was assessed in 140 patients.

Overall, 60.3% of patients treated with esmolol gel plus standard of care achieved target ulcer closure versus 41.7% of those in the standard of care alone group (odds ratio, 2.13; P = .03).

The secondary outcome was the proportion of patients with target ulcer closure by the study end and was assessed in 120 patients.

In total, 77.2% of patients in the esmolol gel plus standard of care group met the secondary endpoint, compared with 55.6% of those receiving standard of care alone (OR, 1.72; P = .01).

Further analysis suggested the benefit seen with esmolol gel plus standard of care was greater in patients with a weight greater than 80 kg versus standard of care alone (OR, 4.04; P = .04), and in those with a BMI greater than 25 (OR, 2.72; P = .03).

Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported by 33 (18.8%) participants, with 12 events deemed serious. “However, none of the serious adverse events were considered as drug-related by the investigators,” concluded the researchers.

The study was partly funded by NovaLead Pharma and the Biotechnology Industry Research Assistance Council, New Delhi, set up by the Department of Biotechnology, Government of India. Dr. Rastogi reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

WASHINGTON – Atopic dermatitis (AD) in childhood presents most commonly by age 1 and typically begins on the face, and while it can make infants “miserable,” caregiver and provider concerns about treatment on the face and at such a young age mean it is often “woefully undertreated,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, said at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.

Identifying and mitigating triggers – such as irritation, contact allergy, and infection – is a cornerstone of treatment in infants, but tailored therapy with topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs), and topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitors also have roles to play, said Dr. Sidbury, chief of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital and professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Views on the use of dupilumab as a systemic agent for severe infantile AD, meanwhile, have shifted significantly in the past year with the Food and Drug Administration approval of the biologic for children aged 6 months to 5 years and with extended experience with the biologic in all ages, including children, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, said at the meeting.

The pediatric dermatologists spoke during a session devoted to AD in infants, during which the diagnosis of AD and the role – and risks – of food allergy testing were also discussed. Diagnosis, said Elaine C. Siegfried, MD, who also spoke during the session, requires careful consideration of mimicking conditions and a broader list of differential diagnoses in those infants with poor growth or frequent infections.

Here are some of the experts’ pearls for practice.
 

Diagnosing AD in infants

Among infants who are growing well and otherwise healthy, the infantile eczema phenotype encompasses AD, seborrheic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, psoriasis – and overlap of more than one of these conditions. “Overlap is common,” said Dr. Siegfried, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Saint Louis University, and director of the division of pediatric dermatology at Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital.

(Initial topical treatment for all these conditions is similar, but optimal treatment may differ for young children with moderate to severe disease that requires systemic treatment, she said in an interview after the meeting.)

Sparing of the diaper area that reflects skin barrier integrity is a classic feature of AD in infants and can be a useful diagnostic sign. In addition, “hypopigmentation is more characteristic of psoriasis” than AD, whereas AD tends to be hyperpigmented, which is most obvious in skin-of-color patients, Dr. Siegfried said.

Disease-specific pigment changes may be related to microbial colonization – such as Malassezia-associated hypopigmentation – or cell turnover, which is faster in psoriasis and slower in AD – with corresponding differences in pigment retention, and may be more obvious in children than adults, she said.

A less common scenario is dermatitis in infants who are not growing well. For these patients, she noted, the differential diagnosis includes metabolic or immune deficiency dermatitis as well as a variety of genodermatoses.

Generalized redness and scaling present on the first day of life is suggestive of non-atopic dermatitis. “If you’re born with red scaly skin, that’s very different than if you develop red skin in the first month or two of life,” Dr. Siegfried said.

When there is diaper area involvement with AD, contact dermatitis, impetigo, and Candida may be complicating factors. And in infants with other morbidities – especially those who are not growing well – diaper area involvement suggests a broader differential diagnosis. “I implore you, if you see children, make sure you weigh and measure them at every appointment,” she said.

Dr. Siegfried has seen infants with Netherton syndrome, and those with cystic fibrosis with zinc deficiency, for instance, presenting with “an eczematous-like picture,” diaper-area involvement, and other morbidities.

For infants with AD, she maintains a high index of suspicion for secondary infections such as molluscum, herpes simplex virus (HSV) with or without streptococci, scabies, tinea, and group A streptococci. “Secondary infections ... may be incognito,” she said. “Look for subtle signs. Even molluscum can be very subtle.”

Secondary allergic contact dermatitis is also common although it’s “technically difficult to confirm the diagnosis,” she said. Patch testing in infants is technically challenging, sensitivity is low, and monosensitization is uncommon. “So I do initial empiric topical allergen avoidance,” she said, keeping in mind ubiquitous and avoidable topical allergens such as Kathon, cocamidopropyl betaine, propylene glycol, disperse blue, and adhesives.
 

Treating AD in infancy

Irritation “is probably one of the biggest triggers” of AD in infants, and the often “pristine” diaper area compared with inflamed eczema elsewhere can demonstrate the importance of moisturization for healthy skin in atopic infants, Dr. Sidbury said.

Among treatments that “punch above their weight” for AD in infants is an ointment-based barrier applied around the mouth, chin, and chest – where the wet/dry impact of drooling is maximal – before and after meals, he said.

Another is hydrocortisone 2.5% mixed 1:1 with mupirocin for those infants who have secondary infections and “that exudative, weepy-looking appearance on the face,” he said. The topical antibiotic in the combination cream “lessens the potency of the steroid and oftentimes by synergy, makes it more effective” by simultaneously treating inflammation, he said. He cautions against products containing neomycin, which can be an allergen.

A combination antibiotic-steroid-emollient cream (the Aron Regimen) can also “sometimes punch above its weight,” Dr. Sidbury said.

Infections typically involve Staphylococcus aureus, but in up to 16% of cases Streptococcus is involved. And notably, lurking underneath the honey-colored crusting of S. aureus infections may be the grouped vesicles that characterize eczema herpeticum, Dr. Sidbury said.

“Counsel [parents] preemptively to treat cold sores immediately [in order to] decrease HSV shedding and minimize risk to their baby,” Dr. Sidbury said.

For treating AD-associated inflammation in skin not affected by secondary infections, over-the-counter 1% hydrocortisone cream is often sufficient, and “for very young babies and preemies in particular, I generally don’t use anything stronger because their skin barrier isn’t fully complete yet, so they absorb more than an older child does,” he said, referring to ages 2 months corrected as a marker for considering a stronger formulation if needed.

Many parents are “very concerned” about topical corticosteroid (TCS) use and pediatricians are also “often concerned,” Dr. Sidbury said. Addressing this concern, he tries to provide context and promote adherence by pointing out that infants have an easily visible vein at the temple area where the skin is naturally thin. If parents were to see this appearance for the first time in other areas while using topical steroids, he tells them, it may be the first sign of skin thinning, but “it’s entirely reversible at that stage.”

He also stressed the cost of not treating. It’s unknown whether “treating aggressively early on prevents any future development or manifestation of eczema, or future comorbidities, but we don’t know that it doesn’t,” Dr. Sidbury said. “And we certainly know how miserable that baby with eczema can be in the short term. So we need to use these medicines.”

Dr. Sidbury utilizes tacrolimus 0.03% ointment, a topical calcineurin inhibitor (TCI), only if he is worried about overuse of steroids, and uses a regimen that alternates the TCI (used in infants off-label because it is approved for ages 2 years and older) with TCS in periods of similar duration (for example, treatment with TCS for 1 week and TCI for 1 week, or rotations of 2 weeks each or 3 days each). “And these rotations may be dynamic depending on severity of the flare at any given time,” he said after the meeting.

Preapproval data from the pivotal trials of tacrolimus are reassuring and can be shared with parents. “Two-year-olds had 90% of BSA [body surface area] treated for 12 weeks” with no signs of systemic risks, Dr. Sidbury said at the meeting.

Crisaborole, a topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor approved for AD down to age 3 months, does not, like tacrolimus, have a boxed warning about a possible risk for cancer, and may also be alternated with TCSs. It will cause stinging in some children, but TCSs and TCIs can also sting in some children, he said, noting that samples can be helpful to predict what will or won’t sting each infant.
 

Systemic treatment in infants

The Liberty AD PRESCHOOL phase 3 trial that supported the FDA’s approval of dupilumab down to 6 months of age, published in 2022 in The Lancet, covered ages 6 months to 5 years but included only six children under the age of 2, “leaving us with a very limited dataset in this age group,” Dr. Eichenfield said at the meeting.

University of California, San Diego

Other data and analyses that have provided reassurance, such as a laboratory safety analysis published online in 2022 showing no meaningful changes in laboratory safety parameters in children as young as 6 months, and pediatric data (not including infants) presented at a RAD meeting in 2022 showing that dupilumab, an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist, may have positive effects on bone mineral density.

Data from the Liberty AD PRESCHOOL open-label extension study presented at the American Academy of Dermatology meeting in 2023, meanwhile, show that “the adverse event profile is not looking much different than what we see in older children,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “There are low rates of severe adverse events and a very low rate of discontinuations.”

At Rady Children’s Hospital, where Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology, dupilumab has become a first-line systemic agent for severe infantile AD, supplanting prior traditional but little used systemic agents such as oral corticosteroids, cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, or mycophenolate, he said after the meeting.

The decision to use systemics in the first 2 years of life is “a comprehensive one,” requiring knowledge of the child’s history, disease course, and assessment of response to prior therapies, comorbidities and severity, he said.
 

Food allergy in infants with AD

Food allergy is common in children with moderate to severe AD, but true food-triggered AD, with AD being the only symptom of food allergy, is rare, said Anne Marie Singh, MD, associate professor in the division of allergy and immunology and rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who focuses on pediatrics.

Over the years, studies of double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge tests in children with AD have tended to conflate immediate IgE hypersensitivity (and skin symptoms like urticaria) with AD, said Dr. Singh, who directs the university’s Food Allergy Research and Education Center of Excellence. In a recently published study she led involving 374 children with AD referred to allergy and/or dermatology subspecialty clinics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, 55% had a food allergy but only 2% had food-triggered AD “where eczema is the only symptom and removal of the food cleared up the eczema and its return brought it back,” Dr. Singh said at the meeting. Another 4% had combined IgE-mediated food allergy and food-triggered AD. Almost half of the children with food-triggered AD were under 1 year of age, and egg was the most common trigger, she noted.

Food should be implicated largely by history, Dr. Singh emphasized.

Food allergy testing in the context of AD can be done but is challenging, with the clinical relevance of skin prick testing and food-specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) difficult to predict. Predictive values of sIgE levels are established for immediate IgE mediated food allergy, but “cut-offs” for food-triggered AD are not established, she explained, noting that “cut-offs are likely higher for our children with AD.”

Elimination diets, moreover, pose significant risks of future oral tolerance and risks of nutritional deficiencies and poor growth, Dr. Singh said. New and immediate reactions to foods that are reintroduced after an elimination diet are common, and research has shown that 20% or more of such reactions involve anaphylaxis. “If an elimination diet is undertaken, you need emergency action plans, injectable epinephrine, and nutrition counseling,” she said.

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis conditionally recommended against elimination diets for the treatment of AD, Dr. Singh noted.

Asked by Dr. Sidbury whether there “is a sweet spot where you can eliminate [foods] without going all the way,” Dr. Singh said she will sometimes do a “diagnostic elimination trial” with food elimination for 2-4 weeks only – a time period after which “I’ll feel really comfortable reintroducing the food.”

Dr. Singh urged dermatologists to “know your allergist” because “patients respond best with a consistent message.”

Dr. Sidbury reported ties with Regeneron, UCB, Pfizer, Leo Pharma, Lilly, and Beiersdorf. Dr. Siegfried reported ties with Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Pfizer, UCB, Novan and Leo Pharma. Dr. Singh reported ties with Incyte and Siolta Therapeutics. Dr. Eichenfield reported ties with Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Incyte, and Pfizer.

WASHINGTON – Atopic dermatitis (AD) in childhood presents most commonly by age 1 and typically begins on the face, and while it can make infants “miserable,” caregiver and provider concerns about treatment on the face and at such a young age mean it is often “woefully undertreated,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, said at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.

Identifying and mitigating triggers – such as irritation, contact allergy, and infection – is a cornerstone of treatment in infants, but tailored therapy with topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs), and topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitors also have roles to play, said Dr. Sidbury, chief of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital and professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Views on the use of dupilumab as a systemic agent for severe infantile AD, meanwhile, have shifted significantly in the past year with the Food and Drug Administration approval of the biologic for children aged 6 months to 5 years and with extended experience with the biologic in all ages, including children, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, said at the meeting.

The pediatric dermatologists spoke during a session devoted to AD in infants, during which the diagnosis of AD and the role – and risks – of food allergy testing were also discussed. Diagnosis, said Elaine C. Siegfried, MD, who also spoke during the session, requires careful consideration of mimicking conditions and a broader list of differential diagnoses in those infants with poor growth or frequent infections.

Here are some of the experts’ pearls for practice.
 

Diagnosing AD in infants

Among infants who are growing well and otherwise healthy, the infantile eczema phenotype encompasses AD, seborrheic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, psoriasis – and overlap of more than one of these conditions. “Overlap is common,” said Dr. Siegfried, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Saint Louis University, and director of the division of pediatric dermatology at Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital.

(Initial topical treatment for all these conditions is similar, but optimal treatment may differ for young children with moderate to severe disease that requires systemic treatment, she said in an interview after the meeting.)

Sparing of the diaper area that reflects skin barrier integrity is a classic feature of AD in infants and can be a useful diagnostic sign. In addition, “hypopigmentation is more characteristic of psoriasis” than AD, whereas AD tends to be hyperpigmented, which is most obvious in skin-of-color patients, Dr. Siegfried said.

Disease-specific pigment changes may be related to microbial colonization – such as Malassezia-associated hypopigmentation – or cell turnover, which is faster in psoriasis and slower in AD – with corresponding differences in pigment retention, and may be more obvious in children than adults, she said.

A less common scenario is dermatitis in infants who are not growing well. For these patients, she noted, the differential diagnosis includes metabolic or immune deficiency dermatitis as well as a variety of genodermatoses.

Generalized redness and scaling present on the first day of life is suggestive of non-atopic dermatitis. “If you’re born with red scaly skin, that’s very different than if you develop red skin in the first month or two of life,” Dr. Siegfried said.

When there is diaper area involvement with AD, contact dermatitis, impetigo, and Candida may be complicating factors. And in infants with other morbidities – especially those who are not growing well – diaper area involvement suggests a broader differential diagnosis. “I implore you, if you see children, make sure you weigh and measure them at every appointment,” she said.

Dr. Siegfried has seen infants with Netherton syndrome, and those with cystic fibrosis with zinc deficiency, for instance, presenting with “an eczematous-like picture,” diaper-area involvement, and other morbidities.

For infants with AD, she maintains a high index of suspicion for secondary infections such as molluscum, herpes simplex virus (HSV) with or without streptococci, scabies, tinea, and group A streptococci. “Secondary infections ... may be incognito,” she said. “Look for subtle signs. Even molluscum can be very subtle.”

Secondary allergic contact dermatitis is also common although it’s “technically difficult to confirm the diagnosis,” she said. Patch testing in infants is technically challenging, sensitivity is low, and monosensitization is uncommon. “So I do initial empiric topical allergen avoidance,” she said, keeping in mind ubiquitous and avoidable topical allergens such as Kathon, cocamidopropyl betaine, propylene glycol, disperse blue, and adhesives.
 

Treating AD in infancy

Irritation “is probably one of the biggest triggers” of AD in infants, and the often “pristine” diaper area compared with inflamed eczema elsewhere can demonstrate the importance of moisturization for healthy skin in atopic infants, Dr. Sidbury said.

Among treatments that “punch above their weight” for AD in infants is an ointment-based barrier applied around the mouth, chin, and chest – where the wet/dry impact of drooling is maximal – before and after meals, he said.

Another is hydrocortisone 2.5% mixed 1:1 with mupirocin for those infants who have secondary infections and “that exudative, weepy-looking appearance on the face,” he said. The topical antibiotic in the combination cream “lessens the potency of the steroid and oftentimes by synergy, makes it more effective” by simultaneously treating inflammation, he said. He cautions against products containing neomycin, which can be an allergen.

A combination antibiotic-steroid-emollient cream (the Aron Regimen) can also “sometimes punch above its weight,” Dr. Sidbury said.

Infections typically involve Staphylococcus aureus, but in up to 16% of cases Streptococcus is involved. And notably, lurking underneath the honey-colored crusting of S. aureus infections may be the grouped vesicles that characterize eczema herpeticum, Dr. Sidbury said.

“Counsel [parents] preemptively to treat cold sores immediately [in order to] decrease HSV shedding and minimize risk to their baby,” Dr. Sidbury said.

For treating AD-associated inflammation in skin not affected by secondary infections, over-the-counter 1% hydrocortisone cream is often sufficient, and “for very young babies and preemies in particular, I generally don’t use anything stronger because their skin barrier isn’t fully complete yet, so they absorb more than an older child does,” he said, referring to ages 2 months corrected as a marker for considering a stronger formulation if needed.

Many parents are “very concerned” about topical corticosteroid (TCS) use and pediatricians are also “often concerned,” Dr. Sidbury said. Addressing this concern, he tries to provide context and promote adherence by pointing out that infants have an easily visible vein at the temple area where the skin is naturally thin. If parents were to see this appearance for the first time in other areas while using topical steroids, he tells them, it may be the first sign of skin thinning, but “it’s entirely reversible at that stage.”

He also stressed the cost of not treating. It’s unknown whether “treating aggressively early on prevents any future development or manifestation of eczema, or future comorbidities, but we don’t know that it doesn’t,” Dr. Sidbury said. “And we certainly know how miserable that baby with eczema can be in the short term. So we need to use these medicines.”

Dr. Sidbury utilizes tacrolimus 0.03% ointment, a topical calcineurin inhibitor (TCI), only if he is worried about overuse of steroids, and uses a regimen that alternates the TCI (used in infants off-label because it is approved for ages 2 years and older) with TCS in periods of similar duration (for example, treatment with TCS for 1 week and TCI for 1 week, or rotations of 2 weeks each or 3 days each). “And these rotations may be dynamic depending on severity of the flare at any given time,” he said after the meeting.

Preapproval data from the pivotal trials of tacrolimus are reassuring and can be shared with parents. “Two-year-olds had 90% of BSA [body surface area] treated for 12 weeks” with no signs of systemic risks, Dr. Sidbury said at the meeting.

Crisaborole, a topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor approved for AD down to age 3 months, does not, like tacrolimus, have a boxed warning about a possible risk for cancer, and may also be alternated with TCSs. It will cause stinging in some children, but TCSs and TCIs can also sting in some children, he said, noting that samples can be helpful to predict what will or won’t sting each infant.
 

Systemic treatment in infants

The Liberty AD PRESCHOOL phase 3 trial that supported the FDA’s approval of dupilumab down to 6 months of age, published in 2022 in The Lancet, covered ages 6 months to 5 years but included only six children under the age of 2, “leaving us with a very limited dataset in this age group,” Dr. Eichenfield said at the meeting.

University of California, San Diego

Other data and analyses that have provided reassurance, such as a laboratory safety analysis published online in 2022 showing no meaningful changes in laboratory safety parameters in children as young as 6 months, and pediatric data (not including infants) presented at a RAD meeting in 2022 showing that dupilumab, an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist, may have positive effects on bone mineral density.

Data from the Liberty AD PRESCHOOL open-label extension study presented at the American Academy of Dermatology meeting in 2023, meanwhile, show that “the adverse event profile is not looking much different than what we see in older children,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “There are low rates of severe adverse events and a very low rate of discontinuations.”

At Rady Children’s Hospital, where Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology, dupilumab has become a first-line systemic agent for severe infantile AD, supplanting prior traditional but little used systemic agents such as oral corticosteroids, cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, or mycophenolate, he said after the meeting.

The decision to use systemics in the first 2 years of life is “a comprehensive one,” requiring knowledge of the child’s history, disease course, and assessment of response to prior therapies, comorbidities and severity, he said.
 

Food allergy in infants with AD

Food allergy is common in children with moderate to severe AD, but true food-triggered AD, with AD being the only symptom of food allergy, is rare, said Anne Marie Singh, MD, associate professor in the division of allergy and immunology and rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who focuses on pediatrics.

Over the years, studies of double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge tests in children with AD have tended to conflate immediate IgE hypersensitivity (and skin symptoms like urticaria) with AD, said Dr. Singh, who directs the university’s Food Allergy Research and Education Center of Excellence. In a recently published study she led involving 374 children with AD referred to allergy and/or dermatology subspecialty clinics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, 55% had a food allergy but only 2% had food-triggered AD “where eczema is the only symptom and removal of the food cleared up the eczema and its return brought it back,” Dr. Singh said at the meeting. Another 4% had combined IgE-mediated food allergy and food-triggered AD. Almost half of the children with food-triggered AD were under 1 year of age, and egg was the most common trigger, she noted.

Food should be implicated largely by history, Dr. Singh emphasized.

Food allergy testing in the context of AD can be done but is challenging, with the clinical relevance of skin prick testing and food-specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) difficult to predict. Predictive values of sIgE levels are established for immediate IgE mediated food allergy, but “cut-offs” for food-triggered AD are not established, she explained, noting that “cut-offs are likely higher for our children with AD.”

Elimination diets, moreover, pose significant risks of future oral tolerance and risks of nutritional deficiencies and poor growth, Dr. Singh said. New and immediate reactions to foods that are reintroduced after an elimination diet are common, and research has shown that 20% or more of such reactions involve anaphylaxis. “If an elimination diet is undertaken, you need emergency action plans, injectable epinephrine, and nutrition counseling,” she said.

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis conditionally recommended against elimination diets for the treatment of AD, Dr. Singh noted.

Asked by Dr. Sidbury whether there “is a sweet spot where you can eliminate [foods] without going all the way,” Dr. Singh said she will sometimes do a “diagnostic elimination trial” with food elimination for 2-4 weeks only – a time period after which “I’ll feel really comfortable reintroducing the food.”

Dr. Singh urged dermatologists to “know your allergist” because “patients respond best with a consistent message.”

Dr. Sidbury reported ties with Regeneron, UCB, Pfizer, Leo Pharma, Lilly, and Beiersdorf. Dr. Siegfried reported ties with Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Pfizer, UCB, Novan and Leo Pharma. Dr. Singh reported ties with Incyte and Siolta Therapeutics. Dr. Eichenfield reported ties with Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Incyte, and Pfizer.

WASHINGTON – Atopic dermatitis (AD) in childhood presents most commonly by age 1 and typically begins on the face, and while it can make infants “miserable,” caregiver and provider concerns about treatment on the face and at such a young age mean it is often “woefully undertreated,” Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH, said at the annual Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis conference.

Identifying and mitigating triggers – such as irritation, contact allergy, and infection – is a cornerstone of treatment in infants, but tailored therapy with topical corticosteroids, topical calcineurin inhibitors (TCIs), and topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitors also have roles to play, said Dr. Sidbury, chief of dermatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital and professor in the department of pediatrics at the University of Washington, Seattle.

Views on the use of dupilumab as a systemic agent for severe infantile AD, meanwhile, have shifted significantly in the past year with the Food and Drug Administration approval of the biologic for children aged 6 months to 5 years and with extended experience with the biologic in all ages, including children, Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, said at the meeting.

The pediatric dermatologists spoke during a session devoted to AD in infants, during which the diagnosis of AD and the role – and risks – of food allergy testing were also discussed. Diagnosis, said Elaine C. Siegfried, MD, who also spoke during the session, requires careful consideration of mimicking conditions and a broader list of differential diagnoses in those infants with poor growth or frequent infections.

Here are some of the experts’ pearls for practice.
 

Diagnosing AD in infants

Among infants who are growing well and otherwise healthy, the infantile eczema phenotype encompasses AD, seborrheic dermatitis, contact dermatitis, psoriasis – and overlap of more than one of these conditions. “Overlap is common,” said Dr. Siegfried, professor of pediatrics and dermatology at Saint Louis University, and director of the division of pediatric dermatology at Cardinal Glennon Children’s Hospital.

(Initial topical treatment for all these conditions is similar, but optimal treatment may differ for young children with moderate to severe disease that requires systemic treatment, she said in an interview after the meeting.)

Sparing of the diaper area that reflects skin barrier integrity is a classic feature of AD in infants and can be a useful diagnostic sign. In addition, “hypopigmentation is more characteristic of psoriasis” than AD, whereas AD tends to be hyperpigmented, which is most obvious in skin-of-color patients, Dr. Siegfried said.

Disease-specific pigment changes may be related to microbial colonization – such as Malassezia-associated hypopigmentation – or cell turnover, which is faster in psoriasis and slower in AD – with corresponding differences in pigment retention, and may be more obvious in children than adults, she said.

A less common scenario is dermatitis in infants who are not growing well. For these patients, she noted, the differential diagnosis includes metabolic or immune deficiency dermatitis as well as a variety of genodermatoses.

Generalized redness and scaling present on the first day of life is suggestive of non-atopic dermatitis. “If you’re born with red scaly skin, that’s very different than if you develop red skin in the first month or two of life,” Dr. Siegfried said.

When there is diaper area involvement with AD, contact dermatitis, impetigo, and Candida may be complicating factors. And in infants with other morbidities – especially those who are not growing well – diaper area involvement suggests a broader differential diagnosis. “I implore you, if you see children, make sure you weigh and measure them at every appointment,” she said.

Dr. Siegfried has seen infants with Netherton syndrome, and those with cystic fibrosis with zinc deficiency, for instance, presenting with “an eczematous-like picture,” diaper-area involvement, and other morbidities.

For infants with AD, she maintains a high index of suspicion for secondary infections such as molluscum, herpes simplex virus (HSV) with or without streptococci, scabies, tinea, and group A streptococci. “Secondary infections ... may be incognito,” she said. “Look for subtle signs. Even molluscum can be very subtle.”

Secondary allergic contact dermatitis is also common although it’s “technically difficult to confirm the diagnosis,” she said. Patch testing in infants is technically challenging, sensitivity is low, and monosensitization is uncommon. “So I do initial empiric topical allergen avoidance,” she said, keeping in mind ubiquitous and avoidable topical allergens such as Kathon, cocamidopropyl betaine, propylene glycol, disperse blue, and adhesives.
 

Treating AD in infancy

Irritation “is probably one of the biggest triggers” of AD in infants, and the often “pristine” diaper area compared with inflamed eczema elsewhere can demonstrate the importance of moisturization for healthy skin in atopic infants, Dr. Sidbury said.

Among treatments that “punch above their weight” for AD in infants is an ointment-based barrier applied around the mouth, chin, and chest – where the wet/dry impact of drooling is maximal – before and after meals, he said.

Another is hydrocortisone 2.5% mixed 1:1 with mupirocin for those infants who have secondary infections and “that exudative, weepy-looking appearance on the face,” he said. The topical antibiotic in the combination cream “lessens the potency of the steroid and oftentimes by synergy, makes it more effective” by simultaneously treating inflammation, he said. He cautions against products containing neomycin, which can be an allergen.

A combination antibiotic-steroid-emollient cream (the Aron Regimen) can also “sometimes punch above its weight,” Dr. Sidbury said.

Infections typically involve Staphylococcus aureus, but in up to 16% of cases Streptococcus is involved. And notably, lurking underneath the honey-colored crusting of S. aureus infections may be the grouped vesicles that characterize eczema herpeticum, Dr. Sidbury said.

“Counsel [parents] preemptively to treat cold sores immediately [in order to] decrease HSV shedding and minimize risk to their baby,” Dr. Sidbury said.

For treating AD-associated inflammation in skin not affected by secondary infections, over-the-counter 1% hydrocortisone cream is often sufficient, and “for very young babies and preemies in particular, I generally don’t use anything stronger because their skin barrier isn’t fully complete yet, so they absorb more than an older child does,” he said, referring to ages 2 months corrected as a marker for considering a stronger formulation if needed.

Many parents are “very concerned” about topical corticosteroid (TCS) use and pediatricians are also “often concerned,” Dr. Sidbury said. Addressing this concern, he tries to provide context and promote adherence by pointing out that infants have an easily visible vein at the temple area where the skin is naturally thin. If parents were to see this appearance for the first time in other areas while using topical steroids, he tells them, it may be the first sign of skin thinning, but “it’s entirely reversible at that stage.”

He also stressed the cost of not treating. It’s unknown whether “treating aggressively early on prevents any future development or manifestation of eczema, or future comorbidities, but we don’t know that it doesn’t,” Dr. Sidbury said. “And we certainly know how miserable that baby with eczema can be in the short term. So we need to use these medicines.”

Dr. Sidbury utilizes tacrolimus 0.03% ointment, a topical calcineurin inhibitor (TCI), only if he is worried about overuse of steroids, and uses a regimen that alternates the TCI (used in infants off-label because it is approved for ages 2 years and older) with TCS in periods of similar duration (for example, treatment with TCS for 1 week and TCI for 1 week, or rotations of 2 weeks each or 3 days each). “And these rotations may be dynamic depending on severity of the flare at any given time,” he said after the meeting.

Preapproval data from the pivotal trials of tacrolimus are reassuring and can be shared with parents. “Two-year-olds had 90% of BSA [body surface area] treated for 12 weeks” with no signs of systemic risks, Dr. Sidbury said at the meeting.

Crisaborole, a topical phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor approved for AD down to age 3 months, does not, like tacrolimus, have a boxed warning about a possible risk for cancer, and may also be alternated with TCSs. It will cause stinging in some children, but TCSs and TCIs can also sting in some children, he said, noting that samples can be helpful to predict what will or won’t sting each infant.
 

Systemic treatment in infants

The Liberty AD PRESCHOOL phase 3 trial that supported the FDA’s approval of dupilumab down to 6 months of age, published in 2022 in The Lancet, covered ages 6 months to 5 years but included only six children under the age of 2, “leaving us with a very limited dataset in this age group,” Dr. Eichenfield said at the meeting.

University of California, San Diego

Other data and analyses that have provided reassurance, such as a laboratory safety analysis published online in 2022 showing no meaningful changes in laboratory safety parameters in children as young as 6 months, and pediatric data (not including infants) presented at a RAD meeting in 2022 showing that dupilumab, an interleukin-4 receptor alpha antagonist, may have positive effects on bone mineral density.

Data from the Liberty AD PRESCHOOL open-label extension study presented at the American Academy of Dermatology meeting in 2023, meanwhile, show that “the adverse event profile is not looking much different than what we see in older children,” Dr. Eichenfield said. “There are low rates of severe adverse events and a very low rate of discontinuations.”

At Rady Children’s Hospital, where Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology, dupilumab has become a first-line systemic agent for severe infantile AD, supplanting prior traditional but little used systemic agents such as oral corticosteroids, cyclosporine, methotrexate, azathioprine, or mycophenolate, he said after the meeting.

The decision to use systemics in the first 2 years of life is “a comprehensive one,” requiring knowledge of the child’s history, disease course, and assessment of response to prior therapies, comorbidities and severity, he said.
 

Food allergy in infants with AD

Food allergy is common in children with moderate to severe AD, but true food-triggered AD, with AD being the only symptom of food allergy, is rare, said Anne Marie Singh, MD, associate professor in the division of allergy and immunology and rheumatology at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, who focuses on pediatrics.

Over the years, studies of double-blind placebo-controlled food challenge tests in children with AD have tended to conflate immediate IgE hypersensitivity (and skin symptoms like urticaria) with AD, said Dr. Singh, who directs the university’s Food Allergy Research and Education Center of Excellence. In a recently published study she led involving 374 children with AD referred to allergy and/or dermatology subspecialty clinics at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, 55% had a food allergy but only 2% had food-triggered AD “where eczema is the only symptom and removal of the food cleared up the eczema and its return brought it back,” Dr. Singh said at the meeting. Another 4% had combined IgE-mediated food allergy and food-triggered AD. Almost half of the children with food-triggered AD were under 1 year of age, and egg was the most common trigger, she noted.

Food should be implicated largely by history, Dr. Singh emphasized.

Food allergy testing in the context of AD can be done but is challenging, with the clinical relevance of skin prick testing and food-specific immunoglobulin E (sIgE) difficult to predict. Predictive values of sIgE levels are established for immediate IgE mediated food allergy, but “cut-offs” for food-triggered AD are not established, she explained, noting that “cut-offs are likely higher for our children with AD.”

Elimination diets, moreover, pose significant risks of future oral tolerance and risks of nutritional deficiencies and poor growth, Dr. Singh said. New and immediate reactions to foods that are reintroduced after an elimination diet are common, and research has shown that 20% or more of such reactions involve anaphylaxis. “If an elimination diet is undertaken, you need emergency action plans, injectable epinephrine, and nutrition counseling,” she said.

A recent systematic review and meta-analysis conditionally recommended against elimination diets for the treatment of AD, Dr. Singh noted.

Asked by Dr. Sidbury whether there “is a sweet spot where you can eliminate [foods] without going all the way,” Dr. Singh said she will sometimes do a “diagnostic elimination trial” with food elimination for 2-4 weeks only – a time period after which “I’ll feel really comfortable reintroducing the food.”

Dr. Singh urged dermatologists to “know your allergist” because “patients respond best with a consistent message.”

Dr. Sidbury reported ties with Regeneron, UCB, Pfizer, Leo Pharma, Lilly, and Beiersdorf. Dr. Siegfried reported ties with Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Pfizer, UCB, Novan and Leo Pharma. Dr. Singh reported ties with Incyte and Siolta Therapeutics. Dr. Eichenfield reported ties with Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, Incyte, and Pfizer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the first-ever topical gene therapy, which will be used to treat wounds in patients 6 months of age and older who have either recessive or dominant dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB), a rare skin disease.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The therapy, Vyjuvek (beremagene geperpavec, formerly known as B-VEC), uses a nonreplicating herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) vector to deliver the COL7A1 gene directly to skin cells, restoring the COL7 protein fibrils that stabilize skin structure.

Vyjuvek, developed by Krystal Biotech, is designed to be used repetitively to heal a single wound or on more than one wound. In the pivotal study, the gene therapy, delivered in a topical gel, was administered once a week for 6 months.

The FDA gave Vyjuvek priority review, approving the therapy just 9 months after Krystal filed its application for approval. Vyjuvek is also an orphan drug, giving it potentially 7 years of marketing exclusivity.

“Vyjuvek is the first FDA-approved gene therapy treatment for DEB, a rare and serious genetic skin disorder,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in the FDA’s statement  announcing the approval.

“With the FDA approval of Vyjuvek, the DEB population has reached a monumental milestone in the treatment of this horrible disorder,” said Brett Kopelan, executive director of debra of America, a national advocacy group for people with DEB, in a statement issued by Krystal Biotech. “Our hopes have now been realized for a safe and effective treatment for one of the most devastating symptoms of the disorder,” said Mr. Kopelan.

“This is a devastating disease,” said M. Peter Marinkovich, MD, primary investigator of Krystal’s pivotal GEM-3 trial and director of the Blistering Disease Clinic at Stanford Health Care, in the statement issued by Krystal. “Until now, doctors and nurses had no way to stop blisters and wounds from developing on dystrophic EB patient skin, and all we could do was to give them bandages and helplessly watch as new blisters formed,” said Dr. Marinkovich, who is also associate professor of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine.

“Because it’s safe and easy to apply directly to wounds, it doesn’t require a lot of supporting technology or specialized expertise, making Vyjuvek highly accessible even to patients who live far away from specialized centers,” he said.

Paras P. Vakharia, MD, PharmD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that Vyjuvek is an important advance for DEB. “This to me would be a treatment that I would consider for almost all patients,” Dr. Vakharia said in an interview.

Dr. Vakharia, who was not involved with trials of Vyjuvek, said he had concerns about whether patients might develop antibodies to either HSV or C7 but that the greater initial worry is if Vyjuvek will be affordable and accessible. “I envision that it will be a costly medication,” he said.

Mr. Kopelan, the patient advocate, said that his organization “will continue to work closely with Krystal to assure patients have ready access to Vyjuvek.”

Krystal did not respond before press time to a request for comment on pricing.

Dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa affects 1 to 3 people per million in the United States. It is caused by mutations in the COL7A1 gene, which encodes the alpha-1 chain of collagen type VII (C7) protein. C7 forms the anchoring fibrils that attach the epidermis to the underlying dermal connective tissue. COL71A mutations that lead to defective, decreased, or absent C7 can make the skin so fragile that it tears with the slightest touch.

DEB usually presents at birth and is divided into two major types depending on the inheritance pattern: recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa and dominant dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa.

People with the dominant form typically have mild cases with blistering primarily on the hands, feet, knees, and elbows. The recessive form can be painful and debilitating, causing widespread blistering. Depending on the severity, it can lead to nonhealing wounds, fusing of fingers and toes, anemia, weak bones, and esophageal and genitourinary strictures. Squamous cell cancers are a frequent cause of death.

Vyjuvek is mixed into an inactive gel and is evenly applied to a wound once a week by a health care professional, according to the FDA.  

The agency recommends the following precautions for patients and caregivers:

• Avoid direct contact with treated wounds and dressings of treated wounds for 24 hours following application. Clean any area that is accidentally exposed.
• Wash hands and wear protective gloves when changing wound dressings.
• Disinfect the bandages used for the first dressing with a viricidal agent, such as 70% isopropyl alcohol, 6% hydrogen peroxide, or less than 0.4% ammonium chloride, and dispose of them in a separate, sealed plastic bag in household waste. Subsequent used dressings and cleaning materials should be disposed of in sealed plastic bags in household waste.

FDA approval of Vyjuvek was based on a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, 31-patient, phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which showed that 71% of wounds treated with the gene therapy had complete healing at 3 months, compared with 20% of those treated with placebo (95% confidence interval, 29-73; P < .001). At 6 months, 67% of wounds treated with the gene therapy had complete healing, compared with 22% of wounds treated with placebo (95% CI, 24-68; P = .002).

Almost two-thirds of the patients had at least one adverse event. Most were mild or moderate. The most common events were pruritus, chills, and squamous cell carcinoma, reported in three patients each. SCC cases occurred at wound sites that had not been exposed to Vyjuvek or placebo. Serious adverse events, which were unrelated to the treatment, occurred in three patients and included diarrhea, anemia, and cellulitis.

Krystal will also be seeking marketing approval for Vyjuvek in the European Union, likely in 2024, said the company. In September, the European Medicines Agency’s Pediatric Committee issued a positive opinion on the gene therapy and Krystal’s plan to test B-VEC in children.

Dr. Marinkovich and Dr. Vakharia have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the first-ever topical gene therapy, which will be used to treat wounds in patients 6 months of age and older who have either recessive or dominant dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB), a rare skin disease.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The therapy, Vyjuvek (beremagene geperpavec, formerly known as B-VEC), uses a nonreplicating herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) vector to deliver the COL7A1 gene directly to skin cells, restoring the COL7 protein fibrils that stabilize skin structure.

Vyjuvek, developed by Krystal Biotech, is designed to be used repetitively to heal a single wound or on more than one wound. In the pivotal study, the gene therapy, delivered in a topical gel, was administered once a week for 6 months.

The FDA gave Vyjuvek priority review, approving the therapy just 9 months after Krystal filed its application for approval. Vyjuvek is also an orphan drug, giving it potentially 7 years of marketing exclusivity.

“Vyjuvek is the first FDA-approved gene therapy treatment for DEB, a rare and serious genetic skin disorder,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in the FDA’s statement  announcing the approval.

“With the FDA approval of Vyjuvek, the DEB population has reached a monumental milestone in the treatment of this horrible disorder,” said Brett Kopelan, executive director of debra of America, a national advocacy group for people with DEB, in a statement issued by Krystal Biotech. “Our hopes have now been realized for a safe and effective treatment for one of the most devastating symptoms of the disorder,” said Mr. Kopelan.

“This is a devastating disease,” said M. Peter Marinkovich, MD, primary investigator of Krystal’s pivotal GEM-3 trial and director of the Blistering Disease Clinic at Stanford Health Care, in the statement issued by Krystal. “Until now, doctors and nurses had no way to stop blisters and wounds from developing on dystrophic EB patient skin, and all we could do was to give them bandages and helplessly watch as new blisters formed,” said Dr. Marinkovich, who is also associate professor of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine.

“Because it’s safe and easy to apply directly to wounds, it doesn’t require a lot of supporting technology or specialized expertise, making Vyjuvek highly accessible even to patients who live far away from specialized centers,” he said.

Paras P. Vakharia, MD, PharmD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that Vyjuvek is an important advance for DEB. “This to me would be a treatment that I would consider for almost all patients,” Dr. Vakharia said in an interview.

Dr. Vakharia, who was not involved with trials of Vyjuvek, said he had concerns about whether patients might develop antibodies to either HSV or C7 but that the greater initial worry is if Vyjuvek will be affordable and accessible. “I envision that it will be a costly medication,” he said.

Mr. Kopelan, the patient advocate, said that his organization “will continue to work closely with Krystal to assure patients have ready access to Vyjuvek.”

Krystal did not respond before press time to a request for comment on pricing.

Dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa affects 1 to 3 people per million in the United States. It is caused by mutations in the COL7A1 gene, which encodes the alpha-1 chain of collagen type VII (C7) protein. C7 forms the anchoring fibrils that attach the epidermis to the underlying dermal connective tissue. COL71A mutations that lead to defective, decreased, or absent C7 can make the skin so fragile that it tears with the slightest touch.

DEB usually presents at birth and is divided into two major types depending on the inheritance pattern: recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa and dominant dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa.

People with the dominant form typically have mild cases with blistering primarily on the hands, feet, knees, and elbows. The recessive form can be painful and debilitating, causing widespread blistering. Depending on the severity, it can lead to nonhealing wounds, fusing of fingers and toes, anemia, weak bones, and esophageal and genitourinary strictures. Squamous cell cancers are a frequent cause of death.

Vyjuvek is mixed into an inactive gel and is evenly applied to a wound once a week by a health care professional, according to the FDA.  

The agency recommends the following precautions for patients and caregivers:

• Avoid direct contact with treated wounds and dressings of treated wounds for 24 hours following application. Clean any area that is accidentally exposed.
• Wash hands and wear protective gloves when changing wound dressings.
• Disinfect the bandages used for the first dressing with a viricidal agent, such as 70% isopropyl alcohol, 6% hydrogen peroxide, or less than 0.4% ammonium chloride, and dispose of them in a separate, sealed plastic bag in household waste. Subsequent used dressings and cleaning materials should be disposed of in sealed plastic bags in household waste.

FDA approval of Vyjuvek was based on a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, 31-patient, phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which showed that 71% of wounds treated with the gene therapy had complete healing at 3 months, compared with 20% of those treated with placebo (95% confidence interval, 29-73; P < .001). At 6 months, 67% of wounds treated with the gene therapy had complete healing, compared with 22% of wounds treated with placebo (95% CI, 24-68; P = .002).

Almost two-thirds of the patients had at least one adverse event. Most were mild or moderate. The most common events were pruritus, chills, and squamous cell carcinoma, reported in three patients each. SCC cases occurred at wound sites that had not been exposed to Vyjuvek or placebo. Serious adverse events, which were unrelated to the treatment, occurred in three patients and included diarrhea, anemia, and cellulitis.

Krystal will also be seeking marketing approval for Vyjuvek in the European Union, likely in 2024, said the company. In September, the European Medicines Agency’s Pediatric Committee issued a positive opinion on the gene therapy and Krystal’s plan to test B-VEC in children.

Dr. Marinkovich and Dr. Vakharia have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the first-ever topical gene therapy, which will be used to treat wounds in patients 6 months of age and older who have either recessive or dominant dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB), a rare skin disease.

Olivier Le Moal/Getty Images

The therapy, Vyjuvek (beremagene geperpavec, formerly known as B-VEC), uses a nonreplicating herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) vector to deliver the COL7A1 gene directly to skin cells, restoring the COL7 protein fibrils that stabilize skin structure.

Vyjuvek, developed by Krystal Biotech, is designed to be used repetitively to heal a single wound or on more than one wound. In the pivotal study, the gene therapy, delivered in a topical gel, was administered once a week for 6 months.

The FDA gave Vyjuvek priority review, approving the therapy just 9 months after Krystal filed its application for approval. Vyjuvek is also an orphan drug, giving it potentially 7 years of marketing exclusivity.

“Vyjuvek is the first FDA-approved gene therapy treatment for DEB, a rare and serious genetic skin disorder,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in the FDA’s statement  announcing the approval.

“With the FDA approval of Vyjuvek, the DEB population has reached a monumental milestone in the treatment of this horrible disorder,” said Brett Kopelan, executive director of debra of America, a national advocacy group for people with DEB, in a statement issued by Krystal Biotech. “Our hopes have now been realized for a safe and effective treatment for one of the most devastating symptoms of the disorder,” said Mr. Kopelan.

“This is a devastating disease,” said M. Peter Marinkovich, MD, primary investigator of Krystal’s pivotal GEM-3 trial and director of the Blistering Disease Clinic at Stanford Health Care, in the statement issued by Krystal. “Until now, doctors and nurses had no way to stop blisters and wounds from developing on dystrophic EB patient skin, and all we could do was to give them bandages and helplessly watch as new blisters formed,” said Dr. Marinkovich, who is also associate professor of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University School of Medicine.

“Because it’s safe and easy to apply directly to wounds, it doesn’t require a lot of supporting technology or specialized expertise, making Vyjuvek highly accessible even to patients who live far away from specialized centers,” he said.

Paras P. Vakharia, MD, PharmD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, said that Vyjuvek is an important advance for DEB. “This to me would be a treatment that I would consider for almost all patients,” Dr. Vakharia said in an interview.

Dr. Vakharia, who was not involved with trials of Vyjuvek, said he had concerns about whether patients might develop antibodies to either HSV or C7 but that the greater initial worry is if Vyjuvek will be affordable and accessible. “I envision that it will be a costly medication,” he said.

Mr. Kopelan, the patient advocate, said that his organization “will continue to work closely with Krystal to assure patients have ready access to Vyjuvek.”

Krystal did not respond before press time to a request for comment on pricing.

Dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa affects 1 to 3 people per million in the United States. It is caused by mutations in the COL7A1 gene, which encodes the alpha-1 chain of collagen type VII (C7) protein. C7 forms the anchoring fibrils that attach the epidermis to the underlying dermal connective tissue. COL71A mutations that lead to defective, decreased, or absent C7 can make the skin so fragile that it tears with the slightest touch.

DEB usually presents at birth and is divided into two major types depending on the inheritance pattern: recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa and dominant dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa.

People with the dominant form typically have mild cases with blistering primarily on the hands, feet, knees, and elbows. The recessive form can be painful and debilitating, causing widespread blistering. Depending on the severity, it can lead to nonhealing wounds, fusing of fingers and toes, anemia, weak bones, and esophageal and genitourinary strictures. Squamous cell cancers are a frequent cause of death.

Vyjuvek is mixed into an inactive gel and is evenly applied to a wound once a week by a health care professional, according to the FDA.  

The agency recommends the following precautions for patients and caregivers:

• Avoid direct contact with treated wounds and dressings of treated wounds for 24 hours following application. Clean any area that is accidentally exposed.
• Wash hands and wear protective gloves when changing wound dressings.
• Disinfect the bandages used for the first dressing with a viricidal agent, such as 70% isopropyl alcohol, 6% hydrogen peroxide, or less than 0.4% ammonium chloride, and dispose of them in a separate, sealed plastic bag in household waste. Subsequent used dressings and cleaning materials should be disposed of in sealed plastic bags in household waste.

FDA approval of Vyjuvek was based on a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, 31-patient, phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which showed that 71% of wounds treated with the gene therapy had complete healing at 3 months, compared with 20% of those treated with placebo (95% confidence interval, 29-73; P < .001). At 6 months, 67% of wounds treated with the gene therapy had complete healing, compared with 22% of wounds treated with placebo (95% CI, 24-68; P = .002).

Almost two-thirds of the patients had at least one adverse event. Most were mild or moderate. The most common events were pruritus, chills, and squamous cell carcinoma, reported in three patients each. SCC cases occurred at wound sites that had not been exposed to Vyjuvek or placebo. Serious adverse events, which were unrelated to the treatment, occurred in three patients and included diarrhea, anemia, and cellulitis.

Krystal will also be seeking marketing approval for Vyjuvek in the European Union, likely in 2024, said the company. In September, the European Medicines Agency’s Pediatric Committee issued a positive opinion on the gene therapy and Krystal’s plan to test B-VEC in children.

Dr. Marinkovich and Dr. Vakharia have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

CLEVELAND – Patients with axial spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis who used Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors did not have higher risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or venous thromboembolism (VTE), compared with those who used tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), according to new research.

The information was presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).

Patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have increased cardiovascular risk compared with the general population. Emerging evidence has suggested that TNFi may protect the cardiovascular system and that there are cardiovascular and thrombotic concerns with JAK inhibitors.

Sali Merjanah, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Boston University, and colleagues, compared how drugs in the two treatment classes affected the likelihood of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or VTE. MACE in this study were myocardial infarction and stroke.

In a search of the Marketscan Database during 2006-2021, the researchers identified 1,621 TNFi and 47 JAK inhibitor users with 273 and 8 cases of MACE, respectively. They identified 2,507 TNFi and 96 JAK users with 452 and 26 cases of VTE, respectively. Patients were aged 18-65 years and had at least one inpatient or two outpatient axSpA or PsA ICD-9 or ICD-10 diagnosis codes separated by at least 7 days.

The likelihood of MACE was 14% lower among JAK inhibitor users than TNFi users (the reference group), whereas the likelihood of VTE was 39% higher for JAK inhibitor users, but neither comparison was statistically significant. JAK/TNFi nonusers had a statistically significant 27% greater likelihood of MACE than did TNFi users. The likelihood for VTE was 12% higher for JAK/TNFi nonusers, compared with TNFi users, but this finding was not statistically significant. The researchers adjusted comparisons for age, medications, and comorbidities.
 

Small numbers complicate the research

Lianne Gensler, MD, director of the Ankylosing Spondylitis Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not part of the study, said the limitations the authors list are important to note. The researchers said that the study’s small number of JAK inhibitor users, short duration of exposure, and low event rate limit its precision, and there is potential misclassification of TNF/JAK inhibitor exposure, as well as confounding by indication.

Dr. Gensler noted that these same limitations apply to studies of patients with RA as well that try to answer the question of risk for MACE and malignancy when using these drugs,

“MACE is a rare event, malignancy is a rare event. So it’s like finding a needle in a haystack, and the haystack is really big. You either have to enrich the haystack with more needles or you have to make a smaller haystack,” Dr. Gensler said.

Nevertheless, she said, she credits the researchers for bringing the available information to light.

“I think we have to do this many different ways to try to get at the answer in a partial way,” she said.

The data were drawn from 2006 to 2021, but JAK inhibitors have only been approved for axSpA in the last one and a half years and for PsA at the end of 2017.

Additionally, the people taking JAK inhibitors would have likely already failed TNFis, she said, adding that this can make it hard to tell whether an event was linked with the JAK or the TNFi.
 

Nonusers may have other risk factors

She pointed out that in this study patients who were not using TNF or JAK inhibitors had slightly higher risk numerically for both MACE and VTE than did those using TNFis.

“There, the assumption is always that this is confounding by indication, meaning it is likely that the people who are nonusers have other risk factors for MACE, which is why we’re not giving them these drugs.”

Having heart failure, for instance, is a contraindication for using a TNF inhibitor, she noted. “So it’s not that these are protective compared to nonusers. It’s probably that the nonuser has higher risk and is not getting treated with these drugs to begin with.”

The authors properly concluded from the data that patients using JAK inhibitors did not have higher risk of MACE or VTE, compared with those who used TNFis, she said, but larger studies with more follow-up are needed.

“No evidence doesn’t mean no effect,” she said. “Part of it depends on the [statistical] power and the population you’re studying.”

Dr. Gensler is a consultant for AbbVie, Acceleron, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and has received grant support from Novartis and UCB. The authors’ financial relationships were not available.

CLEVELAND – Patients with axial spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis who used Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors did not have higher risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or venous thromboembolism (VTE), compared with those who used tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), according to new research.

The information was presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).

Patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have increased cardiovascular risk compared with the general population. Emerging evidence has suggested that TNFi may protect the cardiovascular system and that there are cardiovascular and thrombotic concerns with JAK inhibitors.

Sali Merjanah, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Boston University, and colleagues, compared how drugs in the two treatment classes affected the likelihood of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or VTE. MACE in this study were myocardial infarction and stroke.

In a search of the Marketscan Database during 2006-2021, the researchers identified 1,621 TNFi and 47 JAK inhibitor users with 273 and 8 cases of MACE, respectively. They identified 2,507 TNFi and 96 JAK users with 452 and 26 cases of VTE, respectively. Patients were aged 18-65 years and had at least one inpatient or two outpatient axSpA or PsA ICD-9 or ICD-10 diagnosis codes separated by at least 7 days.

The likelihood of MACE was 14% lower among JAK inhibitor users than TNFi users (the reference group), whereas the likelihood of VTE was 39% higher for JAK inhibitor users, but neither comparison was statistically significant. JAK/TNFi nonusers had a statistically significant 27% greater likelihood of MACE than did TNFi users. The likelihood for VTE was 12% higher for JAK/TNFi nonusers, compared with TNFi users, but this finding was not statistically significant. The researchers adjusted comparisons for age, medications, and comorbidities.
 

Small numbers complicate the research

Lianne Gensler, MD, director of the Ankylosing Spondylitis Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not part of the study, said the limitations the authors list are important to note. The researchers said that the study’s small number of JAK inhibitor users, short duration of exposure, and low event rate limit its precision, and there is potential misclassification of TNF/JAK inhibitor exposure, as well as confounding by indication.

Dr. Gensler noted that these same limitations apply to studies of patients with RA as well that try to answer the question of risk for MACE and malignancy when using these drugs,

“MACE is a rare event, malignancy is a rare event. So it’s like finding a needle in a haystack, and the haystack is really big. You either have to enrich the haystack with more needles or you have to make a smaller haystack,” Dr. Gensler said.

Nevertheless, she said, she credits the researchers for bringing the available information to light.

“I think we have to do this many different ways to try to get at the answer in a partial way,” she said.

The data were drawn from 2006 to 2021, but JAK inhibitors have only been approved for axSpA in the last one and a half years and for PsA at the end of 2017.

Additionally, the people taking JAK inhibitors would have likely already failed TNFis, she said, adding that this can make it hard to tell whether an event was linked with the JAK or the TNFi.
 

Nonusers may have other risk factors

She pointed out that in this study patients who were not using TNF or JAK inhibitors had slightly higher risk numerically for both MACE and VTE than did those using TNFis.

“There, the assumption is always that this is confounding by indication, meaning it is likely that the people who are nonusers have other risk factors for MACE, which is why we’re not giving them these drugs.”

Having heart failure, for instance, is a contraindication for using a TNF inhibitor, she noted. “So it’s not that these are protective compared to nonusers. It’s probably that the nonuser has higher risk and is not getting treated with these drugs to begin with.”

The authors properly concluded from the data that patients using JAK inhibitors did not have higher risk of MACE or VTE, compared with those who used TNFis, she said, but larger studies with more follow-up are needed.

“No evidence doesn’t mean no effect,” she said. “Part of it depends on the [statistical] power and the population you’re studying.”

Dr. Gensler is a consultant for AbbVie, Acceleron, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and has received grant support from Novartis and UCB. The authors’ financial relationships were not available.

CLEVELAND – Patients with axial spondyloarthritis or psoriatic arthritis who used Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitors did not have higher risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, or venous thromboembolism (VTE), compared with those who used tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi), according to new research.

The information was presented in a poster at the annual meeting of the Spondyloarthritis Research and Treatment Network (SPARTAN).

Patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) have increased cardiovascular risk compared with the general population. Emerging evidence has suggested that TNFi may protect the cardiovascular system and that there are cardiovascular and thrombotic concerns with JAK inhibitors.

Sali Merjanah, MD, a rheumatology fellow at Boston University, and colleagues, compared how drugs in the two treatment classes affected the likelihood of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or VTE. MACE in this study were myocardial infarction and stroke.

In a search of the Marketscan Database during 2006-2021, the researchers identified 1,621 TNFi and 47 JAK inhibitor users with 273 and 8 cases of MACE, respectively. They identified 2,507 TNFi and 96 JAK users with 452 and 26 cases of VTE, respectively. Patients were aged 18-65 years and had at least one inpatient or two outpatient axSpA or PsA ICD-9 or ICD-10 diagnosis codes separated by at least 7 days.

The likelihood of MACE was 14% lower among JAK inhibitor users than TNFi users (the reference group), whereas the likelihood of VTE was 39% higher for JAK inhibitor users, but neither comparison was statistically significant. JAK/TNFi nonusers had a statistically significant 27% greater likelihood of MACE than did TNFi users. The likelihood for VTE was 12% higher for JAK/TNFi nonusers, compared with TNFi users, but this finding was not statistically significant. The researchers adjusted comparisons for age, medications, and comorbidities.
 

Small numbers complicate the research

Lianne Gensler, MD, director of the Ankylosing Spondylitis Clinic at the University of California, San Francisco, who was not part of the study, said the limitations the authors list are important to note. The researchers said that the study’s small number of JAK inhibitor users, short duration of exposure, and low event rate limit its precision, and there is potential misclassification of TNF/JAK inhibitor exposure, as well as confounding by indication.

Dr. Gensler noted that these same limitations apply to studies of patients with RA as well that try to answer the question of risk for MACE and malignancy when using these drugs,

“MACE is a rare event, malignancy is a rare event. So it’s like finding a needle in a haystack, and the haystack is really big. You either have to enrich the haystack with more needles or you have to make a smaller haystack,” Dr. Gensler said.

Nevertheless, she said, she credits the researchers for bringing the available information to light.

“I think we have to do this many different ways to try to get at the answer in a partial way,” she said.

The data were drawn from 2006 to 2021, but JAK inhibitors have only been approved for axSpA in the last one and a half years and for PsA at the end of 2017.

Additionally, the people taking JAK inhibitors would have likely already failed TNFis, she said, adding that this can make it hard to tell whether an event was linked with the JAK or the TNFi.
 

Nonusers may have other risk factors

She pointed out that in this study patients who were not using TNF or JAK inhibitors had slightly higher risk numerically for both MACE and VTE than did those using TNFis.

“There, the assumption is always that this is confounding by indication, meaning it is likely that the people who are nonusers have other risk factors for MACE, which is why we’re not giving them these drugs.”

Having heart failure, for instance, is a contraindication for using a TNF inhibitor, she noted. “So it’s not that these are protective compared to nonusers. It’s probably that the nonuser has higher risk and is not getting treated with these drugs to begin with.”

The authors properly concluded from the data that patients using JAK inhibitors did not have higher risk of MACE or VTE, compared with those who used TNFis, she said, but larger studies with more follow-up are needed.

“No evidence doesn’t mean no effect,” she said. “Part of it depends on the [statistical] power and the population you’re studying.”

Dr. Gensler is a consultant for AbbVie, Acceleron, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer, and UCB; and has received grant support from Novartis and UCB. The authors’ financial relationships were not available.

AURORA, COLO. – Artificial Intelligence has arrived at medical offices, whether or not clinicians feel ready for it.

AI might result in more accurate, efficient, and cost-effective care. But it’s possible it could cause harm. That’s according to Benjamin Collins, MD, at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who spoke on the subject at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

Understanding the nuances of AI is even more important because of the quick development of the algorithms.

“When I submitted this workshop, there was no ChatGPT,” said Dr. Collins, referring to Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, a recently released natural language processing model. “A lot has already changed.”
 

Biased data

Biased data are perhaps the biggest pitfall of AI algorithms, Dr. Collins said. If garbage data go in, garbage predictions come out.

If the dataset that trains the algorithm underrepresents a particular gender or ethnic group, for example, the algorithm may not respond accurately to prompts. When an AI tool compounds existing inequalities related to socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, the algorithm is biased, according to Harvard researchers.

“People often assume that artificial intelligence is free of bias due to the use of scientific processes and its development,” he said. “But whatever flaws exist in data collection and old data can lead to poor representation or underrepresentation in the data used to train the AI tool.”

Racial minorities are underrepresented in studies; therefore, data input into an AI tool might skew results for these patients.

The Framingham Heart Study, for example, which began in 1948, examined heart disease in mainly White participants. The findings from the study resulted in the creation of a sex-specific algorithm that was used to estimate the 10-year cardiovascular risk of a patient. While the cardiovascular risk score was accurate for White persons, it was less accurate for Black patients.

A study published in Science in 2019 revealed bias in an algorithm that used health care costs as a proxy for health needs. Because less money was spent on Black patients who had the same level of need as their White counterparts, the output inaccurately showed that Black patients were healthier and thus did not require extra care.

Developers can also be a source of bias, inasmuch as AI often reflects preexisting human biases, Dr. Collins said.

“Algorithmic bias presents a clear risk of harm that clinicians must play against the benefits of using AI,” Dr. Collins said. “That risk of harm is often disproportionately distributed to marginalized populations.”

As clinicians use AI algorithms to diagnose and detect disease, predict outcomes, and guide treatment, trouble comes when those algorithms perform well for some patients and poorly for others. This gap can exacerbate existing disparities in health care outcomes.

Dr. Collins advised clinicians to push to find out what data were used to train AI algorithms to determine how bias could have influenced the model and whether the developers risk-adjusted for bias. If the training data are not available, clinicians should ask their employers and AI developers to know more about the system.

Clinicians may face the so-called black box phenomenon, which occurs when developers cannot or will not explain what data went into an AI model, Dr. Collins said.

According to Stanford (Calif.) University, AI must be trained on large datasets of images that have been annotated by human experts. Those datasets can cost millions of dollars to create, meaning corporations often fund them and do not always share the data publicly.

Some groups, such as Stanford’s Center for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Imaging, are working to acquire annotated datasets so researchers who train AI models can know where the data came from.

Paul Haidet, MD, MPH, an internist at Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, sees the technology as a tool that requires careful handling.

“It takes a while to learn how to use a stethoscope, and AI is like that,” Dr. Haidet said. “The thing about AI, though, is that it can be just dropped into a system and no one knows how it works.”

Dr. Haidet said he likes knowing how the sausage is made, something AI developers are often reticent to make known.

“If you’re just putting blind faith in a tool, that’s scary,” Dr. Haidet said.
 

Transparency and ‘explainability’

The ability to explain what goes into tools is essential to maintaining trust in the health care system, Dr. Collins said.

“Part of knowing how much trust to place in the system is the transparency of those systems and the ability to audit how well the algorithm is performing,” Dr. Collins said. “The system should also regularly report to users the level of certainty with which it is providing an output rather than providing a simple binary output.”

Dr. Collins recommends that providers develop an understanding of the limits of AI regulations as well, which might including learning how the system was approved and how it is monitored.

“The FDA has oversight over some applications of AI and health care for software as a medical device, but there’s currently no dedicated process to evaluate the systems for the presence of bias,” Dr. Collins said. “The gaps in regulation leave the door open for the use of AI in clinical care that contain significant biases.”

Dr. Haidet likened AI tools to the Global Positioning System: A good GPS system will let users see alternate routes, opt out of toll roads or highways, and will highlight why routes have changed. But users need to understand how to read the map so they can tell when something seems amiss.

Dr. Collins and Dr. Haidet report no relevant financial relationships

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

AURORA, COLO. – Artificial Intelligence has arrived at medical offices, whether or not clinicians feel ready for it.

AI might result in more accurate, efficient, and cost-effective care. But it’s possible it could cause harm. That’s according to Benjamin Collins, MD, at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who spoke on the subject at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

Understanding the nuances of AI is even more important because of the quick development of the algorithms.

“When I submitted this workshop, there was no ChatGPT,” said Dr. Collins, referring to Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, a recently released natural language processing model. “A lot has already changed.”
 

Biased data

Biased data are perhaps the biggest pitfall of AI algorithms, Dr. Collins said. If garbage data go in, garbage predictions come out.

If the dataset that trains the algorithm underrepresents a particular gender or ethnic group, for example, the algorithm may not respond accurately to prompts. When an AI tool compounds existing inequalities related to socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, the algorithm is biased, according to Harvard researchers.

“People often assume that artificial intelligence is free of bias due to the use of scientific processes and its development,” he said. “But whatever flaws exist in data collection and old data can lead to poor representation or underrepresentation in the data used to train the AI tool.”

Racial minorities are underrepresented in studies; therefore, data input into an AI tool might skew results for these patients.

The Framingham Heart Study, for example, which began in 1948, examined heart disease in mainly White participants. The findings from the study resulted in the creation of a sex-specific algorithm that was used to estimate the 10-year cardiovascular risk of a patient. While the cardiovascular risk score was accurate for White persons, it was less accurate for Black patients.

A study published in Science in 2019 revealed bias in an algorithm that used health care costs as a proxy for health needs. Because less money was spent on Black patients who had the same level of need as their White counterparts, the output inaccurately showed that Black patients were healthier and thus did not require extra care.

Developers can also be a source of bias, inasmuch as AI often reflects preexisting human biases, Dr. Collins said.

“Algorithmic bias presents a clear risk of harm that clinicians must play against the benefits of using AI,” Dr. Collins said. “That risk of harm is often disproportionately distributed to marginalized populations.”

As clinicians use AI algorithms to diagnose and detect disease, predict outcomes, and guide treatment, trouble comes when those algorithms perform well for some patients and poorly for others. This gap can exacerbate existing disparities in health care outcomes.

Dr. Collins advised clinicians to push to find out what data were used to train AI algorithms to determine how bias could have influenced the model and whether the developers risk-adjusted for bias. If the training data are not available, clinicians should ask their employers and AI developers to know more about the system.

Clinicians may face the so-called black box phenomenon, which occurs when developers cannot or will not explain what data went into an AI model, Dr. Collins said.

According to Stanford (Calif.) University, AI must be trained on large datasets of images that have been annotated by human experts. Those datasets can cost millions of dollars to create, meaning corporations often fund them and do not always share the data publicly.

Some groups, such as Stanford’s Center for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Imaging, are working to acquire annotated datasets so researchers who train AI models can know where the data came from.

Paul Haidet, MD, MPH, an internist at Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, sees the technology as a tool that requires careful handling.

“It takes a while to learn how to use a stethoscope, and AI is like that,” Dr. Haidet said. “The thing about AI, though, is that it can be just dropped into a system and no one knows how it works.”

Dr. Haidet said he likes knowing how the sausage is made, something AI developers are often reticent to make known.

“If you’re just putting blind faith in a tool, that’s scary,” Dr. Haidet said.
 

Transparency and ‘explainability’

The ability to explain what goes into tools is essential to maintaining trust in the health care system, Dr. Collins said.

“Part of knowing how much trust to place in the system is the transparency of those systems and the ability to audit how well the algorithm is performing,” Dr. Collins said. “The system should also regularly report to users the level of certainty with which it is providing an output rather than providing a simple binary output.”

Dr. Collins recommends that providers develop an understanding of the limits of AI regulations as well, which might including learning how the system was approved and how it is monitored.

“The FDA has oversight over some applications of AI and health care for software as a medical device, but there’s currently no dedicated process to evaluate the systems for the presence of bias,” Dr. Collins said. “The gaps in regulation leave the door open for the use of AI in clinical care that contain significant biases.”

Dr. Haidet likened AI tools to the Global Positioning System: A good GPS system will let users see alternate routes, opt out of toll roads or highways, and will highlight why routes have changed. But users need to understand how to read the map so they can tell when something seems amiss.

Dr. Collins and Dr. Haidet report no relevant financial relationships

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

AURORA, COLO. – Artificial Intelligence has arrived at medical offices, whether or not clinicians feel ready for it.

AI might result in more accurate, efficient, and cost-effective care. But it’s possible it could cause harm. That’s according to Benjamin Collins, MD, at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn., who spoke on the subject at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

Understanding the nuances of AI is even more important because of the quick development of the algorithms.

“When I submitted this workshop, there was no ChatGPT,” said Dr. Collins, referring to Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer, a recently released natural language processing model. “A lot has already changed.”
 

Biased data

Biased data are perhaps the biggest pitfall of AI algorithms, Dr. Collins said. If garbage data go in, garbage predictions come out.

If the dataset that trains the algorithm underrepresents a particular gender or ethnic group, for example, the algorithm may not respond accurately to prompts. When an AI tool compounds existing inequalities related to socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, the algorithm is biased, according to Harvard researchers.

“People often assume that artificial intelligence is free of bias due to the use of scientific processes and its development,” he said. “But whatever flaws exist in data collection and old data can lead to poor representation or underrepresentation in the data used to train the AI tool.”

Racial minorities are underrepresented in studies; therefore, data input into an AI tool might skew results for these patients.

The Framingham Heart Study, for example, which began in 1948, examined heart disease in mainly White participants. The findings from the study resulted in the creation of a sex-specific algorithm that was used to estimate the 10-year cardiovascular risk of a patient. While the cardiovascular risk score was accurate for White persons, it was less accurate for Black patients.

A study published in Science in 2019 revealed bias in an algorithm that used health care costs as a proxy for health needs. Because less money was spent on Black patients who had the same level of need as their White counterparts, the output inaccurately showed that Black patients were healthier and thus did not require extra care.

Developers can also be a source of bias, inasmuch as AI often reflects preexisting human biases, Dr. Collins said.

“Algorithmic bias presents a clear risk of harm that clinicians must play against the benefits of using AI,” Dr. Collins said. “That risk of harm is often disproportionately distributed to marginalized populations.”

As clinicians use AI algorithms to diagnose and detect disease, predict outcomes, and guide treatment, trouble comes when those algorithms perform well for some patients and poorly for others. This gap can exacerbate existing disparities in health care outcomes.

Dr. Collins advised clinicians to push to find out what data were used to train AI algorithms to determine how bias could have influenced the model and whether the developers risk-adjusted for bias. If the training data are not available, clinicians should ask their employers and AI developers to know more about the system.

Clinicians may face the so-called black box phenomenon, which occurs when developers cannot or will not explain what data went into an AI model, Dr. Collins said.

According to Stanford (Calif.) University, AI must be trained on large datasets of images that have been annotated by human experts. Those datasets can cost millions of dollars to create, meaning corporations often fund them and do not always share the data publicly.

Some groups, such as Stanford’s Center for Artificial Intelligence in Medicine and Imaging, are working to acquire annotated datasets so researchers who train AI models can know where the data came from.

Paul Haidet, MD, MPH, an internist at Penn State College of Medicine, Hershey, sees the technology as a tool that requires careful handling.

“It takes a while to learn how to use a stethoscope, and AI is like that,” Dr. Haidet said. “The thing about AI, though, is that it can be just dropped into a system and no one knows how it works.”

Dr. Haidet said he likes knowing how the sausage is made, something AI developers are often reticent to make known.

“If you’re just putting blind faith in a tool, that’s scary,” Dr. Haidet said.
 

Transparency and ‘explainability’

The ability to explain what goes into tools is essential to maintaining trust in the health care system, Dr. Collins said.

“Part of knowing how much trust to place in the system is the transparency of those systems and the ability to audit how well the algorithm is performing,” Dr. Collins said. “The system should also regularly report to users the level of certainty with which it is providing an output rather than providing a simple binary output.”

Dr. Collins recommends that providers develop an understanding of the limits of AI regulations as well, which might including learning how the system was approved and how it is monitored.

“The FDA has oversight over some applications of AI and health care for software as a medical device, but there’s currently no dedicated process to evaluate the systems for the presence of bias,” Dr. Collins said. “The gaps in regulation leave the door open for the use of AI in clinical care that contain significant biases.”

Dr. Haidet likened AI tools to the Global Positioning System: A good GPS system will let users see alternate routes, opt out of toll roads or highways, and will highlight why routes have changed. But users need to understand how to read the map so they can tell when something seems amiss.

Dr. Collins and Dr. Haidet report no relevant financial relationships

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

AURORA, COLO. – How often do you talk with patients about how to lower their out-of-pocket costs for medical care?

For most clinicians, the answer is: not often enough. But having those conversations can improve medication adherence and strengthen the patient-clinician relationship, according to panelists at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

The inverse association between out-of-pocket expenditures and fidelity to prescriptions is clear. A 2020 study by the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, for example, found that rates of prescription abandonment are less than 5% when a given medication carries no out-of-pocket cost for patients. That figure rises to 45% when the cost is more than $125, and to 60% when it exceeds $500. One in five Americans said cost prevented them from adhering to medication regimens, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers surveyed more than 2,000 men and women, 40.4% of whom were aged 75 or older. They found that nearly 90% of respondents said they would not be uncomfortable being asked about drug costs before a visit with a physician. A similar share (89.5%) said they would welcome the use by their physician of a real-time tool to determine the cost of their medication.

But the survey results contained a note of warning for clinicians: A significant number of respondents said they would be “extremely” upset if the cost of their medication exceeded the estimate from the pricing tool. And many also said they would be “moderately” or “extremely” angry if their physician used a pricing tool but failed to share the results with them.

“Real-time benefit tools may support medication cost conversations and cost-conscious prescribing, and patients are enthusiastic about their use,” the authors write. “However, if disclosed prices are inaccurate, there is potential for harm through loss of confidence in the physician and nonadherence to prescribed medications.”

While having conversations about cost can be difficult for both clinicians and patients, studies have shown that patients who discuss cost concerns with their doctors feel as if they have stronger relationships as a result.

Clinicians often avoid conversations about out-of-pocket expenses because they don’t know specific price information, they lack solutions to address cost, or they are uncomfortable bringing up the issue.

One member of the audience at the SGIM meeting recalled a patient who worked in a warehouse for a large company. The man, who had type 2 diabetes, had medical insurance, but even with insurance, insulin was going to cost him $150 per month. He struggled to afford the necessary treatment.

“He looked at me and said, ‘What do they want me to do? Do they want me to actually not be able to work for them and not manage my diabetes?’ ”

The clinician said he offered empathy in the moment but felt he could do little else.

Panelists acknowledged that clinicians are crunched on time when seeing patients, but being willing to initiate conversations about cost with patients and to offer resources can help patients get necessary treatment.
 

Start the conversation

Panel member Caroline Sloan, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said making patients aware that you know cost can make a big difference.

The American College of Physicians advises clinicians to ask patients whether they are worried about the cost of care and to not assume which patients may have concerns.

The conversation could be started like this: “I’d like to discuss any concerns you might have about the cost of your health care.”

Normalize the concern by making it more general, and reassure your patient that your goal is to get them the best care. Say something like, “I’ve heard from many patients the cost of medications or tests is becoming hard to manage.”

Once a patient’s concerns are clear, you can direct them to resources for assistance in reducing their costs, Dr. Sloan said, such as ClearHealthCosts, FAIR Health, Healthcare Bluebook, New Choice Health, GoodRx, PharmacyChecker, HealthWell Foundation, Patient Advocate Foundation, Good Days, Good Health Will, Mercy Medical Angels, and the American Association of Family Physicians Neighborhood Navigator.

Dr. Sloan said she knows clinicians don’t have time to understand every insurance plan and other issues related to cost. “But at least know to ask about costs,” she said. “Practice, practice, practice. It feels awkward at first, but it gets easier every time.”

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

AURORA, COLO. – How often do you talk with patients about how to lower their out-of-pocket costs for medical care?

For most clinicians, the answer is: not often enough. But having those conversations can improve medication adherence and strengthen the patient-clinician relationship, according to panelists at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

The inverse association between out-of-pocket expenditures and fidelity to prescriptions is clear. A 2020 study by the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, for example, found that rates of prescription abandonment are less than 5% when a given medication carries no out-of-pocket cost for patients. That figure rises to 45% when the cost is more than $125, and to 60% when it exceeds $500. One in five Americans said cost prevented them from adhering to medication regimens, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers surveyed more than 2,000 men and women, 40.4% of whom were aged 75 or older. They found that nearly 90% of respondents said they would not be uncomfortable being asked about drug costs before a visit with a physician. A similar share (89.5%) said they would welcome the use by their physician of a real-time tool to determine the cost of their medication.

But the survey results contained a note of warning for clinicians: A significant number of respondents said they would be “extremely” upset if the cost of their medication exceeded the estimate from the pricing tool. And many also said they would be “moderately” or “extremely” angry if their physician used a pricing tool but failed to share the results with them.

“Real-time benefit tools may support medication cost conversations and cost-conscious prescribing, and patients are enthusiastic about their use,” the authors write. “However, if disclosed prices are inaccurate, there is potential for harm through loss of confidence in the physician and nonadherence to prescribed medications.”

While having conversations about cost can be difficult for both clinicians and patients, studies have shown that patients who discuss cost concerns with their doctors feel as if they have stronger relationships as a result.

Clinicians often avoid conversations about out-of-pocket expenses because they don’t know specific price information, they lack solutions to address cost, or they are uncomfortable bringing up the issue.

One member of the audience at the SGIM meeting recalled a patient who worked in a warehouse for a large company. The man, who had type 2 diabetes, had medical insurance, but even with insurance, insulin was going to cost him $150 per month. He struggled to afford the necessary treatment.

“He looked at me and said, ‘What do they want me to do? Do they want me to actually not be able to work for them and not manage my diabetes?’ ”

The clinician said he offered empathy in the moment but felt he could do little else.

Panelists acknowledged that clinicians are crunched on time when seeing patients, but being willing to initiate conversations about cost with patients and to offer resources can help patients get necessary treatment.
 

Start the conversation

Panel member Caroline Sloan, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said making patients aware that you know cost can make a big difference.

The American College of Physicians advises clinicians to ask patients whether they are worried about the cost of care and to not assume which patients may have concerns.

The conversation could be started like this: “I’d like to discuss any concerns you might have about the cost of your health care.”

Normalize the concern by making it more general, and reassure your patient that your goal is to get them the best care. Say something like, “I’ve heard from many patients the cost of medications or tests is becoming hard to manage.”

Once a patient’s concerns are clear, you can direct them to resources for assistance in reducing their costs, Dr. Sloan said, such as ClearHealthCosts, FAIR Health, Healthcare Bluebook, New Choice Health, GoodRx, PharmacyChecker, HealthWell Foundation, Patient Advocate Foundation, Good Days, Good Health Will, Mercy Medical Angels, and the American Association of Family Physicians Neighborhood Navigator.

Dr. Sloan said she knows clinicians don’t have time to understand every insurance plan and other issues related to cost. “But at least know to ask about costs,” she said. “Practice, practice, practice. It feels awkward at first, but it gets easier every time.”

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

AURORA, COLO. – How often do you talk with patients about how to lower their out-of-pocket costs for medical care?

For most clinicians, the answer is: not often enough. But having those conversations can improve medication adherence and strengthen the patient-clinician relationship, according to panelists at the annual meeting of the Society of General Internal Medicine.

The inverse association between out-of-pocket expenditures and fidelity to prescriptions is clear. A 2020 study by the IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, for example, found that rates of prescription abandonment are less than 5% when a given medication carries no out-of-pocket cost for patients. That figure rises to 45% when the cost is more than $125, and to 60% when it exceeds $500. One in five Americans said cost prevented them from adhering to medication regimens, according to a new study in JAMA Network Open.

The researchers surveyed more than 2,000 men and women, 40.4% of whom were aged 75 or older. They found that nearly 90% of respondents said they would not be uncomfortable being asked about drug costs before a visit with a physician. A similar share (89.5%) said they would welcome the use by their physician of a real-time tool to determine the cost of their medication.

But the survey results contained a note of warning for clinicians: A significant number of respondents said they would be “extremely” upset if the cost of their medication exceeded the estimate from the pricing tool. And many also said they would be “moderately” or “extremely” angry if their physician used a pricing tool but failed to share the results with them.

“Real-time benefit tools may support medication cost conversations and cost-conscious prescribing, and patients are enthusiastic about their use,” the authors write. “However, if disclosed prices are inaccurate, there is potential for harm through loss of confidence in the physician and nonadherence to prescribed medications.”

While having conversations about cost can be difficult for both clinicians and patients, studies have shown that patients who discuss cost concerns with their doctors feel as if they have stronger relationships as a result.

Clinicians often avoid conversations about out-of-pocket expenses because they don’t know specific price information, they lack solutions to address cost, or they are uncomfortable bringing up the issue.

One member of the audience at the SGIM meeting recalled a patient who worked in a warehouse for a large company. The man, who had type 2 diabetes, had medical insurance, but even with insurance, insulin was going to cost him $150 per month. He struggled to afford the necessary treatment.

“He looked at me and said, ‘What do they want me to do? Do they want me to actually not be able to work for them and not manage my diabetes?’ ”

The clinician said he offered empathy in the moment but felt he could do little else.

Panelists acknowledged that clinicians are crunched on time when seeing patients, but being willing to initiate conversations about cost with patients and to offer resources can help patients get necessary treatment.
 

Start the conversation

Panel member Caroline Sloan, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Duke University, Durham, N.C., said making patients aware that you know cost can make a big difference.

The American College of Physicians advises clinicians to ask patients whether they are worried about the cost of care and to not assume which patients may have concerns.

The conversation could be started like this: “I’d like to discuss any concerns you might have about the cost of your health care.”

Normalize the concern by making it more general, and reassure your patient that your goal is to get them the best care. Say something like, “I’ve heard from many patients the cost of medications or tests is becoming hard to manage.”

Once a patient’s concerns are clear, you can direct them to resources for assistance in reducing their costs, Dr. Sloan said, such as ClearHealthCosts, FAIR Health, Healthcare Bluebook, New Choice Health, GoodRx, PharmacyChecker, HealthWell Foundation, Patient Advocate Foundation, Good Days, Good Health Will, Mercy Medical Angels, and the American Association of Family Physicians Neighborhood Navigator.

Dr. Sloan said she knows clinicians don’t have time to understand every insurance plan and other issues related to cost. “But at least know to ask about costs,” she said. “Practice, practice, practice. It feels awkward at first, but it gets easier every time.”

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

Tuesdays and Fridays are tough. Not so much because of clinic, but rather because of the 32 minutes before clinic that I’m on the Peloton bike. They are the mornings I dedicate to training VO_2max. 

Training VO_2max, or maximal oxygen consumption, is simple. Spin for a leisurely, easy-breathing, 4 minutes, then for 4 minutes push yourself until you see the light of heaven and wish for death to come. Then relax for 4 minutes again. Repeat this cycle four to six times. Done justly, you will dread Tuesdays and Fridays too. The punishing cycle of a 4-minute push, then 4-minute recovery is, however, an excellent way to improve cardiovascular fitness. And no, I’m not training for the Boston Marathon, so why am I working so hard? Because I’m training for marathon clinic days for the next 20 years.

Now more than ever, I feel we have to be physically fit to deal with a physicians’ day’s work. By the time the last patient leaves, I’m beat. From the first bell, patients are packed in, our in boxes are overflowing with messages, pathology results are piling up. It’s exhausting. The root cause is too much work, yes, but I believe being physically fit could help. 

I was talking to an 86-year-old patient about this very topic recently. He was short, with a well-manicured goatee and shiny head. He stuck his arm out to shake my hand. “Glad we’re back to handshakes again, doc.” His grip was that of a 30-year-old. “Buff” you’d likely describe him: He is noticeably muscular, not a skinny old man. He’s an old Navy Master Chief who started a business in wholesale flowers, which distributes all over the United States. And he’s still working full time. Impressed, I asked his secret for such vigor. PT, he replied. 

PT, or physical training, is a foundational element of the Navy. Every sailor starts his or her day with morning PT before carrying out their duties. Some 30 years later, this guy is still getting after it. He does push-ups, sit-ups, and pull-ups nearly every morning. Morning PT is what he attributes to his success not only in health, but also business. As he sees it, he has the business savvy and experience of an old guy and the energy and stamina of a college kid. A good combination for a successful life.

I’ve always been pretty fit. Lately, I’ve been trying to take it to the next level, to not just be “physically active,” but rather “high-performance fit.” There are plenty of sources for instruction; how to stay young and healthy isn’t a new idea after all. I mean, Herodotus wrote of finding the Fountain of Youth in the 5th century BCE. A couple thousand years later, it’s still on trend. One of my favorite sages giving health span advice is Peter Attia, MD. I’ve been a fan since I met him at TEDMED in 2013 and I marvel at the astounding body of work he has created since. A Johns Hopkins–trained surgeon, he has spent his career reviewing the scientific literature about longevity and sharing it as actionable content. His book, “Outlive: The Science and Art of Longevity” (New York: Penguin Random House, 2023) is a nice summary of his work. I recommend it. 

Right now I’m switching between type 2 muscle fiber work (lots of jumping like my 2-year-old) and cardiovascular training including the aforementioned VO_2max work. I cannot say that my patient inbox is any cleaner, or that I’m faster in the office, but I’m not flagging by the end of the day anymore. Master Chief challenged me to match his 10 pull-ups before he returns for his follow up visit. I’ll gladly give up Peloton sprints to work on that.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Tuesdays and Fridays are tough. Not so much because of clinic, but rather because of the 32 minutes before clinic that I’m on the Peloton bike. They are the mornings I dedicate to training VO_2max. 

Training VO_2max, or maximal oxygen consumption, is simple. Spin for a leisurely, easy-breathing, 4 minutes, then for 4 minutes push yourself until you see the light of heaven and wish for death to come. Then relax for 4 minutes again. Repeat this cycle four to six times. Done justly, you will dread Tuesdays and Fridays too. The punishing cycle of a 4-minute push, then 4-minute recovery is, however, an excellent way to improve cardiovascular fitness. And no, I’m not training for the Boston Marathon, so why am I working so hard? Because I’m training for marathon clinic days for the next 20 years.

Now more than ever, I feel we have to be physically fit to deal with a physicians’ day’s work. By the time the last patient leaves, I’m beat. From the first bell, patients are packed in, our in boxes are overflowing with messages, pathology results are piling up. It’s exhausting. The root cause is too much work, yes, but I believe being physically fit could help. 

I was talking to an 86-year-old patient about this very topic recently. He was short, with a well-manicured goatee and shiny head. He stuck his arm out to shake my hand. “Glad we’re back to handshakes again, doc.” His grip was that of a 30-year-old. “Buff” you’d likely describe him: He is noticeably muscular, not a skinny old man. He’s an old Navy Master Chief who started a business in wholesale flowers, which distributes all over the United States. And he’s still working full time. Impressed, I asked his secret for such vigor. PT, he replied. 

PT, or physical training, is a foundational element of the Navy. Every sailor starts his or her day with morning PT before carrying out their duties. Some 30 years later, this guy is still getting after it. He does push-ups, sit-ups, and pull-ups nearly every morning. Morning PT is what he attributes to his success not only in health, but also business. As he sees it, he has the business savvy and experience of an old guy and the energy and stamina of a college kid. A good combination for a successful life.

I’ve always been pretty fit. Lately, I’ve been trying to take it to the next level, to not just be “physically active,” but rather “high-performance fit.” There are plenty of sources for instruction; how to stay young and healthy isn’t a new idea after all. I mean, Herodotus wrote of finding the Fountain of Youth in the 5th century BCE. A couple thousand years later, it’s still on trend. One of my favorite sages giving health span advice is Peter Attia, MD. I’ve been a fan since I met him at TEDMED in 2013 and I marvel at the astounding body of work he has created since. A Johns Hopkins–trained surgeon, he has spent his career reviewing the scientific literature about longevity and sharing it as actionable content. His book, “Outlive: The Science and Art of Longevity” (New York: Penguin Random House, 2023) is a nice summary of his work. I recommend it. 

Right now I’m switching between type 2 muscle fiber work (lots of jumping like my 2-year-old) and cardiovascular training including the aforementioned VO_2max work. I cannot say that my patient inbox is any cleaner, or that I’m faster in the office, but I’m not flagging by the end of the day anymore. Master Chief challenged me to match his 10 pull-ups before he returns for his follow up visit. I’ll gladly give up Peloton sprints to work on that.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

Tuesdays and Fridays are tough. Not so much because of clinic, but rather because of the 32 minutes before clinic that I’m on the Peloton bike. They are the mornings I dedicate to training VO_2max. 

Training VO_2max, or maximal oxygen consumption, is simple. Spin for a leisurely, easy-breathing, 4 minutes, then for 4 minutes push yourself until you see the light of heaven and wish for death to come. Then relax for 4 minutes again. Repeat this cycle four to six times. Done justly, you will dread Tuesdays and Fridays too. The punishing cycle of a 4-minute push, then 4-minute recovery is, however, an excellent way to improve cardiovascular fitness. And no, I’m not training for the Boston Marathon, so why am I working so hard? Because I’m training for marathon clinic days for the next 20 years.

Now more than ever, I feel we have to be physically fit to deal with a physicians’ day’s work. By the time the last patient leaves, I’m beat. From the first bell, patients are packed in, our in boxes are overflowing with messages, pathology results are piling up. It’s exhausting. The root cause is too much work, yes, but I believe being physically fit could help. 

I was talking to an 86-year-old patient about this very topic recently. He was short, with a well-manicured goatee and shiny head. He stuck his arm out to shake my hand. “Glad we’re back to handshakes again, doc.” His grip was that of a 30-year-old. “Buff” you’d likely describe him: He is noticeably muscular, not a skinny old man. He’s an old Navy Master Chief who started a business in wholesale flowers, which distributes all over the United States. And he’s still working full time. Impressed, I asked his secret for such vigor. PT, he replied. 

PT, or physical training, is a foundational element of the Navy. Every sailor starts his or her day with morning PT before carrying out their duties. Some 30 years later, this guy is still getting after it. He does push-ups, sit-ups, and pull-ups nearly every morning. Morning PT is what he attributes to his success not only in health, but also business. As he sees it, he has the business savvy and experience of an old guy and the energy and stamina of a college kid. A good combination for a successful life.

I’ve always been pretty fit. Lately, I’ve been trying to take it to the next level, to not just be “physically active,” but rather “high-performance fit.” There are plenty of sources for instruction; how to stay young and healthy isn’t a new idea after all. I mean, Herodotus wrote of finding the Fountain of Youth in the 5th century BCE. A couple thousand years later, it’s still on trend. One of my favorite sages giving health span advice is Peter Attia, MD. I’ve been a fan since I met him at TEDMED in 2013 and I marvel at the astounding body of work he has created since. A Johns Hopkins–trained surgeon, he has spent his career reviewing the scientific literature about longevity and sharing it as actionable content. His book, “Outlive: The Science and Art of Longevity” (New York: Penguin Random House, 2023) is a nice summary of his work. I recommend it. 

Right now I’m switching between type 2 muscle fiber work (lots of jumping like my 2-year-old) and cardiovascular training including the aforementioned VO_2max work. I cannot say that my patient inbox is any cleaner, or that I’m faster in the office, but I’m not flagging by the end of the day anymore. Master Chief challenged me to match his 10 pull-ups before he returns for his follow up visit. I’ll gladly give up Peloton sprints to work on that.

Dr. Benabio is director of Healthcare Transformation and chief of dermatology at Kaiser Permanente San Diego. The opinions expressed in this column are his own and do not represent those of Kaiser Permanente. Dr. Benabio is @Dermdoc on Twitter. Write to him at dermnews@mdedge.com.

A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.

Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.

The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.

“Masking in interactions between patients and health care personnel should continue to receive serious consideration as a patient safety measure,” Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.

“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.

Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.

The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.

The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

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

A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.

Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.

The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.

“Masking in interactions between patients and health care personnel should continue to receive serious consideration as a patient safety measure,” Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.

“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.

Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.

The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.

The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

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

A new study urges people to continue wearing protective masks in medical settings, even though the U.S. public health emergency declaration around COVID-19 has expired.

Masks continue to lower the risk of catching the virus during medical visits, according to the study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine. And there was not much difference between wearing surgical masks and N95 respirators in health care settings.

The researchers reviewed 3 randomized trials and 21 observational studies to compare the effectiveness of those and cloth masks in reducing COVID-19 transmission.

“Masking in interactions between patients and health care personnel should continue to receive serious consideration as a patient safety measure,” Tara N. Palmore, MD, of George Washington University, Washington, and David K. Henderson, MD, of the National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Md., wrote in an opinion article accompanying the study.

“In our enthusiasm to return to the appearance and feeling of normalcy, and as institutions decide which mitigation strategies to discontinue, we strongly advocate not discarding this important lesson learned for the sake of our patients’ safety,” Dr. Palmore and Dr. Henderson wrote.

Surgical masks limit the spread of aerosols and droplets from people who have the flu, coronaviruses or other respiratory viruses, CNN reported. And while masks are not 100% effective, they substantially lower the amount of virus put into the air via coughing and talking.

The study said one reason people should wear masks to medical settings is because “health care personnel are notorious for coming to work while ill.” Transmission from patient to staff and staff to patient is still possible, but rare, when both are masked.

The review authors reported no conflicts of interest. Dr. Palmore has received grants from the NIH, Rigel, Gilead, and AbbVie, and Dr. Henderson is a past president of the Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America.

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