Doug Brunk

Most patients with chronic urticaria (CU) used treatment during pregnancy, especially with second-generation antihistamines, which appear to be safe regardless of the trimester. In addition, the rates of preterm births and medical problems of newborns in patients with CU are similar to those of the normal population and not linked to treatment used during pregnancy.

Those are the key findings from an analysis of new data from PREG-CU, an international, multicenter study of the Urticaria Centers of Reference and Excellence (UCARE) network. Results from the first PREG-CU analysis published in 2021 found that CU improved in about half of patients with CU during pregnancy. “However, two in five patients reported acute exacerbations of CU especially at the beginning and end of pregnancy,” investigators led by Emek Kocatürk, MD, of the department of dermatology and UCARE at Koç University School of Medicine, Istanbul, wrote in the new study, recently published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“In addition, 1 in 10 pregnant CU patients required urticaria emergency care and 1 of 6 had angioedema during pregnancy,” they said. Risk factors for worsening CU during pregnancy, they added, were “mild disease and no angioedema before pregnancy, not taking treatment before pregnancy, chronic inducible urticaria, CU worsening during a previous pregnancy, stress as a driver of exacerbations, and treatment during pregnancy.”
 

Analysis involved 288 pregnant women

To optimize treatment of CU during pregnancy and to better understand how treatment affects pregnancy outcomes, the researchers analyzed 288 pregnancies in 288 women with CU from 13 countries and 21 centers worldwide. Their mean age at pregnancy was 32.1 years, and their mean duration of CU was 84.9 months. Prior to pregnancy, 35.7% of patients rated the severity of their CU symptoms as mild, 34.2% rated it as moderate, and 29.7% rated it as severe.

The researchers found that during pregnancy, 60% of patients used urticaria medication, including standard-dose second-generation H1-antihistamines (35.1%), first-generation H1-antihistamines (7.6%), high-dose second-generation H1-antihistamines (5.6%), and omalizumab (5.6%). The preterm birth rate was 10.2%, which was similar between patients who did and did not receive treatment during pregnancy (11.6% vs. 8.7%, respectively; P = .59).

On multivariate logistic regression, two predictors for preterm birth emerged: giving birth to twins (a 13.3-fold increased risk; P = .016) and emergency referrals for CU (a 4.3-fold increased risk; P =.016). The cesarean delivery rate was 51.3%, and more than 90% of newborns were healthy at birth. There was no link between any patient or disease characteristics or treatments and medical problems at birth.

In other findings, 78.8% of women with CU breastfed their babies. Of the 58 patients who did not breastfeed, 20.7% indicated severe urticaria/angioedema and/or taking medications as the main reason for not breastfeeding.

“Most CU patients use treatment during pregnancy and such treatments, especially second generation H1 antihistamines, seem to be safe during pregnancy regardless of the trimester,” the researchers concluded. “Outcomes of pregnancy in patients with CU were similar compared to the general population and not linked to treatment used during pregnancy. Notably, emergency referral for CU was an independent risk factor for preterm birth,” and the high cesarean delivery rate was “probably linked to comorbidities associated with the disease,” they added. “Overall, these findings suggest that patients should continue their treatments using an individualized dose to provide optimal symptom control.”


 

International guidelines

The authors noted that international guidelines for the management of urticaria published in 2022 suggest that modern second-generation H1-antihistamines should be used for pregnant patients, preferably loratadine with a possible extrapolation to desloratadine, cetirizine, or levocetirizine.

“Similarly, in this population, we found that cetirizine and loratadine were the most commonly used antihistamines, followed by levocetirizine and fexofenadine,” Dr. Kocatürk and colleagues wrote.

“Guidelines also suggest that the use of first-generation H1-antihistamines should be avoided given their sedative effects; but if these are to be given, it would be wise to know that use of first-generation H1-antihistamines immediately before parturition could cause respiratory depression and other adverse effects in the neonate,” they added, noting that chlorpheniramine and diphenhydramine are the first-generation H1-antihistamines with the greatest evidence of safety in pregnancy.

They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its retrospective design and the fact that there were no data on low birth weight, small for gestational age, or miscarriage rates. In addition, disease activity or severity during pregnancy and after birth were not monitored.

Asked to comment on these results, Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, who directs the center for eczema and itch in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that despite a higher prevalence of CU among females compared with males, very little is known about how the condition is managed during pregnancy. “This retrospective study shows that most patients continue to utilize CU treatment during pregnancy (primarily second-generation antihistamines), with similar birth outcomes as the general population,” he said. “Interestingly, cesarean rates were higher among mothers with CU, and emergency CU referral was a risk factor for preterm birth. While additional prospective studies are needed, these results suggest that CU patients should be carefully managed, particularly during pregnancy, when treatment should be optimized.”

Dr. Kocatürk reported having received personal fees from Novartis, Ibrahim Etem-Menarini, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Many coauthors reported having numerous financial disclosures. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Most patients with chronic urticaria (CU) used treatment during pregnancy, especially with second-generation antihistamines, which appear to be safe regardless of the trimester. In addition, the rates of preterm births and medical problems of newborns in patients with CU are similar to those of the normal population and not linked to treatment used during pregnancy.

Those are the key findings from an analysis of new data from PREG-CU, an international, multicenter study of the Urticaria Centers of Reference and Excellence (UCARE) network. Results from the first PREG-CU analysis published in 2021 found that CU improved in about half of patients with CU during pregnancy. “However, two in five patients reported acute exacerbations of CU especially at the beginning and end of pregnancy,” investigators led by Emek Kocatürk, MD, of the department of dermatology and UCARE at Koç University School of Medicine, Istanbul, wrote in the new study, recently published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“In addition, 1 in 10 pregnant CU patients required urticaria emergency care and 1 of 6 had angioedema during pregnancy,” they said. Risk factors for worsening CU during pregnancy, they added, were “mild disease and no angioedema before pregnancy, not taking treatment before pregnancy, chronic inducible urticaria, CU worsening during a previous pregnancy, stress as a driver of exacerbations, and treatment during pregnancy.”
 

Analysis involved 288 pregnant women

To optimize treatment of CU during pregnancy and to better understand how treatment affects pregnancy outcomes, the researchers analyzed 288 pregnancies in 288 women with CU from 13 countries and 21 centers worldwide. Their mean age at pregnancy was 32.1 years, and their mean duration of CU was 84.9 months. Prior to pregnancy, 35.7% of patients rated the severity of their CU symptoms as mild, 34.2% rated it as moderate, and 29.7% rated it as severe.

The researchers found that during pregnancy, 60% of patients used urticaria medication, including standard-dose second-generation H1-antihistamines (35.1%), first-generation H1-antihistamines (7.6%), high-dose second-generation H1-antihistamines (5.6%), and omalizumab (5.6%). The preterm birth rate was 10.2%, which was similar between patients who did and did not receive treatment during pregnancy (11.6% vs. 8.7%, respectively; P = .59).

On multivariate logistic regression, two predictors for preterm birth emerged: giving birth to twins (a 13.3-fold increased risk; P = .016) and emergency referrals for CU (a 4.3-fold increased risk; P =.016). The cesarean delivery rate was 51.3%, and more than 90% of newborns were healthy at birth. There was no link between any patient or disease characteristics or treatments and medical problems at birth.

In other findings, 78.8% of women with CU breastfed their babies. Of the 58 patients who did not breastfeed, 20.7% indicated severe urticaria/angioedema and/or taking medications as the main reason for not breastfeeding.

“Most CU patients use treatment during pregnancy and such treatments, especially second generation H1 antihistamines, seem to be safe during pregnancy regardless of the trimester,” the researchers concluded. “Outcomes of pregnancy in patients with CU were similar compared to the general population and not linked to treatment used during pregnancy. Notably, emergency referral for CU was an independent risk factor for preterm birth,” and the high cesarean delivery rate was “probably linked to comorbidities associated with the disease,” they added. “Overall, these findings suggest that patients should continue their treatments using an individualized dose to provide optimal symptom control.”


 

International guidelines

The authors noted that international guidelines for the management of urticaria published in 2022 suggest that modern second-generation H1-antihistamines should be used for pregnant patients, preferably loratadine with a possible extrapolation to desloratadine, cetirizine, or levocetirizine.

“Similarly, in this population, we found that cetirizine and loratadine were the most commonly used antihistamines, followed by levocetirizine and fexofenadine,” Dr. Kocatürk and colleagues wrote.

“Guidelines also suggest that the use of first-generation H1-antihistamines should be avoided given their sedative effects; but if these are to be given, it would be wise to know that use of first-generation H1-antihistamines immediately before parturition could cause respiratory depression and other adverse effects in the neonate,” they added, noting that chlorpheniramine and diphenhydramine are the first-generation H1-antihistamines with the greatest evidence of safety in pregnancy.

They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its retrospective design and the fact that there were no data on low birth weight, small for gestational age, or miscarriage rates. In addition, disease activity or severity during pregnancy and after birth were not monitored.

Asked to comment on these results, Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, who directs the center for eczema and itch in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that despite a higher prevalence of CU among females compared with males, very little is known about how the condition is managed during pregnancy. “This retrospective study shows that most patients continue to utilize CU treatment during pregnancy (primarily second-generation antihistamines), with similar birth outcomes as the general population,” he said. “Interestingly, cesarean rates were higher among mothers with CU, and emergency CU referral was a risk factor for preterm birth. While additional prospective studies are needed, these results suggest that CU patients should be carefully managed, particularly during pregnancy, when treatment should be optimized.”

Dr. Kocatürk reported having received personal fees from Novartis, Ibrahim Etem-Menarini, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Many coauthors reported having numerous financial disclosures. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Most patients with chronic urticaria (CU) used treatment during pregnancy, especially with second-generation antihistamines, which appear to be safe regardless of the trimester. In addition, the rates of preterm births and medical problems of newborns in patients with CU are similar to those of the normal population and not linked to treatment used during pregnancy.

Those are the key findings from an analysis of new data from PREG-CU, an international, multicenter study of the Urticaria Centers of Reference and Excellence (UCARE) network. Results from the first PREG-CU analysis published in 2021 found that CU improved in about half of patients with CU during pregnancy. “However, two in five patients reported acute exacerbations of CU especially at the beginning and end of pregnancy,” investigators led by Emek Kocatürk, MD, of the department of dermatology and UCARE at Koç University School of Medicine, Istanbul, wrote in the new study, recently published in the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

“In addition, 1 in 10 pregnant CU patients required urticaria emergency care and 1 of 6 had angioedema during pregnancy,” they said. Risk factors for worsening CU during pregnancy, they added, were “mild disease and no angioedema before pregnancy, not taking treatment before pregnancy, chronic inducible urticaria, CU worsening during a previous pregnancy, stress as a driver of exacerbations, and treatment during pregnancy.”
 

Analysis involved 288 pregnant women

To optimize treatment of CU during pregnancy and to better understand how treatment affects pregnancy outcomes, the researchers analyzed 288 pregnancies in 288 women with CU from 13 countries and 21 centers worldwide. Their mean age at pregnancy was 32.1 years, and their mean duration of CU was 84.9 months. Prior to pregnancy, 35.7% of patients rated the severity of their CU symptoms as mild, 34.2% rated it as moderate, and 29.7% rated it as severe.

The researchers found that during pregnancy, 60% of patients used urticaria medication, including standard-dose second-generation H1-antihistamines (35.1%), first-generation H1-antihistamines (7.6%), high-dose second-generation H1-antihistamines (5.6%), and omalizumab (5.6%). The preterm birth rate was 10.2%, which was similar between patients who did and did not receive treatment during pregnancy (11.6% vs. 8.7%, respectively; P = .59).

On multivariate logistic regression, two predictors for preterm birth emerged: giving birth to twins (a 13.3-fold increased risk; P = .016) and emergency referrals for CU (a 4.3-fold increased risk; P =.016). The cesarean delivery rate was 51.3%, and more than 90% of newborns were healthy at birth. There was no link between any patient or disease characteristics or treatments and medical problems at birth.

In other findings, 78.8% of women with CU breastfed their babies. Of the 58 patients who did not breastfeed, 20.7% indicated severe urticaria/angioedema and/or taking medications as the main reason for not breastfeeding.

“Most CU patients use treatment during pregnancy and such treatments, especially second generation H1 antihistamines, seem to be safe during pregnancy regardless of the trimester,” the researchers concluded. “Outcomes of pregnancy in patients with CU were similar compared to the general population and not linked to treatment used during pregnancy. Notably, emergency referral for CU was an independent risk factor for preterm birth,” and the high cesarean delivery rate was “probably linked to comorbidities associated with the disease,” they added. “Overall, these findings suggest that patients should continue their treatments using an individualized dose to provide optimal symptom control.”


 

International guidelines

The authors noted that international guidelines for the management of urticaria published in 2022 suggest that modern second-generation H1-antihistamines should be used for pregnant patients, preferably loratadine with a possible extrapolation to desloratadine, cetirizine, or levocetirizine.

“Similarly, in this population, we found that cetirizine and loratadine were the most commonly used antihistamines, followed by levocetirizine and fexofenadine,” Dr. Kocatürk and colleagues wrote.

“Guidelines also suggest that the use of first-generation H1-antihistamines should be avoided given their sedative effects; but if these are to be given, it would be wise to know that use of first-generation H1-antihistamines immediately before parturition could cause respiratory depression and other adverse effects in the neonate,” they added, noting that chlorpheniramine and diphenhydramine are the first-generation H1-antihistamines with the greatest evidence of safety in pregnancy.

They acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its retrospective design and the fact that there were no data on low birth weight, small for gestational age, or miscarriage rates. In addition, disease activity or severity during pregnancy and after birth were not monitored.

Asked to comment on these results, Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, who directs the center for eczema and itch in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, noted that despite a higher prevalence of CU among females compared with males, very little is known about how the condition is managed during pregnancy. “This retrospective study shows that most patients continue to utilize CU treatment during pregnancy (primarily second-generation antihistamines), with similar birth outcomes as the general population,” he said. “Interestingly, cesarean rates were higher among mothers with CU, and emergency CU referral was a risk factor for preterm birth. While additional prospective studies are needed, these results suggest that CU patients should be carefully managed, particularly during pregnancy, when treatment should be optimized.”

Dr. Kocatürk reported having received personal fees from Novartis, Ibrahim Etem-Menarini, and Sanofi, outside the submitted work. Many coauthors reported having numerous financial disclosures. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.

DENVER – Simultaneous use of high intensity focused electromagnetic field (HIFEM) and radiofrequency (RF) was safe and effective for muscle toning and fat reduction in the upper arm area, according to results from a study that analyzed results with MRI and other measures at two dermatology practices.

Simultaneous use of HIFEM and RF has been shown to be safe and effective “for fat reduction and muscle toning in various body parts,” lead study author Carolyn Jacob, MD, founder and director of Chicago Cosmetic Surgery and Dermatology, wrote in an abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. This study investigated the effect of the HIFEM and RF procedure on muscle toning and adipose tissue in the upper arms.

In what Dr. Jacob described as the first study of its kind because magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was used to evaluate results, she and her coauthors enrolled 34 patients aged 23-72 years at two centers who had a BMI in the range of 18.5-33.9 kg/m². The patients underwent four 30-minute bilateral procedures over the upper arms spaced 1 week apart with the Emsculpt NEO (BTL Aesthetics), which simultaneously delivers HIFEM and RF therapy.

NEO small sized applicators were used, which at the time of the study were under investigation but have since been cleared for use with the device. According to the manufacturer’s website, Emsculpt NEO is indicated for noninvasive lipolysis of the abdomen and thighs and reduction in the circumference of the abdomen and thighs in patients with skin types I-VI; and for noninvasive lipolysis of the upper arms “limited to skin types II and III and BMI 30 or under.”

The investigators measured changes in fat and triceps muscle tissue via MRI at baseline, 1-month, and 3-month follow-up visits. They also obtained digital photographs, administered patient questionnaires regarding comfort and satisfaction, and monitored safety of the treatments.

Of the 28 patients who completed their 1-month follow-up visit, analysis of MRI images showed a 22.3% average decrease in fat tissue from baseline MRIs (a decrease of 4.0 ± 1.2 mm; P < .01) and a 21.5% average increase in muscle mass (an increase of 8.2 ± 2.3 mm; P < .001). For the 25 patients who completed their 3-month follow-up visit, analysis of MRI images showed a 25.5% average decrease in fat tissue (a decrease of 4.9 ± 1.5 mm; P < .01) and a 23.9% average increase in muscle mass (an increase of 8.9 ± 2.0 mm; P < .001).

The analysis of questionnaires revealed high patient satisfaction with the results (87.1%), high comfort during the treatment (91.2%), and a low Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score (1.6 ± 2.0) used to evaluate pain.

“This study shows that HIFEM and RF consistently increases muscle and decreases fat,” Dr. Jacob said in an interview. “It’s the only study on the triceps showing MRI evidence of fat loss with a nonsurgical body shaping device.”

She characterized the learning curve for the Emsculpt NEO as “small, as the previous Emsculpt small applicators have a similar fit.”

Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the center for laser and cosmetic dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the combination of radiofrequency energy and high-intensity focused electromagnetic technology triggers heat-induced damage of adipose tissue and muscle strengthening, respectively, to improve overall appearance and tone.

“Simultaneous delivery is the key here, and the real technological superhero, allowing us to take advantage of the synergistic effects of the muscle contractions and the tissue heating,” Dr. Sodha told this news organization. “Earlier this year, we saw published data on success with abdominal contouring with similar fat reduction and muscle enhancement as reported in this study, and these results persisted at 6 months,” with some declines noted at that time, she said.

“It is very encouraging and exciting to have similar effectiveness and safety for the arms, with such high satisfaction and comfort,” she added.

Dr. Jacob disclosed that she has conducted research studies for BTL Aesthetics since 2017 and is a member of the company’s advisory board. Dr. Sodha reported having no financial disclosures.

DENVER – Simultaneous use of high intensity focused electromagnetic field (HIFEM) and radiofrequency (RF) was safe and effective for muscle toning and fat reduction in the upper arm area, according to results from a study that analyzed results with MRI and other measures at two dermatology practices.

Simultaneous use of HIFEM and RF has been shown to be safe and effective “for fat reduction and muscle toning in various body parts,” lead study author Carolyn Jacob, MD, founder and director of Chicago Cosmetic Surgery and Dermatology, wrote in an abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. This study investigated the effect of the HIFEM and RF procedure on muscle toning and adipose tissue in the upper arms.

In what Dr. Jacob described as the first study of its kind because magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was used to evaluate results, she and her coauthors enrolled 34 patients aged 23-72 years at two centers who had a BMI in the range of 18.5-33.9 kg/m². The patients underwent four 30-minute bilateral procedures over the upper arms spaced 1 week apart with the Emsculpt NEO (BTL Aesthetics), which simultaneously delivers HIFEM and RF therapy.

NEO small sized applicators were used, which at the time of the study were under investigation but have since been cleared for use with the device. According to the manufacturer’s website, Emsculpt NEO is indicated for noninvasive lipolysis of the abdomen and thighs and reduction in the circumference of the abdomen and thighs in patients with skin types I-VI; and for noninvasive lipolysis of the upper arms “limited to skin types II and III and BMI 30 or under.”

The investigators measured changes in fat and triceps muscle tissue via MRI at baseline, 1-month, and 3-month follow-up visits. They also obtained digital photographs, administered patient questionnaires regarding comfort and satisfaction, and monitored safety of the treatments.

Of the 28 patients who completed their 1-month follow-up visit, analysis of MRI images showed a 22.3% average decrease in fat tissue from baseline MRIs (a decrease of 4.0 ± 1.2 mm; P < .01) and a 21.5% average increase in muscle mass (an increase of 8.2 ± 2.3 mm; P < .001). For the 25 patients who completed their 3-month follow-up visit, analysis of MRI images showed a 25.5% average decrease in fat tissue (a decrease of 4.9 ± 1.5 mm; P < .01) and a 23.9% average increase in muscle mass (an increase of 8.9 ± 2.0 mm; P < .001).

The analysis of questionnaires revealed high patient satisfaction with the results (87.1%), high comfort during the treatment (91.2%), and a low Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score (1.6 ± 2.0) used to evaluate pain.

“This study shows that HIFEM and RF consistently increases muscle and decreases fat,” Dr. Jacob said in an interview. “It’s the only study on the triceps showing MRI evidence of fat loss with a nonsurgical body shaping device.”

She characterized the learning curve for the Emsculpt NEO as “small, as the previous Emsculpt small applicators have a similar fit.”

Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the center for laser and cosmetic dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the combination of radiofrequency energy and high-intensity focused electromagnetic technology triggers heat-induced damage of adipose tissue and muscle strengthening, respectively, to improve overall appearance and tone.

“Simultaneous delivery is the key here, and the real technological superhero, allowing us to take advantage of the synergistic effects of the muscle contractions and the tissue heating,” Dr. Sodha told this news organization. “Earlier this year, we saw published data on success with abdominal contouring with similar fat reduction and muscle enhancement as reported in this study, and these results persisted at 6 months,” with some declines noted at that time, she said.

“It is very encouraging and exciting to have similar effectiveness and safety for the arms, with such high satisfaction and comfort,” she added.

Dr. Jacob disclosed that she has conducted research studies for BTL Aesthetics since 2017 and is a member of the company’s advisory board. Dr. Sodha reported having no financial disclosures.

DENVER – Simultaneous use of high intensity focused electromagnetic field (HIFEM) and radiofrequency (RF) was safe and effective for muscle toning and fat reduction in the upper arm area, according to results from a study that analyzed results with MRI and other measures at two dermatology practices.

Simultaneous use of HIFEM and RF has been shown to be safe and effective “for fat reduction and muscle toning in various body parts,” lead study author Carolyn Jacob, MD, founder and director of Chicago Cosmetic Surgery and Dermatology, wrote in an abstract presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. This study investigated the effect of the HIFEM and RF procedure on muscle toning and adipose tissue in the upper arms.

In what Dr. Jacob described as the first study of its kind because magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was used to evaluate results, she and her coauthors enrolled 34 patients aged 23-72 years at two centers who had a BMI in the range of 18.5-33.9 kg/m². The patients underwent four 30-minute bilateral procedures over the upper arms spaced 1 week apart with the Emsculpt NEO (BTL Aesthetics), which simultaneously delivers HIFEM and RF therapy.

NEO small sized applicators were used, which at the time of the study were under investigation but have since been cleared for use with the device. According to the manufacturer’s website, Emsculpt NEO is indicated for noninvasive lipolysis of the abdomen and thighs and reduction in the circumference of the abdomen and thighs in patients with skin types I-VI; and for noninvasive lipolysis of the upper arms “limited to skin types II and III and BMI 30 or under.”

The investigators measured changes in fat and triceps muscle tissue via MRI at baseline, 1-month, and 3-month follow-up visits. They also obtained digital photographs, administered patient questionnaires regarding comfort and satisfaction, and monitored safety of the treatments.

Of the 28 patients who completed their 1-month follow-up visit, analysis of MRI images showed a 22.3% average decrease in fat tissue from baseline MRIs (a decrease of 4.0 ± 1.2 mm; P < .01) and a 21.5% average increase in muscle mass (an increase of 8.2 ± 2.3 mm; P < .001). For the 25 patients who completed their 3-month follow-up visit, analysis of MRI images showed a 25.5% average decrease in fat tissue (a decrease of 4.9 ± 1.5 mm; P < .01) and a 23.9% average increase in muscle mass (an increase of 8.9 ± 2.0 mm; P < .001).

The analysis of questionnaires revealed high patient satisfaction with the results (87.1%), high comfort during the treatment (91.2%), and a low Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) score (1.6 ± 2.0) used to evaluate pain.

“This study shows that HIFEM and RF consistently increases muscle and decreases fat,” Dr. Jacob said in an interview. “It’s the only study on the triceps showing MRI evidence of fat loss with a nonsurgical body shaping device.”

She characterized the learning curve for the Emsculpt NEO as “small, as the previous Emsculpt small applicators have a similar fit.”

Pooja Sodha, MD, director of the center for laser and cosmetic dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the combination of radiofrequency energy and high-intensity focused electromagnetic technology triggers heat-induced damage of adipose tissue and muscle strengthening, respectively, to improve overall appearance and tone.

“Simultaneous delivery is the key here, and the real technological superhero, allowing us to take advantage of the synergistic effects of the muscle contractions and the tissue heating,” Dr. Sodha told this news organization. “Earlier this year, we saw published data on success with abdominal contouring with similar fat reduction and muscle enhancement as reported in this study, and these results persisted at 6 months,” with some declines noted at that time, she said.

“It is very encouraging and exciting to have similar effectiveness and safety for the arms, with such high satisfaction and comfort,” she added.

Dr. Jacob disclosed that she has conducted research studies for BTL Aesthetics since 2017 and is a member of the company’s advisory board. Dr. Sodha reported having no financial disclosures.

DENVER – Successful treatment of superficial and nodular basal cell cancers can be achieved using apoptosis induced by controlled hyperthermia, preliminary results from an ongoing study suggest.

At the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, Christopher Zachary, MD, and colleagues described a novel, noninvasive standardized controlled hyperthermia and mapping protocol (CHAMP) designed to help clinicians with margin assessment and treatment of superficial and nodular basal cell cancers (BCCs). “There’s considerable interest on the part of the public in having CHAMP treatment for their BCCs,” Dr. Zachary, professor and chair emeritus, University of California, Irvine, told this news organization in advance of the meeting.

In both study arms, the majority of patients enrolled to date have been found to be free of tumor at 3 months by clinical and OCT examination. “The study is ongoing, but the current numbers indicate that 9 out of 10 superficial and nodular BCCs are free of tumor at 3-12 months after the last treatment,” Dr. Zachary said. The standard-treatment arm, where tissue was treated to a gray color with tissue contraction, generally resulted in more blistering and tissue necrosis with prolonged healing, compared with the Low and Slow–controlled hyperthermia arm. BCC lesions treated in the controlled hyperthermia arm had a lilac gray color with “a surprising increase” in the Doppler blood flow rate, compared with those in the standard-treatment arm, he noted.

“Blood flow following the standard technique is dramatically reduced immediately post treatment, which accounts in part for the frequent ulceration and slow healing in that group,” Dr. Zachary said.

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its relatively small sample size and the fact that the optimal treatment parameters of the Low and Slow technique have yet to be realized. “It could be that we will achieve better results at 50º C for 70 seconds or similar,” he said. “While this technique will not in any way reduce the great benefits of Mohs surgery for complex BCCs, it will benefit those with simpler superficial and nodular BCCs, particularly in those who are not good surgical candidates.”

As an aside, Dr. Zachary supports the increased use of OCT scanners to improve the ability to diagnose and assess the lateral and deep margins of skin cancers. “I think that all dermatology residents should understand how to use these devices,” he said. “I’m convinced they are going to be useful in their clinical practice in the future.”

Keith L. Duffy, MD, who was asked to comment on the work, said that the study demonstrates novel ways to use existing and developing technologies in dermatology and highlights the intersection of aesthetic, surgical, and medical dermatology. “CHAMP is promising as shown by the data in the abstract and I am eager to see the final results of the study with an eye toward final cure rate and cosmesis,” said Dr. Duffy, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

“In my estimation, this technology will need to prove to be superior in one or both of these parameters in order to be considered a first- or second-line therapy,” he added. “My practice for these types of basal cell carcinomas is a simple one pass of curettage with aluminum chloride or pressure for hemostasis. The healing is fast, the cosmesis is excellent, and the cure rate is more than 90% for this simple in-office destruction. However, for those with access to this technology and proficiency with its use, CHAMP may become a viable alternative to our existing destructive methods. I look forward to seeing the published results of this multicenter trial.”

This study is being funded by Michelson Diagnostics. Sciton provided the long-pulsed 1,064-nm lasers devices being used in the trial. Neither Dr. Zachary nor Dr. Duffy reported having relevant disclosures.
 

DENVER – Successful treatment of superficial and nodular basal cell cancers can be achieved using apoptosis induced by controlled hyperthermia, preliminary results from an ongoing study suggest.

At the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, Christopher Zachary, MD, and colleagues described a novel, noninvasive standardized controlled hyperthermia and mapping protocol (CHAMP) designed to help clinicians with margin assessment and treatment of superficial and nodular basal cell cancers (BCCs). “There’s considerable interest on the part of the public in having CHAMP treatment for their BCCs,” Dr. Zachary, professor and chair emeritus, University of California, Irvine, told this news organization in advance of the meeting.

In both study arms, the majority of patients enrolled to date have been found to be free of tumor at 3 months by clinical and OCT examination. “The study is ongoing, but the current numbers indicate that 9 out of 10 superficial and nodular BCCs are free of tumor at 3-12 months after the last treatment,” Dr. Zachary said. The standard-treatment arm, where tissue was treated to a gray color with tissue contraction, generally resulted in more blistering and tissue necrosis with prolonged healing, compared with the Low and Slow–controlled hyperthermia arm. BCC lesions treated in the controlled hyperthermia arm had a lilac gray color with “a surprising increase” in the Doppler blood flow rate, compared with those in the standard-treatment arm, he noted.

“Blood flow following the standard technique is dramatically reduced immediately post treatment, which accounts in part for the frequent ulceration and slow healing in that group,” Dr. Zachary said.

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its relatively small sample size and the fact that the optimal treatment parameters of the Low and Slow technique have yet to be realized. “It could be that we will achieve better results at 50º C for 70 seconds or similar,” he said. “While this technique will not in any way reduce the great benefits of Mohs surgery for complex BCCs, it will benefit those with simpler superficial and nodular BCCs, particularly in those who are not good surgical candidates.”

As an aside, Dr. Zachary supports the increased use of OCT scanners to improve the ability to diagnose and assess the lateral and deep margins of skin cancers. “I think that all dermatology residents should understand how to use these devices,” he said. “I’m convinced they are going to be useful in their clinical practice in the future.”

Keith L. Duffy, MD, who was asked to comment on the work, said that the study demonstrates novel ways to use existing and developing technologies in dermatology and highlights the intersection of aesthetic, surgical, and medical dermatology. “CHAMP is promising as shown by the data in the abstract and I am eager to see the final results of the study with an eye toward final cure rate and cosmesis,” said Dr. Duffy, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

“In my estimation, this technology will need to prove to be superior in one or both of these parameters in order to be considered a first- or second-line therapy,” he added. “My practice for these types of basal cell carcinomas is a simple one pass of curettage with aluminum chloride or pressure for hemostasis. The healing is fast, the cosmesis is excellent, and the cure rate is more than 90% for this simple in-office destruction. However, for those with access to this technology and proficiency with its use, CHAMP may become a viable alternative to our existing destructive methods. I look forward to seeing the published results of this multicenter trial.”

This study is being funded by Michelson Diagnostics. Sciton provided the long-pulsed 1,064-nm lasers devices being used in the trial. Neither Dr. Zachary nor Dr. Duffy reported having relevant disclosures.
 

DENVER – Successful treatment of superficial and nodular basal cell cancers can be achieved using apoptosis induced by controlled hyperthermia, preliminary results from an ongoing study suggest.

At the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, Christopher Zachary, MD, and colleagues described a novel, noninvasive standardized controlled hyperthermia and mapping protocol (CHAMP) designed to help clinicians with margin assessment and treatment of superficial and nodular basal cell cancers (BCCs). “There’s considerable interest on the part of the public in having CHAMP treatment for their BCCs,” Dr. Zachary, professor and chair emeritus, University of California, Irvine, told this news organization in advance of the meeting.

In both study arms, the majority of patients enrolled to date have been found to be free of tumor at 3 months by clinical and OCT examination. “The study is ongoing, but the current numbers indicate that 9 out of 10 superficial and nodular BCCs are free of tumor at 3-12 months after the last treatment,” Dr. Zachary said. The standard-treatment arm, where tissue was treated to a gray color with tissue contraction, generally resulted in more blistering and tissue necrosis with prolonged healing, compared with the Low and Slow–controlled hyperthermia arm. BCC lesions treated in the controlled hyperthermia arm had a lilac gray color with “a surprising increase” in the Doppler blood flow rate, compared with those in the standard-treatment arm, he noted.

“Blood flow following the standard technique is dramatically reduced immediately post treatment, which accounts in part for the frequent ulceration and slow healing in that group,” Dr. Zachary said.

He acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its relatively small sample size and the fact that the optimal treatment parameters of the Low and Slow technique have yet to be realized. “It could be that we will achieve better results at 50º C for 70 seconds or similar,” he said. “While this technique will not in any way reduce the great benefits of Mohs surgery for complex BCCs, it will benefit those with simpler superficial and nodular BCCs, particularly in those who are not good surgical candidates.”

As an aside, Dr. Zachary supports the increased use of OCT scanners to improve the ability to diagnose and assess the lateral and deep margins of skin cancers. “I think that all dermatology residents should understand how to use these devices,” he said. “I’m convinced they are going to be useful in their clinical practice in the future.”

Keith L. Duffy, MD, who was asked to comment on the work, said that the study demonstrates novel ways to use existing and developing technologies in dermatology and highlights the intersection of aesthetic, surgical, and medical dermatology. “CHAMP is promising as shown by the data in the abstract and I am eager to see the final results of the study with an eye toward final cure rate and cosmesis,” said Dr. Duffy, associate professor of dermatology at the University of Utah, Salt Lake City.

“In my estimation, this technology will need to prove to be superior in one or both of these parameters in order to be considered a first- or second-line therapy,” he added. “My practice for these types of basal cell carcinomas is a simple one pass of curettage with aluminum chloride or pressure for hemostasis. The healing is fast, the cosmesis is excellent, and the cure rate is more than 90% for this simple in-office destruction. However, for those with access to this technology and proficiency with its use, CHAMP may become a viable alternative to our existing destructive methods. I look forward to seeing the published results of this multicenter trial.”

This study is being funded by Michelson Diagnostics. Sciton provided the long-pulsed 1,064-nm lasers devices being used in the trial. Neither Dr. Zachary nor Dr. Duffy reported having relevant disclosures.
 

DENVER – Highly purified liquid injectable silicone is a safe and effective permanent treatment for acne scarring in all skin types, including darker skin types, results from a recent study showed.

“Acne is pervasive, and acne scarring disproportionately affects darker skin types,” lead study author Nicole Salame, MD, told this news organization in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where she presented the results of the study. “Treatment of acne scarring in darker skin is also particularly challenging since resurfacing can be problematic. Numerous treatment options exist but vary in effectiveness, sustainability, and side-effect profile, especially for patients with darker skin.”

Highly purified liquid injectable silicone (also known as LIS) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating intraocular tamponade of retinal detachment, and has been used off label for skin augmentation. A 2005 study of LIS for five patients with acne scarring, with up to 30 years of follow-up, showed efficacy and preservation of product without complications for depressed, broad-based acne scars .

“Use of LIS as a permanent treatment for acne scarring in darker skin types has yet to be evaluated,” said Dr. Salame, a 4th-year dermatology resident at Emory University, Atlanta. “Our study is the first to retrospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of highly purified LIS for the treatment of acne scars in all skin types.”

Dr. Salame and coauthor Harold J. Brody, MD, evaluated the charts of 96 patients with a mean age of 51 years who received highly purified LIS for the treatment of acne scars at Dr. Brody’s Atlanta-based private dermatology practice between July 2010 and March 2021. Of the 96 patients, 31 had darker skin types (20 were Fitzpatrick skin type IV and 11 were Fitzpatrick skin type V). Dr. Brody performed all treatments: a total of 206 in the 96 patients.

The average time of follow-up was 6.31 years; 19 patients had a follow-up of 1-3 years, 25 had a follow-up of 3-5 years, and 52 had a follow-up of greater than 5 years. The researchers did not observe any complications along the course of the patients’ treatments, and no patients reported complications or dissatisfaction with treatment.

“Among the most impressive findings of our study was the permanence of effectiveness of LIS for acne scarring in patients who had treatment over a decade before,” Dr. Salame said. “Our longest follow up was 12 years. These patients continued to show improvement in their acne scarring years after treatment with LIS, even as they lost collagen and volume in their face with advancing age.”

In addition, she said, none of the patients experienced complications of granulomatous reactions, migration, or extrusion of product, which were previously documented with the use of macrodroplet injectable silicone techniques. “This is likely due to the consistent use of the microdroplet injection technique in our study – less than 0.01 cc per injection at minimum 6- to 8-week intervals or more,” Dr. Salame said.

Lawrence J. Green, MD, of the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the findings “show safety and durability of highly purified microdroplet liquid silicone to treat acne scars. The numbers of patients reviewed are small and selective (one highly skilled dermatologist), but with the right material (highly purified liquid silicone) and in a qualified and experienced physician’s hand, this treatment seems like a great option.”

Dr. Salame acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its single-center, retrospective design. “Future prospective studies with larger patient populations of all skin types recruited from multiple centers may be needed,” she said.

The researchers reported having no relevant conflicts of interest or funding sources to disclose. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.

DENVER – Highly purified liquid injectable silicone is a safe and effective permanent treatment for acne scarring in all skin types, including darker skin types, results from a recent study showed.

“Acne is pervasive, and acne scarring disproportionately affects darker skin types,” lead study author Nicole Salame, MD, told this news organization in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where she presented the results of the study. “Treatment of acne scarring in darker skin is also particularly challenging since resurfacing can be problematic. Numerous treatment options exist but vary in effectiveness, sustainability, and side-effect profile, especially for patients with darker skin.”

Highly purified liquid injectable silicone (also known as LIS) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating intraocular tamponade of retinal detachment, and has been used off label for skin augmentation. A 2005 study of LIS for five patients with acne scarring, with up to 30 years of follow-up, showed efficacy and preservation of product without complications for depressed, broad-based acne scars .

“Use of LIS as a permanent treatment for acne scarring in darker skin types has yet to be evaluated,” said Dr. Salame, a 4th-year dermatology resident at Emory University, Atlanta. “Our study is the first to retrospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of highly purified LIS for the treatment of acne scars in all skin types.”

Dr. Salame and coauthor Harold J. Brody, MD, evaluated the charts of 96 patients with a mean age of 51 years who received highly purified LIS for the treatment of acne scars at Dr. Brody’s Atlanta-based private dermatology practice between July 2010 and March 2021. Of the 96 patients, 31 had darker skin types (20 were Fitzpatrick skin type IV and 11 were Fitzpatrick skin type V). Dr. Brody performed all treatments: a total of 206 in the 96 patients.

The average time of follow-up was 6.31 years; 19 patients had a follow-up of 1-3 years, 25 had a follow-up of 3-5 years, and 52 had a follow-up of greater than 5 years. The researchers did not observe any complications along the course of the patients’ treatments, and no patients reported complications or dissatisfaction with treatment.

“Among the most impressive findings of our study was the permanence of effectiveness of LIS for acne scarring in patients who had treatment over a decade before,” Dr. Salame said. “Our longest follow up was 12 years. These patients continued to show improvement in their acne scarring years after treatment with LIS, even as they lost collagen and volume in their face with advancing age.”

In addition, she said, none of the patients experienced complications of granulomatous reactions, migration, or extrusion of product, which were previously documented with the use of macrodroplet injectable silicone techniques. “This is likely due to the consistent use of the microdroplet injection technique in our study – less than 0.01 cc per injection at minimum 6- to 8-week intervals or more,” Dr. Salame said.

Lawrence J. Green, MD, of the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the findings “show safety and durability of highly purified microdroplet liquid silicone to treat acne scars. The numbers of patients reviewed are small and selective (one highly skilled dermatologist), but with the right material (highly purified liquid silicone) and in a qualified and experienced physician’s hand, this treatment seems like a great option.”

Dr. Salame acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its single-center, retrospective design. “Future prospective studies with larger patient populations of all skin types recruited from multiple centers may be needed,” she said.

The researchers reported having no relevant conflicts of interest or funding sources to disclose. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.

DENVER – Highly purified liquid injectable silicone is a safe and effective permanent treatment for acne scarring in all skin types, including darker skin types, results from a recent study showed.

“Acne is pervasive, and acne scarring disproportionately affects darker skin types,” lead study author Nicole Salame, MD, told this news organization in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where she presented the results of the study. “Treatment of acne scarring in darker skin is also particularly challenging since resurfacing can be problematic. Numerous treatment options exist but vary in effectiveness, sustainability, and side-effect profile, especially for patients with darker skin.”

Highly purified liquid injectable silicone (also known as LIS) is approved by the Food and Drug Administration for treating intraocular tamponade of retinal detachment, and has been used off label for skin augmentation. A 2005 study of LIS for five patients with acne scarring, with up to 30 years of follow-up, showed efficacy and preservation of product without complications for depressed, broad-based acne scars .

“Use of LIS as a permanent treatment for acne scarring in darker skin types has yet to be evaluated,” said Dr. Salame, a 4th-year dermatology resident at Emory University, Atlanta. “Our study is the first to retrospectively evaluate the safety and efficacy of highly purified LIS for the treatment of acne scars in all skin types.”

Dr. Salame and coauthor Harold J. Brody, MD, evaluated the charts of 96 patients with a mean age of 51 years who received highly purified LIS for the treatment of acne scars at Dr. Brody’s Atlanta-based private dermatology practice between July 2010 and March 2021. Of the 96 patients, 31 had darker skin types (20 were Fitzpatrick skin type IV and 11 were Fitzpatrick skin type V). Dr. Brody performed all treatments: a total of 206 in the 96 patients.

The average time of follow-up was 6.31 years; 19 patients had a follow-up of 1-3 years, 25 had a follow-up of 3-5 years, and 52 had a follow-up of greater than 5 years. The researchers did not observe any complications along the course of the patients’ treatments, and no patients reported complications or dissatisfaction with treatment.

“Among the most impressive findings of our study was the permanence of effectiveness of LIS for acne scarring in patients who had treatment over a decade before,” Dr. Salame said. “Our longest follow up was 12 years. These patients continued to show improvement in their acne scarring years after treatment with LIS, even as they lost collagen and volume in their face with advancing age.”

In addition, she said, none of the patients experienced complications of granulomatous reactions, migration, or extrusion of product, which were previously documented with the use of macrodroplet injectable silicone techniques. “This is likely due to the consistent use of the microdroplet injection technique in our study – less than 0.01 cc per injection at minimum 6- to 8-week intervals or more,” Dr. Salame said.

Lawrence J. Green, MD, of the department of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the findings “show safety and durability of highly purified microdroplet liquid silicone to treat acne scars. The numbers of patients reviewed are small and selective (one highly skilled dermatologist), but with the right material (highly purified liquid silicone) and in a qualified and experienced physician’s hand, this treatment seems like a great option.”

Dr. Salame acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its single-center, retrospective design. “Future prospective studies with larger patient populations of all skin types recruited from multiple centers may be needed,” she said.

The researchers reported having no relevant conflicts of interest or funding sources to disclose. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies.

DENVER – Vision loss is a rare but potentially devastating complication of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections, results from a systematic review showed. None of the cases involved scalp injections.

“Both soft tissue fillers and [PRP] are common injection-type treatments that dermatologists perform on the head and neck area,” lead study author Sean Wu, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where he presented the results during an oral abstract session. “Fillers are usually used to replace volume and fill in lines while PRP is usually used for skin rejuvenation and certain forms of hair loss. We know that fillers may rarely cause blindness if accidentally injected into a facial artery.”

chee gin tan/Getty Images

Certain facial areas such as the glabella, nose, and forehead are considered high risk for blindness with filler injections. But whether PRP injections in those areas may also result in blindness is not yet known, so Dr. Wu and his colleagues, Xu He, MD, and Robert Weiss, MD, at the Maryland Laser, Skin, and Vein Institute in Hunt Valley, Md., performed what is believed to be the first systematic review of the topic. In January 2022 they searched the PubMed database, which yielded 224 articles from which they selected four for full review. The results were recently published in Dermatologic Surgery.

Collectively, the four articles reported a total of seven patients with unilateral vision loss or impairment following PRP injection. They ranged in age from 41 to 63 years. Skin rejuvenation was the indication for PRP injection in six patients and temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorder in one. Three of the cases occurred in Venezuela while one each occurred in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Malaysia. All patients had signs of arterial occlusion or ischemia on retinal examination or imaging.

Dr. Wu and colleagues found that the glabella was the most common site of injection associated with vision loss (five cases), followed by the forehead (two cases), and one case each in the lateral canthus, nasolabial fold, and the TMJ. In all but two cases, vision loss occurred immediately after injection. (The number of injections exceeded seven because two patients received PRP in more than one site.)

Associated symptoms included ocular pain, fullness, eyelid ptosis, headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, tinnitus, and urinary urgency. At their initial ophthalmology evaluation, six patients had no light perception in the affected eye. Only one patient reported recovery of visual acuity at 3 months but with residual deficits on eye exam. This person had been evaluated and treated by an ophthalmologist within 3 hours of symptom onset.

“The other cases reported complete blindness in one eye,” Dr. Wu said. “There is no reversing agent for PRP, unlike for many fillers, so there is no clear-cut solution for this issue.”

Based on the results of the systematic review, Dr. Wu concluded that blindness is a rare complication of PRP. “We should take the same precautions when injecting PRP on the face as we do when injecting fillers,” he advised. “This may include not injecting in high-risk areas and aspirating prior to injection to make sure we are not accidentally injecting into an artery.”

It was “notable,” he added, that no cases of blindness occurred following scalp injections of PRP for hair loss, indicating “that this use of PRP is likely very safe from a vision loss standpoint.”

Dr. Wu acknowledged certain imitations of the analysis, including the low quality of some case reports/series. “There is a notable lack of detail on the PRP injection technique, as the authors of the case reports were generally not the PRP injectors themselves,” he said. “There was also no attempt at treatment in a series of four cases.”

Asked to comment on the review, Terrence Keaney, MD, founder and director of SkinDC, in Arlington, Va., said that the analysis underscores the importance of considering blindness as a possible side effect when injecting PRP into the face. “Using techniques that can minimize intravascular injections including the use of cannulas, aspiration, and larger needle size may help reduce this rare side effect,” said Dr. Keaney, a clinical associate professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington.

DENVER – Vision loss is a rare but potentially devastating complication of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections, results from a systematic review showed. None of the cases involved scalp injections.

“Both soft tissue fillers and [PRP] are common injection-type treatments that dermatologists perform on the head and neck area,” lead study author Sean Wu, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where he presented the results during an oral abstract session. “Fillers are usually used to replace volume and fill in lines while PRP is usually used for skin rejuvenation and certain forms of hair loss. We know that fillers may rarely cause blindness if accidentally injected into a facial artery.”

chee gin tan/Getty Images

Certain facial areas such as the glabella, nose, and forehead are considered high risk for blindness with filler injections. But whether PRP injections in those areas may also result in blindness is not yet known, so Dr. Wu and his colleagues, Xu He, MD, and Robert Weiss, MD, at the Maryland Laser, Skin, and Vein Institute in Hunt Valley, Md., performed what is believed to be the first systematic review of the topic. In January 2022 they searched the PubMed database, which yielded 224 articles from which they selected four for full review. The results were recently published in Dermatologic Surgery.

Collectively, the four articles reported a total of seven patients with unilateral vision loss or impairment following PRP injection. They ranged in age from 41 to 63 years. Skin rejuvenation was the indication for PRP injection in six patients and temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorder in one. Three of the cases occurred in Venezuela while one each occurred in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Malaysia. All patients had signs of arterial occlusion or ischemia on retinal examination or imaging.

Dr. Wu and colleagues found that the glabella was the most common site of injection associated with vision loss (five cases), followed by the forehead (two cases), and one case each in the lateral canthus, nasolabial fold, and the TMJ. In all but two cases, vision loss occurred immediately after injection. (The number of injections exceeded seven because two patients received PRP in more than one site.)

Associated symptoms included ocular pain, fullness, eyelid ptosis, headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, tinnitus, and urinary urgency. At their initial ophthalmology evaluation, six patients had no light perception in the affected eye. Only one patient reported recovery of visual acuity at 3 months but with residual deficits on eye exam. This person had been evaluated and treated by an ophthalmologist within 3 hours of symptom onset.

“The other cases reported complete blindness in one eye,” Dr. Wu said. “There is no reversing agent for PRP, unlike for many fillers, so there is no clear-cut solution for this issue.”

Based on the results of the systematic review, Dr. Wu concluded that blindness is a rare complication of PRP. “We should take the same precautions when injecting PRP on the face as we do when injecting fillers,” he advised. “This may include not injecting in high-risk areas and aspirating prior to injection to make sure we are not accidentally injecting into an artery.”

It was “notable,” he added, that no cases of blindness occurred following scalp injections of PRP for hair loss, indicating “that this use of PRP is likely very safe from a vision loss standpoint.”

Dr. Wu acknowledged certain imitations of the analysis, including the low quality of some case reports/series. “There is a notable lack of detail on the PRP injection technique, as the authors of the case reports were generally not the PRP injectors themselves,” he said. “There was also no attempt at treatment in a series of four cases.”

Asked to comment on the review, Terrence Keaney, MD, founder and director of SkinDC, in Arlington, Va., said that the analysis underscores the importance of considering blindness as a possible side effect when injecting PRP into the face. “Using techniques that can minimize intravascular injections including the use of cannulas, aspiration, and larger needle size may help reduce this rare side effect,” said Dr. Keaney, a clinical associate professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington.

DENVER – Vision loss is a rare but potentially devastating complication of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections, results from a systematic review showed. None of the cases involved scalp injections.

“Both soft tissue fillers and [PRP] are common injection-type treatments that dermatologists perform on the head and neck area,” lead study author Sean Wu, MD, said in an interview in advance of the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, where he presented the results during an oral abstract session. “Fillers are usually used to replace volume and fill in lines while PRP is usually used for skin rejuvenation and certain forms of hair loss. We know that fillers may rarely cause blindness if accidentally injected into a facial artery.”

chee gin tan/Getty Images

Certain facial areas such as the glabella, nose, and forehead are considered high risk for blindness with filler injections. But whether PRP injections in those areas may also result in blindness is not yet known, so Dr. Wu and his colleagues, Xu He, MD, and Robert Weiss, MD, at the Maryland Laser, Skin, and Vein Institute in Hunt Valley, Md., performed what is believed to be the first systematic review of the topic. In January 2022 they searched the PubMed database, which yielded 224 articles from which they selected four for full review. The results were recently published in Dermatologic Surgery.

Collectively, the four articles reported a total of seven patients with unilateral vision loss or impairment following PRP injection. They ranged in age from 41 to 63 years. Skin rejuvenation was the indication for PRP injection in six patients and temporomandibular joint (TMJ) disorder in one. Three of the cases occurred in Venezuela while one each occurred in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Malaysia. All patients had signs of arterial occlusion or ischemia on retinal examination or imaging.

Dr. Wu and colleagues found that the glabella was the most common site of injection associated with vision loss (five cases), followed by the forehead (two cases), and one case each in the lateral canthus, nasolabial fold, and the TMJ. In all but two cases, vision loss occurred immediately after injection. (The number of injections exceeded seven because two patients received PRP in more than one site.)

Associated symptoms included ocular pain, fullness, eyelid ptosis, headache, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, tinnitus, and urinary urgency. At their initial ophthalmology evaluation, six patients had no light perception in the affected eye. Only one patient reported recovery of visual acuity at 3 months but with residual deficits on eye exam. This person had been evaluated and treated by an ophthalmologist within 3 hours of symptom onset.

“The other cases reported complete blindness in one eye,” Dr. Wu said. “There is no reversing agent for PRP, unlike for many fillers, so there is no clear-cut solution for this issue.”

Based on the results of the systematic review, Dr. Wu concluded that blindness is a rare complication of PRP. “We should take the same precautions when injecting PRP on the face as we do when injecting fillers,” he advised. “This may include not injecting in high-risk areas and aspirating prior to injection to make sure we are not accidentally injecting into an artery.”

It was “notable,” he added, that no cases of blindness occurred following scalp injections of PRP for hair loss, indicating “that this use of PRP is likely very safe from a vision loss standpoint.”

Dr. Wu acknowledged certain imitations of the analysis, including the low quality of some case reports/series. “There is a notable lack of detail on the PRP injection technique, as the authors of the case reports were generally not the PRP injectors themselves,” he said. “There was also no attempt at treatment in a series of four cases.”

Asked to comment on the review, Terrence Keaney, MD, founder and director of SkinDC, in Arlington, Va., said that the analysis underscores the importance of considering blindness as a possible side effect when injecting PRP into the face. “Using techniques that can minimize intravascular injections including the use of cannulas, aspiration, and larger needle size may help reduce this rare side effect,” said Dr. Keaney, a clinical associate professor of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington.

The days of strictly classifying rosacea patients as having erythematotelangiectatic, papulopustular, phymatous, or ocular forms of the skin condition are over. At least they should be, according to Julie C. Harper, MD.

“How many people with papules and pustules don’t also have redness?” Dr. Harper, who practices in Birmingham, Ala., said at Medscape Live’s annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium. “If we’re not careful, and we try to classify a person into a subtype of rosacea, we end up treating only part of their rosacea; we don’t treat all of it. We have seen this in the literature,” she added.

“The idea now is to take a phenotypic approach to rosacea. What we mean by that is that you look at the patient, you document every part of rosacea that you see, and you treat according to that,” she continued. “That person with papules and pustules may also have phyma and ocular disease. They may have telangiectasia and persistent background erythema. They may also have flushing.”

Dr. Harper incorporates the mnemonic “STOP” to her visits with rosacea patients.

S stands for: Identify signs and symptoms of the condition. “Listen to the patient for symptoms,” she advised. “We’ve learned to listen to darker skinned patients for what they tell us about erythema, for example, because we may not be able to see it, yet they are experiencing it. They may also have symptomatic burning, itching, and stinging.”

T stands for: Discuss triggers. “Ask patients, ‘what is it that makes your rosacea worse?’ That’s different for everyone,” she said.

O stands for: Agree on a treatment outcome. “Ask, ‘what is it that really bothers you? Are you bothered by the bumps? The redness?’ ” she said.

“The P stands for: Develop a plan that addresses all of that,” she said.

Different treatments for different rosacea symptoms

No one-size-fits-all treatment exists for rosacea. Options that work well for papules and pustules aren’t effective for redness. Similarly, products that work for redness don’t work for telangiectasia.

“Different lesions and signs of rosacea will likely require multiple modes of treatment,” Dr. Harper said. “So, when you evaluate your rosacea patients, if they’re doing great, don’t change their regimen. But if you see somebody who is not well controlled, is there an opportunity for you to come in and add something to that regimen that may make them better? Maybe so.”

Treatment options indicated for papules and pustules include ivermectin, metronidazole, azelaic acid, sodium sulfacetamide/sulfur, modified release doxycycline, minocycline foam, and encapsulated benzoyl peroxide.

Options indicated for persistent background erythema include brimonidine and oxymetazoline, while device-based treatments include the pulsed dye laser, the KTP laser, intense pulsed light, and electrosurgery.
 

Anti-inflammatory action for pustules and papules

A relatively new product indicated for pustules and papules is minocycline 1.5% foam, the only minocycline that is FDA approved to treat rosacea.

“There is no oral minocycline product approved for rosacea yet,” Dr. Harper said. “There is not a known bacterial pathogen in rosacea. Tetracyclines likely work in rosacea by inhibiting neutrophil chemotaxis, inhibiting MMP and thus KLK-5 and LL-37, inhibiting pro-inflammatory cytokines, downregulating reactive oxygen species, and inhibiting angiogenesis.”

In two 12-week, phase 3 randomized studies of 1,522 patients with moderate to severe rosacea, participants were assigned to receive minocycline 5% foam or a vehicle that contained mineral oil and coconut oil.

At week 12, about 50% of patients who received minocycline 5% foam were clear, compared with about 40% of those in the vehicle arm. Also, the reduction of lesion count was about 63% for patients in the treatment group, compared with a reduction of about 54% in the vehicle arm.

Dr. Harper characterized the 63% reduction as “pretty good, but is it good enough or fast enough? I don’t think so, so even with a great drug like this, I would use something else. You can use two medications sometimes to get people better faster. There’s room to bring in something for that background erythema.”

Minocycline 1.5% foam is colored yellow and may stain fabric. “It contains coconut oil, soybean oil, and light mineral oil,” she said. “Most people prefer to use this at bedtime, but you don’t have to.”

Another treatment option is 5% microencapsulated benzoyl peroxide cream, which is FDA approved for inflammatory lesions of rosacea.

“What’s the mechanism of action? Probably not being antimicrobial,” Dr. Harper said. “I think it’s probably at least in part anti-inflammatory, because we have some data to show that it’s killing Demodex [mites]. If Demodex [are] a trigger of inflammation, and we can lessen Demodex, then we could lessen the inflammatory response after that.”

The drug’s approval was based on data from two positive, identical phase 3 randomized, double-blind, multicenter, 12-week clinical trials that evaluated its safety compared with vehicle in 733 people with inflammatory lesions of rosacea (NCT03564119 and NCT03448939).

At week 12, inflammatory lesions of rosacea were reduced by nearly 70% in both trials among those who received 5% microencapsulated benzoyl peroxide cream, compared with 38%-46% among those who received the vehicle. Also, nearly 50% of subjects in the treatment groups were clear or almost clear at 12 weeks, compared with 38%-46% of those who received the vehicle.

Dr. Harper added that about one-quarter of patients in the treatment group of the trials were clear or almost clear by week 4. “That’s pretty fast,” she said, noting that the product’s microencapsulated shell acts as a fenestrated barrier. “It has little openings, which means that it takes a while for the drug to work itself out,” she said. “I think of it as being like a speed bump for benzoyl peroxide delivery. It has to get through this little maze before it lands on the skin. We think that is what has helped with tolerability.”

Oral sarecycline, a narrow spectrum tetracycline that was FDA approved for acne in 2018, may also benefit rosacea patients. In a 12-week, investigator-blinded pilot study, 72 patients with papulopustular rosacea were assigned to receive sarecycline, while 25 received a multivitamin.

By week 12, 75% of patients in the sarecycline group were clear, compared with 16% of those in the multivitamin group, while the inflammatory lesion counts dropped from baseline by 80% and 60%, respectively. Studies of sarecycline for acne have demonstrated similar rates of vertigo, dizziness, and sunburn to those of placebo.

“There were also low rates of gastrointestinal disturbances,” Dr. Harper said. “That’s important in rosacea, because there is no bacterial pathogen.”

Dr. Harper disclosed that she serves as an advisor or consultant for Almirall, BioPharmX, Cassiopeia, Cutanea, Cutera, Dermira, EPI, Galderma, LaRoche-Posay, Ortho, Vyne, Sol Gel, and Sun. She also serves as a speaker or member of a speakers bureau for Almirall, EPI, Galderma, Ortho, and Vyne.

Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

The days of strictly classifying rosacea patients as having erythematotelangiectatic, papulopustular, phymatous, or ocular forms of the skin condition are over. At least they should be, according to Julie C. Harper, MD.

“How many people with papules and pustules don’t also have redness?” Dr. Harper, who practices in Birmingham, Ala., said at Medscape Live’s annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium. “If we’re not careful, and we try to classify a person into a subtype of rosacea, we end up treating only part of their rosacea; we don’t treat all of it. We have seen this in the literature,” she added.

“The idea now is to take a phenotypic approach to rosacea. What we mean by that is that you look at the patient, you document every part of rosacea that you see, and you treat according to that,” she continued. “That person with papules and pustules may also have phyma and ocular disease. They may have telangiectasia and persistent background erythema. They may also have flushing.”

Dr. Harper incorporates the mnemonic “STOP” to her visits with rosacea patients.

S stands for: Identify signs and symptoms of the condition. “Listen to the patient for symptoms,” she advised. “We’ve learned to listen to darker skinned patients for what they tell us about erythema, for example, because we may not be able to see it, yet they are experiencing it. They may also have symptomatic burning, itching, and stinging.”

T stands for: Discuss triggers. “Ask patients, ‘what is it that makes your rosacea worse?’ That’s different for everyone,” she said.

O stands for: Agree on a treatment outcome. “Ask, ‘what is it that really bothers you? Are you bothered by the bumps? The redness?’ ” she said.

“The P stands for: Develop a plan that addresses all of that,” she said.

Different treatments for different rosacea symptoms

No one-size-fits-all treatment exists for rosacea. Options that work well for papules and pustules aren’t effective for redness. Similarly, products that work for redness don’t work for telangiectasia.

“Different lesions and signs of rosacea will likely require multiple modes of treatment,” Dr. Harper said. “So, when you evaluate your rosacea patients, if they’re doing great, don’t change their regimen. But if you see somebody who is not well controlled, is there an opportunity for you to come in and add something to that regimen that may make them better? Maybe so.”

Treatment options indicated for papules and pustules include ivermectin, metronidazole, azelaic acid, sodium sulfacetamide/sulfur, modified release doxycycline, minocycline foam, and encapsulated benzoyl peroxide.

Options indicated for persistent background erythema include brimonidine and oxymetazoline, while device-based treatments include the pulsed dye laser, the KTP laser, intense pulsed light, and electrosurgery.
 

Anti-inflammatory action for pustules and papules

A relatively new product indicated for pustules and papules is minocycline 1.5% foam, the only minocycline that is FDA approved to treat rosacea.

“There is no oral minocycline product approved for rosacea yet,” Dr. Harper said. “There is not a known bacterial pathogen in rosacea. Tetracyclines likely work in rosacea by inhibiting neutrophil chemotaxis, inhibiting MMP and thus KLK-5 and LL-37, inhibiting pro-inflammatory cytokines, downregulating reactive oxygen species, and inhibiting angiogenesis.”

In two 12-week, phase 3 randomized studies of 1,522 patients with moderate to severe rosacea, participants were assigned to receive minocycline 5% foam or a vehicle that contained mineral oil and coconut oil.

At week 12, about 50% of patients who received minocycline 5% foam were clear, compared with about 40% of those in the vehicle arm. Also, the reduction of lesion count was about 63% for patients in the treatment group, compared with a reduction of about 54% in the vehicle arm.

Dr. Harper characterized the 63% reduction as “pretty good, but is it good enough or fast enough? I don’t think so, so even with a great drug like this, I would use something else. You can use two medications sometimes to get people better faster. There’s room to bring in something for that background erythema.”

Minocycline 1.5% foam is colored yellow and may stain fabric. “It contains coconut oil, soybean oil, and light mineral oil,” she said. “Most people prefer to use this at bedtime, but you don’t have to.”

Another treatment option is 5% microencapsulated benzoyl peroxide cream, which is FDA approved for inflammatory lesions of rosacea.

“What’s the mechanism of action? Probably not being antimicrobial,” Dr. Harper said. “I think it’s probably at least in part anti-inflammatory, because we have some data to show that it’s killing Demodex [mites]. If Demodex [are] a trigger of inflammation, and we can lessen Demodex, then we could lessen the inflammatory response after that.”

The drug’s approval was based on data from two positive, identical phase 3 randomized, double-blind, multicenter, 12-week clinical trials that evaluated its safety compared with vehicle in 733 people with inflammatory lesions of rosacea (NCT03564119 and NCT03448939).

At week 12, inflammatory lesions of rosacea were reduced by nearly 70% in both trials among those who received 5% microencapsulated benzoyl peroxide cream, compared with 38%-46% among those who received the vehicle. Also, nearly 50% of subjects in the treatment groups were clear or almost clear at 12 weeks, compared with 38%-46% of those who received the vehicle.

Dr. Harper added that about one-quarter of patients in the treatment group of the trials were clear or almost clear by week 4. “That’s pretty fast,” she said, noting that the product’s microencapsulated shell acts as a fenestrated barrier. “It has little openings, which means that it takes a while for the drug to work itself out,” she said. “I think of it as being like a speed bump for benzoyl peroxide delivery. It has to get through this little maze before it lands on the skin. We think that is what has helped with tolerability.”

Oral sarecycline, a narrow spectrum tetracycline that was FDA approved for acne in 2018, may also benefit rosacea patients. In a 12-week, investigator-blinded pilot study, 72 patients with papulopustular rosacea were assigned to receive sarecycline, while 25 received a multivitamin.

By week 12, 75% of patients in the sarecycline group were clear, compared with 16% of those in the multivitamin group, while the inflammatory lesion counts dropped from baseline by 80% and 60%, respectively. Studies of sarecycline for acne have demonstrated similar rates of vertigo, dizziness, and sunburn to those of placebo.

“There were also low rates of gastrointestinal disturbances,” Dr. Harper said. “That’s important in rosacea, because there is no bacterial pathogen.”

Dr. Harper disclosed that she serves as an advisor or consultant for Almirall, BioPharmX, Cassiopeia, Cutanea, Cutera, Dermira, EPI, Galderma, LaRoche-Posay, Ortho, Vyne, Sol Gel, and Sun. She also serves as a speaker or member of a speakers bureau for Almirall, EPI, Galderma, Ortho, and Vyne.

Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

The days of strictly classifying rosacea patients as having erythematotelangiectatic, papulopustular, phymatous, or ocular forms of the skin condition are over. At least they should be, according to Julie C. Harper, MD.

“How many people with papules and pustules don’t also have redness?” Dr. Harper, who practices in Birmingham, Ala., said at Medscape Live’s annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium. “If we’re not careful, and we try to classify a person into a subtype of rosacea, we end up treating only part of their rosacea; we don’t treat all of it. We have seen this in the literature,” she added.

“The idea now is to take a phenotypic approach to rosacea. What we mean by that is that you look at the patient, you document every part of rosacea that you see, and you treat according to that,” she continued. “That person with papules and pustules may also have phyma and ocular disease. They may have telangiectasia and persistent background erythema. They may also have flushing.”

Dr. Harper incorporates the mnemonic “STOP” to her visits with rosacea patients.

S stands for: Identify signs and symptoms of the condition. “Listen to the patient for symptoms,” she advised. “We’ve learned to listen to darker skinned patients for what they tell us about erythema, for example, because we may not be able to see it, yet they are experiencing it. They may also have symptomatic burning, itching, and stinging.”

T stands for: Discuss triggers. “Ask patients, ‘what is it that makes your rosacea worse?’ That’s different for everyone,” she said.

O stands for: Agree on a treatment outcome. “Ask, ‘what is it that really bothers you? Are you bothered by the bumps? The redness?’ ” she said.

“The P stands for: Develop a plan that addresses all of that,” she said.

Different treatments for different rosacea symptoms

No one-size-fits-all treatment exists for rosacea. Options that work well for papules and pustules aren’t effective for redness. Similarly, products that work for redness don’t work for telangiectasia.

“Different lesions and signs of rosacea will likely require multiple modes of treatment,” Dr. Harper said. “So, when you evaluate your rosacea patients, if they’re doing great, don’t change their regimen. But if you see somebody who is not well controlled, is there an opportunity for you to come in and add something to that regimen that may make them better? Maybe so.”

Treatment options indicated for papules and pustules include ivermectin, metronidazole, azelaic acid, sodium sulfacetamide/sulfur, modified release doxycycline, minocycline foam, and encapsulated benzoyl peroxide.

Options indicated for persistent background erythema include brimonidine and oxymetazoline, while device-based treatments include the pulsed dye laser, the KTP laser, intense pulsed light, and electrosurgery.
 

Anti-inflammatory action for pustules and papules

A relatively new product indicated for pustules and papules is minocycline 1.5% foam, the only minocycline that is FDA approved to treat rosacea.

“There is no oral minocycline product approved for rosacea yet,” Dr. Harper said. “There is not a known bacterial pathogen in rosacea. Tetracyclines likely work in rosacea by inhibiting neutrophil chemotaxis, inhibiting MMP and thus KLK-5 and LL-37, inhibiting pro-inflammatory cytokines, downregulating reactive oxygen species, and inhibiting angiogenesis.”

In two 12-week, phase 3 randomized studies of 1,522 patients with moderate to severe rosacea, participants were assigned to receive minocycline 5% foam or a vehicle that contained mineral oil and coconut oil.

At week 12, about 50% of patients who received minocycline 5% foam were clear, compared with about 40% of those in the vehicle arm. Also, the reduction of lesion count was about 63% for patients in the treatment group, compared with a reduction of about 54% in the vehicle arm.

Dr. Harper characterized the 63% reduction as “pretty good, but is it good enough or fast enough? I don’t think so, so even with a great drug like this, I would use something else. You can use two medications sometimes to get people better faster. There’s room to bring in something for that background erythema.”

Minocycline 1.5% foam is colored yellow and may stain fabric. “It contains coconut oil, soybean oil, and light mineral oil,” she said. “Most people prefer to use this at bedtime, but you don’t have to.”

Another treatment option is 5% microencapsulated benzoyl peroxide cream, which is FDA approved for inflammatory lesions of rosacea.

“What’s the mechanism of action? Probably not being antimicrobial,” Dr. Harper said. “I think it’s probably at least in part anti-inflammatory, because we have some data to show that it’s killing Demodex [mites]. If Demodex [are] a trigger of inflammation, and we can lessen Demodex, then we could lessen the inflammatory response after that.”

The drug’s approval was based on data from two positive, identical phase 3 randomized, double-blind, multicenter, 12-week clinical trials that evaluated its safety compared with vehicle in 733 people with inflammatory lesions of rosacea (NCT03564119 and NCT03448939).

At week 12, inflammatory lesions of rosacea were reduced by nearly 70% in both trials among those who received 5% microencapsulated benzoyl peroxide cream, compared with 38%-46% among those who received the vehicle. Also, nearly 50% of subjects in the treatment groups were clear or almost clear at 12 weeks, compared with 38%-46% of those who received the vehicle.

Dr. Harper added that about one-quarter of patients in the treatment group of the trials were clear or almost clear by week 4. “That’s pretty fast,” she said, noting that the product’s microencapsulated shell acts as a fenestrated barrier. “It has little openings, which means that it takes a while for the drug to work itself out,” she said. “I think of it as being like a speed bump for benzoyl peroxide delivery. It has to get through this little maze before it lands on the skin. We think that is what has helped with tolerability.”

Oral sarecycline, a narrow spectrum tetracycline that was FDA approved for acne in 2018, may also benefit rosacea patients. In a 12-week, investigator-blinded pilot study, 72 patients with papulopustular rosacea were assigned to receive sarecycline, while 25 received a multivitamin.

By week 12, 75% of patients in the sarecycline group were clear, compared with 16% of those in the multivitamin group, while the inflammatory lesion counts dropped from baseline by 80% and 60%, respectively. Studies of sarecycline for acne have demonstrated similar rates of vertigo, dizziness, and sunburn to those of placebo.

“There were also low rates of gastrointestinal disturbances,” Dr. Harper said. “That’s important in rosacea, because there is no bacterial pathogen.”

Dr. Harper disclosed that she serves as an advisor or consultant for Almirall, BioPharmX, Cassiopeia, Cutanea, Cutera, Dermira, EPI, Galderma, LaRoche-Posay, Ortho, Vyne, Sol Gel, and Sun. She also serves as a speaker or member of a speakers bureau for Almirall, EPI, Galderma, Ortho, and Vyne.

Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Some pediatricians believe that molluscum contagiosum (MC) should not be treated because they usually self-resolve in 6-18 months, but Rebecca Smith, MD, sees things differently.

“If you don’t treat them, they’re going to spread,” Dr. Smith, who practices dermatology in Fort Mill, S.C., said at Medscape Live’s annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium. “They’re going to be itchy, they can spread on the patient themselves and then to others, and they can cause scarring. The prevalence is anywhere from 5% to 11%. That means there are 6 million patients out there, just waiting to come into your clinics.”

To date, no treatment has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for MC, although a laundry list of agents have been tried, including cantharidin; cryotherapy; curettage with and without imiquimod; sinecatechins ointment, 15%; imiquimod; and retinoids. And there are several treatments that are being investigated.

A 2017 Cochrane review of 22 studies involving 1,650 patients demonstrated that no single intervention has been consistently effective in treating MC. “Most of the studies were actually very low quality,” said Dr. Smith, who was not involved with the analysis. “The one high quality study showed that imiquimod did not work any better than its vehicle.”
 

Investigational treatments

One of the products in the pipeline is VP-102, a proprietary drug-device combination of cantharidin 0.7% administered through a single-use precision applicator, which has been evaluated in phase 3 studies of patients with molluscum aged 2 years and older. It features a visualization agent so that the person applying the drug can see which lesions have been treated. It also contains a bittering agent to mitigate oral ingestion by children.

Courtesy Dr. Sarah Cipriano

VP-102, which is being developed by Verrica Pharmaceuticals, is applied once every 21 days in up to 4 applications, and multiple lesions can be treated with one applicator. “It’s a stable concentration with a good shelf life, and two phase 3 randomized studies have shown about a 50% complete clearance of new and existing lesions at day 84,” Dr. Smith said. Those studies enrolled children and adults.

A separate analysis of the same data presented at a meeting in 2019 showed that 77% of patients treated with VP-102 achieved greater than 75% clearance, while 65.8% achieved more than 90% clearance.

The new kid on the block is a gel formulation of a nitric oxide–releasing medication, berdazimer 10.3%, a first-in-class topical treatment being developed by Novan, which can be applied at home. In a multicenter study published in JAMA Dermatology, researchers randomized 444 patients to berdazimer gel 10.3% and 447 to a placebo gel, applied once daily in a thin layer on all MC lesions for 12 weeks. The study was conducted at 55 clinics across the United States between Sept. 1, 2020, and July 21, 2021. The mean age of the patients was about 6.5 years and participants had 3-70 raised MC lesions; those with sexually transmitted MC or MC in the periocular area were excluded. The primary endpoint was complete clearance of MC lesions after 12 weeks of treatment.

At 12 weeks, significantly more patients treated with berdazimer gel achieved complete clearance than those on vehicle (32.4% vs. 19.7%; P < .001). A total of 64 (14.4%) patients in the berdazimer group discontinued treatment because of MC clearance, compared with 40 patients (8.9%) in the vehicle group.

More recently, investigators evaluated autoinoculation vs. 35% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) for the treatment of MC. Autoinoculation involves puncturing the perilesional and lesional skin 5-7 times with an insulin syringe. “This gets a little bit of the virus into the dermis, and you hope to elicit an immune response,” explained Dr. Smith, who was not involved with the study. At 3 months, 80% of patients in the autoinoculation group achieved complete clearance, compared with 62% of those in the TCA group, while recurrence at 6 months was 3% vs. 40%, respectively.

Manual extraction of MC lesions is another option. “I love to pop the cores out with my thumbs,” Dr. Smith said. “You have to pick the patients who can tolerate this, and the MC lesions need to be ripe and ready.”

For ophthalmic lesions, watchful waiting is advisable unless the MC lesions are symptomatic or bothersome or large lesions form on the lid margin, which may cause ocular irritation or even a corneal abrasion. “If a patient presents with a multisite infection that includes ocular lesions, treat lesions on other parts of the body and keep your fingers crossed that a systemic immune response occurs,” she said.

The desired immune response is known as the “BOTE” sign (the beginning of the end), which heralds the clearance of the molluscum infection. This often appears as reddening of all the MC lesions and occasionally as a granulomatous “id-like” reaction especially on the extensor elbows and knees. “When this happens, it often scares the patients,” Dr. Smith said. But she explains that this is a positive development, and that “this means that the lesions are about to self-resolve.”

Dr. Smith disclosed that she serves as a speaker or a member of the speakers bureau for Amgen, CeraVe, EPI, Galderma, InCyte, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Sun. She also serves as an advisor or consultant for Janssen, Lilly, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Some pediatricians believe that molluscum contagiosum (MC) should not be treated because they usually self-resolve in 6-18 months, but Rebecca Smith, MD, sees things differently.

“If you don’t treat them, they’re going to spread,” Dr. Smith, who practices dermatology in Fort Mill, S.C., said at Medscape Live’s annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium. “They’re going to be itchy, they can spread on the patient themselves and then to others, and they can cause scarring. The prevalence is anywhere from 5% to 11%. That means there are 6 million patients out there, just waiting to come into your clinics.”

To date, no treatment has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for MC, although a laundry list of agents have been tried, including cantharidin; cryotherapy; curettage with and without imiquimod; sinecatechins ointment, 15%; imiquimod; and retinoids. And there are several treatments that are being investigated.

A 2017 Cochrane review of 22 studies involving 1,650 patients demonstrated that no single intervention has been consistently effective in treating MC. “Most of the studies were actually very low quality,” said Dr. Smith, who was not involved with the analysis. “The one high quality study showed that imiquimod did not work any better than its vehicle.”
 

Investigational treatments

One of the products in the pipeline is VP-102, a proprietary drug-device combination of cantharidin 0.7% administered through a single-use precision applicator, which has been evaluated in phase 3 studies of patients with molluscum aged 2 years and older. It features a visualization agent so that the person applying the drug can see which lesions have been treated. It also contains a bittering agent to mitigate oral ingestion by children.

Courtesy Dr. Sarah Cipriano

VP-102, which is being developed by Verrica Pharmaceuticals, is applied once every 21 days in up to 4 applications, and multiple lesions can be treated with one applicator. “It’s a stable concentration with a good shelf life, and two phase 3 randomized studies have shown about a 50% complete clearance of new and existing lesions at day 84,” Dr. Smith said. Those studies enrolled children and adults.

A separate analysis of the same data presented at a meeting in 2019 showed that 77% of patients treated with VP-102 achieved greater than 75% clearance, while 65.8% achieved more than 90% clearance.

The new kid on the block is a gel formulation of a nitric oxide–releasing medication, berdazimer 10.3%, a first-in-class topical treatment being developed by Novan, which can be applied at home. In a multicenter study published in JAMA Dermatology, researchers randomized 444 patients to berdazimer gel 10.3% and 447 to a placebo gel, applied once daily in a thin layer on all MC lesions for 12 weeks. The study was conducted at 55 clinics across the United States between Sept. 1, 2020, and July 21, 2021. The mean age of the patients was about 6.5 years and participants had 3-70 raised MC lesions; those with sexually transmitted MC or MC in the periocular area were excluded. The primary endpoint was complete clearance of MC lesions after 12 weeks of treatment.

At 12 weeks, significantly more patients treated with berdazimer gel achieved complete clearance than those on vehicle (32.4% vs. 19.7%; P < .001). A total of 64 (14.4%) patients in the berdazimer group discontinued treatment because of MC clearance, compared with 40 patients (8.9%) in the vehicle group.

More recently, investigators evaluated autoinoculation vs. 35% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) for the treatment of MC. Autoinoculation involves puncturing the perilesional and lesional skin 5-7 times with an insulin syringe. “This gets a little bit of the virus into the dermis, and you hope to elicit an immune response,” explained Dr. Smith, who was not involved with the study. At 3 months, 80% of patients in the autoinoculation group achieved complete clearance, compared with 62% of those in the TCA group, while recurrence at 6 months was 3% vs. 40%, respectively.

Manual extraction of MC lesions is another option. “I love to pop the cores out with my thumbs,” Dr. Smith said. “You have to pick the patients who can tolerate this, and the MC lesions need to be ripe and ready.”

For ophthalmic lesions, watchful waiting is advisable unless the MC lesions are symptomatic or bothersome or large lesions form on the lid margin, which may cause ocular irritation or even a corneal abrasion. “If a patient presents with a multisite infection that includes ocular lesions, treat lesions on other parts of the body and keep your fingers crossed that a systemic immune response occurs,” she said.

The desired immune response is known as the “BOTE” sign (the beginning of the end), which heralds the clearance of the molluscum infection. This often appears as reddening of all the MC lesions and occasionally as a granulomatous “id-like” reaction especially on the extensor elbows and knees. “When this happens, it often scares the patients,” Dr. Smith said. But she explains that this is a positive development, and that “this means that the lesions are about to self-resolve.”

Dr. Smith disclosed that she serves as a speaker or a member of the speakers bureau for Amgen, CeraVe, EPI, Galderma, InCyte, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Sun. She also serves as an advisor or consultant for Janssen, Lilly, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Some pediatricians believe that molluscum contagiosum (MC) should not be treated because they usually self-resolve in 6-18 months, but Rebecca Smith, MD, sees things differently.

“If you don’t treat them, they’re going to spread,” Dr. Smith, who practices dermatology in Fort Mill, S.C., said at Medscape Live’s annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium. “They’re going to be itchy, they can spread on the patient themselves and then to others, and they can cause scarring. The prevalence is anywhere from 5% to 11%. That means there are 6 million patients out there, just waiting to come into your clinics.”

To date, no treatment has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for MC, although a laundry list of agents have been tried, including cantharidin; cryotherapy; curettage with and without imiquimod; sinecatechins ointment, 15%; imiquimod; and retinoids. And there are several treatments that are being investigated.

A 2017 Cochrane review of 22 studies involving 1,650 patients demonstrated that no single intervention has been consistently effective in treating MC. “Most of the studies were actually very low quality,” said Dr. Smith, who was not involved with the analysis. “The one high quality study showed that imiquimod did not work any better than its vehicle.”
 

Investigational treatments

One of the products in the pipeline is VP-102, a proprietary drug-device combination of cantharidin 0.7% administered through a single-use precision applicator, which has been evaluated in phase 3 studies of patients with molluscum aged 2 years and older. It features a visualization agent so that the person applying the drug can see which lesions have been treated. It also contains a bittering agent to mitigate oral ingestion by children.

Courtesy Dr. Sarah Cipriano

VP-102, which is being developed by Verrica Pharmaceuticals, is applied once every 21 days in up to 4 applications, and multiple lesions can be treated with one applicator. “It’s a stable concentration with a good shelf life, and two phase 3 randomized studies have shown about a 50% complete clearance of new and existing lesions at day 84,” Dr. Smith said. Those studies enrolled children and adults.

A separate analysis of the same data presented at a meeting in 2019 showed that 77% of patients treated with VP-102 achieved greater than 75% clearance, while 65.8% achieved more than 90% clearance.

The new kid on the block is a gel formulation of a nitric oxide–releasing medication, berdazimer 10.3%, a first-in-class topical treatment being developed by Novan, which can be applied at home. In a multicenter study published in JAMA Dermatology, researchers randomized 444 patients to berdazimer gel 10.3% and 447 to a placebo gel, applied once daily in a thin layer on all MC lesions for 12 weeks. The study was conducted at 55 clinics across the United States between Sept. 1, 2020, and July 21, 2021. The mean age of the patients was about 6.5 years and participants had 3-70 raised MC lesions; those with sexually transmitted MC or MC in the periocular area were excluded. The primary endpoint was complete clearance of MC lesions after 12 weeks of treatment.

At 12 weeks, significantly more patients treated with berdazimer gel achieved complete clearance than those on vehicle (32.4% vs. 19.7%; P < .001). A total of 64 (14.4%) patients in the berdazimer group discontinued treatment because of MC clearance, compared with 40 patients (8.9%) in the vehicle group.

More recently, investigators evaluated autoinoculation vs. 35% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) for the treatment of MC. Autoinoculation involves puncturing the perilesional and lesional skin 5-7 times with an insulin syringe. “This gets a little bit of the virus into the dermis, and you hope to elicit an immune response,” explained Dr. Smith, who was not involved with the study. At 3 months, 80% of patients in the autoinoculation group achieved complete clearance, compared with 62% of those in the TCA group, while recurrence at 6 months was 3% vs. 40%, respectively.

Manual extraction of MC lesions is another option. “I love to pop the cores out with my thumbs,” Dr. Smith said. “You have to pick the patients who can tolerate this, and the MC lesions need to be ripe and ready.”

For ophthalmic lesions, watchful waiting is advisable unless the MC lesions are symptomatic or bothersome or large lesions form on the lid margin, which may cause ocular irritation or even a corneal abrasion. “If a patient presents with a multisite infection that includes ocular lesions, treat lesions on other parts of the body and keep your fingers crossed that a systemic immune response occurs,” she said.

The desired immune response is known as the “BOTE” sign (the beginning of the end), which heralds the clearance of the molluscum infection. This often appears as reddening of all the MC lesions and occasionally as a granulomatous “id-like” reaction especially on the extensor elbows and knees. “When this happens, it often scares the patients,” Dr. Smith said. But she explains that this is a positive development, and that “this means that the lesions are about to self-resolve.”

Dr. Smith disclosed that she serves as a speaker or a member of the speakers bureau for Amgen, CeraVe, EPI, Galderma, InCyte, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Sun. She also serves as an advisor or consultant for Janssen, Lilly, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Mounting evidence suggests that a higher density of Demodex mites on the skin may play a role in the development of papules and pustules associated with rosacea, a narrative review proposes.

According to the author, Fabienne Forton, MD, PhD, a dermatologist based in Brussels, recent studies suggest that Demodex induces two opposite actions on host immunity: A defensive immune response aimed at eliminating the mite and an immunosuppressive action aimed at favoring its own proliferation. “Moreover, the initial defensive immune response is likely diverted towards benefit for the mite, via T-cell exhaustion induced by the immunosuppressive properties of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which may also explain the favorable influence that the altered vascular background of rosacea seems to exert on Demodex proliferation,” she wrote in the review, which was published in JEADV, the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Courtesy National Rosacea Society

She presented several arguments for and against a causal role of Demodex in rosacea. Three on the “for” side are:

High Demodex densities (Dds) are observed in almost all cases of rosacea with papulopustules (PPR). Dr. Forton pointed out that Demodex proliferation presents in as many as 98.6% of cases of PPR when two consecutive standardized skin surface biopsies (SSSBs) are performed (Acta Derm Venereol. 2017;97:242-8). “Dds in patients with PPR are as high as those in patients with demodicosis, much higher than in healthy skin and other facial dermatoses (except when these are associated with demodicosis [as is often the case with seborrheic dermatitis and acne vulgaris]),” she wrote.

The Demodex mite has the elements necessary to stimulate the host’s innate and adaptative immune system. Dr. Forton characterized Demodex as “the only microorganism found in abundance in almost all subjects with PPR, which can, in addition, alter the skin barrier. To feed and move around, Demodex mites attack the epidermal wall of the pilosebaceous follicles mechanically (via their stylets, mouth palps and motor palps) and chemically (through enzymes secreted from salivary glands for pre-oral digestion).”

The Demodex mite stimulates the immune system (which ultimately results in phymatous changes). A healthy immune system, including T helper 17 cells, seems necessary to adequately control mite proliferation. Dr. Forton noted that researchers have observed a perivascular and perifollicular infiltrate in people with rosacea, “which invades the epidermis and is often associated with the presence of Demodex. The lympho-histiocytic perifollicular infiltrate is correlated with the presence and the numbers of mites inside the follicles, and giant cell granulomas can be seen around intradermal Demodex mites, which attempt to phagocytize the mites.”

The three arguments that she presented against a causal role of Demodex in rosacea are the following:

No relationship with the mite was observed in two early histological studies. Rosacea biopsies conducted in these two analyses, published in 1969 and 1988, showed only mild infiltrate, with few parasites and no inflammation around the infested follicles.

However, she countered, “these data are now obsolete, because it has since been clearly demonstrated that the perifollicular infiltrate is a characteristic of rosacea, that this infiltrate is statistically related to the presence and the number of Demodex mites, and that high Dds are observed in almost all subjects with PPR.”

Demodex is not always associated with inflammatory symptoms. This argument holds that Demodex is present in all individuals and can be observed in very high densities without causing significant symptoms. Studies that support this viewpoint include the following: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2001;15:441–4 and J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2011;12:998-1007.

However, Dr. Forton pointed out that the normal, low-density presence of Demodex in the skin “does not contradict a pathogenic effect when it proliferates excessively or penetrates into the dermis. The absence of intense inflammatory symptoms when the Dd is very high does not negate its potential pathogenicity.”

Demodex proliferation could be a consequence rather than a cause. Dr. Forton cited a study, suggesting that inflammation could be responsible for alteration of the skin barrier, “which, secondarily, would favor proliferation of the parasites, as with skin affected by atopic dermatitis that becomes superinfected by Staphylococcus aureus”. On the other hand, she argued, “unlike S. aureus, Demodex does not require alteration of the skin barrier to implant or proliferate. It also does not require an inflammatory background.” She added that if mite proliferation was a consequence of clinical lesions, “the Demodex mite should logically proliferate in other inflammatory facial skin conditions, which is not the case.”

A Sept. 14 National Rosacea Society (NRS) press release featured the paper by Dr. Forton, titled, “Which Comes First, The Rosacea Blemish or The Mite?” In the release, Richard Gallo, MD, PhD, who chaired the NRS Expert Committee that updated the standard classification of rosacea in 2018, said that “growing knowledge of rosacea’s pathophysiology has established that a consistent multivariate disease process underlies its potential manifestations, and the clinical significance of each of these elements is increasing as more is understood.”

While the potential role of Demodex in rosacea has been controversial in the past, “these new insights suggest where it may play a role as a meaningful cofactor in the development of the disorder,” added Dr. Gallo, chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.

Dr. Forton reported having no financial disclosures.

Mounting evidence suggests that a higher density of Demodex mites on the skin may play a role in the development of papules and pustules associated with rosacea, a narrative review proposes.

According to the author, Fabienne Forton, MD, PhD, a dermatologist based in Brussels, recent studies suggest that Demodex induces two opposite actions on host immunity: A defensive immune response aimed at eliminating the mite and an immunosuppressive action aimed at favoring its own proliferation. “Moreover, the initial defensive immune response is likely diverted towards benefit for the mite, via T-cell exhaustion induced by the immunosuppressive properties of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which may also explain the favorable influence that the altered vascular background of rosacea seems to exert on Demodex proliferation,” she wrote in the review, which was published in JEADV, the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Courtesy National Rosacea Society

She presented several arguments for and against a causal role of Demodex in rosacea. Three on the “for” side are:

High Demodex densities (Dds) are observed in almost all cases of rosacea with papulopustules (PPR). Dr. Forton pointed out that Demodex proliferation presents in as many as 98.6% of cases of PPR when two consecutive standardized skin surface biopsies (SSSBs) are performed (Acta Derm Venereol. 2017;97:242-8). “Dds in patients with PPR are as high as those in patients with demodicosis, much higher than in healthy skin and other facial dermatoses (except when these are associated with demodicosis [as is often the case with seborrheic dermatitis and acne vulgaris]),” she wrote.

The Demodex mite has the elements necessary to stimulate the host’s innate and adaptative immune system. Dr. Forton characterized Demodex as “the only microorganism found in abundance in almost all subjects with PPR, which can, in addition, alter the skin barrier. To feed and move around, Demodex mites attack the epidermal wall of the pilosebaceous follicles mechanically (via their stylets, mouth palps and motor palps) and chemically (through enzymes secreted from salivary glands for pre-oral digestion).”

The Demodex mite stimulates the immune system (which ultimately results in phymatous changes). A healthy immune system, including T helper 17 cells, seems necessary to adequately control mite proliferation. Dr. Forton noted that researchers have observed a perivascular and perifollicular infiltrate in people with rosacea, “which invades the epidermis and is often associated with the presence of Demodex. The lympho-histiocytic perifollicular infiltrate is correlated with the presence and the numbers of mites inside the follicles, and giant cell granulomas can be seen around intradermal Demodex mites, which attempt to phagocytize the mites.”

The three arguments that she presented against a causal role of Demodex in rosacea are the following:

No relationship with the mite was observed in two early histological studies. Rosacea biopsies conducted in these two analyses, published in 1969 and 1988, showed only mild infiltrate, with few parasites and no inflammation around the infested follicles.

However, she countered, “these data are now obsolete, because it has since been clearly demonstrated that the perifollicular infiltrate is a characteristic of rosacea, that this infiltrate is statistically related to the presence and the number of Demodex mites, and that high Dds are observed in almost all subjects with PPR.”

Demodex is not always associated with inflammatory symptoms. This argument holds that Demodex is present in all individuals and can be observed in very high densities without causing significant symptoms. Studies that support this viewpoint include the following: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2001;15:441–4 and J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2011;12:998-1007.

However, Dr. Forton pointed out that the normal, low-density presence of Demodex in the skin “does not contradict a pathogenic effect when it proliferates excessively or penetrates into the dermis. The absence of intense inflammatory symptoms when the Dd is very high does not negate its potential pathogenicity.”

Demodex proliferation could be a consequence rather than a cause. Dr. Forton cited a study, suggesting that inflammation could be responsible for alteration of the skin barrier, “which, secondarily, would favor proliferation of the parasites, as with skin affected by atopic dermatitis that becomes superinfected by Staphylococcus aureus”. On the other hand, she argued, “unlike S. aureus, Demodex does not require alteration of the skin barrier to implant or proliferate. It also does not require an inflammatory background.” She added that if mite proliferation was a consequence of clinical lesions, “the Demodex mite should logically proliferate in other inflammatory facial skin conditions, which is not the case.”

A Sept. 14 National Rosacea Society (NRS) press release featured the paper by Dr. Forton, titled, “Which Comes First, The Rosacea Blemish or The Mite?” In the release, Richard Gallo, MD, PhD, who chaired the NRS Expert Committee that updated the standard classification of rosacea in 2018, said that “growing knowledge of rosacea’s pathophysiology has established that a consistent multivariate disease process underlies its potential manifestations, and the clinical significance of each of these elements is increasing as more is understood.”

While the potential role of Demodex in rosacea has been controversial in the past, “these new insights suggest where it may play a role as a meaningful cofactor in the development of the disorder,” added Dr. Gallo, chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.

Dr. Forton reported having no financial disclosures.

Mounting evidence suggests that a higher density of Demodex mites on the skin may play a role in the development of papules and pustules associated with rosacea, a narrative review proposes.

According to the author, Fabienne Forton, MD, PhD, a dermatologist based in Brussels, recent studies suggest that Demodex induces two opposite actions on host immunity: A defensive immune response aimed at eliminating the mite and an immunosuppressive action aimed at favoring its own proliferation. “Moreover, the initial defensive immune response is likely diverted towards benefit for the mite, via T-cell exhaustion induced by the immunosuppressive properties of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which may also explain the favorable influence that the altered vascular background of rosacea seems to exert on Demodex proliferation,” she wrote in the review, which was published in JEADV, the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Courtesy National Rosacea Society

She presented several arguments for and against a causal role of Demodex in rosacea. Three on the “for” side are:

High Demodex densities (Dds) are observed in almost all cases of rosacea with papulopustules (PPR). Dr. Forton pointed out that Demodex proliferation presents in as many as 98.6% of cases of PPR when two consecutive standardized skin surface biopsies (SSSBs) are performed (Acta Derm Venereol. 2017;97:242-8). “Dds in patients with PPR are as high as those in patients with demodicosis, much higher than in healthy skin and other facial dermatoses (except when these are associated with demodicosis [as is often the case with seborrheic dermatitis and acne vulgaris]),” she wrote.

The Demodex mite has the elements necessary to stimulate the host’s innate and adaptative immune system. Dr. Forton characterized Demodex as “the only microorganism found in abundance in almost all subjects with PPR, which can, in addition, alter the skin barrier. To feed and move around, Demodex mites attack the epidermal wall of the pilosebaceous follicles mechanically (via their stylets, mouth palps and motor palps) and chemically (through enzymes secreted from salivary glands for pre-oral digestion).”

The Demodex mite stimulates the immune system (which ultimately results in phymatous changes). A healthy immune system, including T helper 17 cells, seems necessary to adequately control mite proliferation. Dr. Forton noted that researchers have observed a perivascular and perifollicular infiltrate in people with rosacea, “which invades the epidermis and is often associated with the presence of Demodex. The lympho-histiocytic perifollicular infiltrate is correlated with the presence and the numbers of mites inside the follicles, and giant cell granulomas can be seen around intradermal Demodex mites, which attempt to phagocytize the mites.”

The three arguments that she presented against a causal role of Demodex in rosacea are the following:

No relationship with the mite was observed in two early histological studies. Rosacea biopsies conducted in these two analyses, published in 1969 and 1988, showed only mild infiltrate, with few parasites and no inflammation around the infested follicles.

However, she countered, “these data are now obsolete, because it has since been clearly demonstrated that the perifollicular infiltrate is a characteristic of rosacea, that this infiltrate is statistically related to the presence and the number of Demodex mites, and that high Dds are observed in almost all subjects with PPR.”

Demodex is not always associated with inflammatory symptoms. This argument holds that Demodex is present in all individuals and can be observed in very high densities without causing significant symptoms. Studies that support this viewpoint include the following: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2001;15:441–4 and J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2011;12:998-1007.

However, Dr. Forton pointed out that the normal, low-density presence of Demodex in the skin “does not contradict a pathogenic effect when it proliferates excessively or penetrates into the dermis. The absence of intense inflammatory symptoms when the Dd is very high does not negate its potential pathogenicity.”

Demodex proliferation could be a consequence rather than a cause. Dr. Forton cited a study, suggesting that inflammation could be responsible for alteration of the skin barrier, “which, secondarily, would favor proliferation of the parasites, as with skin affected by atopic dermatitis that becomes superinfected by Staphylococcus aureus”. On the other hand, she argued, “unlike S. aureus, Demodex does not require alteration of the skin barrier to implant or proliferate. It also does not require an inflammatory background.” She added that if mite proliferation was a consequence of clinical lesions, “the Demodex mite should logically proliferate in other inflammatory facial skin conditions, which is not the case.”

A Sept. 14 National Rosacea Society (NRS) press release featured the paper by Dr. Forton, titled, “Which Comes First, The Rosacea Blemish or The Mite?” In the release, Richard Gallo, MD, PhD, who chaired the NRS Expert Committee that updated the standard classification of rosacea in 2018, said that “growing knowledge of rosacea’s pathophysiology has established that a consistent multivariate disease process underlies its potential manifestations, and the clinical significance of each of these elements is increasing as more is understood.”

While the potential role of Demodex in rosacea has been controversial in the past, “these new insights suggest where it may play a role as a meaningful cofactor in the development of the disorder,” added Dr. Gallo, chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.

Dr. Forton reported having no financial disclosures.

When counseling patients with acne about a treatment plan, consider the mnemonic “CLEAR,” advises Julie C. Harper, MD, who came up with this aid to use when treating this group of patients.

During a presentation at Medscape Live’s annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, Dr. Harper, who practices at Dermatology and Skin Care of Birmingham, Ala., elaborated on the mnemonic, as follows:

C: Communicate expectations. “I look right at the acne patient and say, ‘I know you don’t just want to be better; I know you want to be clear,’ ” she said at the meeting. “ ‘That’s my goal for you, too. That may take us more than one visit and more than one treatment, but I am on your team, and that’s what we’re shooting for.’ If you don’t communicate that, they’re going to think that their acne is not that important to you.”

L: Listen for clues to customize the patient’s treatment. “We’re quick to say, ‘my patients don’t do what I recommend,’ or ‘they didn’t do what the last doctor recommended,’ ” Dr. Harper said. “Sometimes that is true, but there may be a reason why. Maybe the medication was too expensive. Maybe it was bleaching their fabrics. Maybe the regimen was too complex. Listen for opportunities to make adjustments to get their acne closer to clear.”

E: Treat early to improve quality of life and to decrease the risk of scarring. “I have a laser in my practice that is good at treating acne scarring,” she said. “Do I ever look at my patient and say, ‘don’t worry about those scars; I can make them go away?’ No. I look at them and say, ‘we can maybe make this 40% better,’ something like that. We have to prevent acne scars, because we’re not good at treating them.”

A: Treat aggressively with more combination therapies, more hormonal therapies, more isotretinoin, and perhaps more prior authorizations. She characterized the effort to obtain a prior authorization as “our megaphone back to insurance companies that says, ‘we think it is worth taking the time to do this prior authorization because the acne patient will benefit.’ ”

R: Don’t resist isotretinoin. Dr. Harper, who began practicing dermatology more than 20 years ago, said that over time, she has gradually prescribed more isotretinoin for her patients with acne. “It’s not a first-line [treatment], but I’m not afraid of it. If I can’t get somebody clear on other oral or topical treatments, we are going to try isotretinoin.”

The goal of acne treatment, she added, is to affect four key aspects of pathogenesis: follicular epithelial hyperproliferation, inflammation, Cutibacterium acnes (C. acnes), and sebum. “That’s what we’re always shooting for,” she said.

Dr. Harper is a past president of the American Acne & Rosacea Society. She disclosed that she serves as an advisor or consultant for Almirall, BioPharmX, Cassiopeia, Cutanea, Cutera, Dermira, EPI, Galderma, LaRoche-Posay, Ortho, Vyne, Sol Gel, and Sun. She also serves as a speaker or member of a speaker’s bureau for Almirall, EPI, Galderma, Ortho, and Vyne.

Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

When counseling patients with acne about a treatment plan, consider the mnemonic “CLEAR,” advises Julie C. Harper, MD, who came up with this aid to use when treating this group of patients.

During a presentation at Medscape Live’s annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, Dr. Harper, who practices at Dermatology and Skin Care of Birmingham, Ala., elaborated on the mnemonic, as follows:

C: Communicate expectations. “I look right at the acne patient and say, ‘I know you don’t just want to be better; I know you want to be clear,’ ” she said at the meeting. “ ‘That’s my goal for you, too. That may take us more than one visit and more than one treatment, but I am on your team, and that’s what we’re shooting for.’ If you don’t communicate that, they’re going to think that their acne is not that important to you.”

L: Listen for clues to customize the patient’s treatment. “We’re quick to say, ‘my patients don’t do what I recommend,’ or ‘they didn’t do what the last doctor recommended,’ ” Dr. Harper said. “Sometimes that is true, but there may be a reason why. Maybe the medication was too expensive. Maybe it was bleaching their fabrics. Maybe the regimen was too complex. Listen for opportunities to make adjustments to get their acne closer to clear.”

E: Treat early to improve quality of life and to decrease the risk of scarring. “I have a laser in my practice that is good at treating acne scarring,” she said. “Do I ever look at my patient and say, ‘don’t worry about those scars; I can make them go away?’ No. I look at them and say, ‘we can maybe make this 40% better,’ something like that. We have to prevent acne scars, because we’re not good at treating them.”

A: Treat aggressively with more combination therapies, more hormonal therapies, more isotretinoin, and perhaps more prior authorizations. She characterized the effort to obtain a prior authorization as “our megaphone back to insurance companies that says, ‘we think it is worth taking the time to do this prior authorization because the acne patient will benefit.’ ”

R: Don’t resist isotretinoin. Dr. Harper, who began practicing dermatology more than 20 years ago, said that over time, she has gradually prescribed more isotretinoin for her patients with acne. “It’s not a first-line [treatment], but I’m not afraid of it. If I can’t get somebody clear on other oral or topical treatments, we are going to try isotretinoin.”

The goal of acne treatment, she added, is to affect four key aspects of pathogenesis: follicular epithelial hyperproliferation, inflammation, Cutibacterium acnes (C. acnes), and sebum. “That’s what we’re always shooting for,” she said.

Dr. Harper is a past president of the American Acne & Rosacea Society. She disclosed that she serves as an advisor or consultant for Almirall, BioPharmX, Cassiopeia, Cutanea, Cutera, Dermira, EPI, Galderma, LaRoche-Posay, Ortho, Vyne, Sol Gel, and Sun. She also serves as a speaker or member of a speaker’s bureau for Almirall, EPI, Galderma, Ortho, and Vyne.

Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

When counseling patients with acne about a treatment plan, consider the mnemonic “CLEAR,” advises Julie C. Harper, MD, who came up with this aid to use when treating this group of patients.

During a presentation at Medscape Live’s annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium, Dr. Harper, who practices at Dermatology and Skin Care of Birmingham, Ala., elaborated on the mnemonic, as follows:

C: Communicate expectations. “I look right at the acne patient and say, ‘I know you don’t just want to be better; I know you want to be clear,’ ” she said at the meeting. “ ‘That’s my goal for you, too. That may take us more than one visit and more than one treatment, but I am on your team, and that’s what we’re shooting for.’ If you don’t communicate that, they’re going to think that their acne is not that important to you.”

L: Listen for clues to customize the patient’s treatment. “We’re quick to say, ‘my patients don’t do what I recommend,’ or ‘they didn’t do what the last doctor recommended,’ ” Dr. Harper said. “Sometimes that is true, but there may be a reason why. Maybe the medication was too expensive. Maybe it was bleaching their fabrics. Maybe the regimen was too complex. Listen for opportunities to make adjustments to get their acne closer to clear.”

E: Treat early to improve quality of life and to decrease the risk of scarring. “I have a laser in my practice that is good at treating acne scarring,” she said. “Do I ever look at my patient and say, ‘don’t worry about those scars; I can make them go away?’ No. I look at them and say, ‘we can maybe make this 40% better,’ something like that. We have to prevent acne scars, because we’re not good at treating them.”

A: Treat aggressively with more combination therapies, more hormonal therapies, more isotretinoin, and perhaps more prior authorizations. She characterized the effort to obtain a prior authorization as “our megaphone back to insurance companies that says, ‘we think it is worth taking the time to do this prior authorization because the acne patient will benefit.’ ”

R: Don’t resist isotretinoin. Dr. Harper, who began practicing dermatology more than 20 years ago, said that over time, she has gradually prescribed more isotretinoin for her patients with acne. “It’s not a first-line [treatment], but I’m not afraid of it. If I can’t get somebody clear on other oral or topical treatments, we are going to try isotretinoin.”

The goal of acne treatment, she added, is to affect four key aspects of pathogenesis: follicular epithelial hyperproliferation, inflammation, Cutibacterium acnes (C. acnes), and sebum. “That’s what we’re always shooting for,” she said.

Dr. Harper is a past president of the American Acne & Rosacea Society. She disclosed that she serves as an advisor or consultant for Almirall, BioPharmX, Cassiopeia, Cutanea, Cutera, Dermira, EPI, Galderma, LaRoche-Posay, Ortho, Vyne, Sol Gel, and Sun. She also serves as a speaker or member of a speaker’s bureau for Almirall, EPI, Galderma, Ortho, and Vyne.

Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

PORTLAND, ORE. – About 10 years ago when Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPA, MPH, became an attending physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, he noticed that some of his dermatology colleagues checked the potassium levels religiously in their female patients taking spironolactone, while others never did.

“It led to this question: should we check potassium in healthy young women starting spironolactone for acne?” Dr. Mostaghimi, director of the dermatology inpatient service at Brigham and Women’s, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

To find out, he and his colleagues reviewed 1,802 serum potassium measurements in a study of healthy young women with no known health conditions who were taking spironolactone, published in 2015. They discovered that 13 of those tests suggested mild hyperkalemia, defined as a level greater than 5.0 mEq/L. Of these, six were rechecked and were normal; no action was taken in the other seven patients.

“This led us to conclude that we spent $78,000 at our institution on testing that did not appear to yield clinically significant information for these patients, and that routine potassium monitoring is unnecessary for most women taking spironolactone for acne,” he said. Their findings have been validated “in many cohorts of data,” he added.

The study serves as an example of efforts dermatologists can take to curb unnecessary costs within the field to be “appropriate stewards of resources,” he continued. “We have to think about the ratio of benefit over cost. It’s not just about the cost, it’s about what you’re getting for the amount of money that you’re spending. The idea of this is not restricting or not giving people medications or access to things that they need. The idea is to do it in a thoughtful way that works across the population.”
 

Value thresholds

Determining the value thresholds of a particular medicine or procedure is also essential to good dermatology practice. To illustrate, Dr. Mostaghimi cited a prospective cohort study that compared treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in 1,536 consecutive patients with nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) with and without limited life expectancy. More than two-thirds of the NMSCs (69%) were treated surgically. After adjusting for tumor and patient characteristics, the researchers found that 43% of patients with low life expectancy died within 5 years, but not from NMSC.

“Does that mean we shouldn’t do surgery for NMSC patients with low life expectancy?” he asked. “Should we do it less? Should we let the patients decide? It’s complicated. As a society, we have to decide what’s worth doing and what’s not worth doing,” he said. “What about old diseases with new treatments, like alopecia areata? Is alopecia areata a cosmetic condition? Dermatologists and patients wouldn’t classify it that way, but many insurers do. How do you negotiate that?”

In 2013, the American Academy of Dermatology identified 10 evidence-based recommendations that can support conversations between patients and dermatologists about treatments, tests, and procedures that may not be necessary. One of the recommendations was not to prescribe oral antifungal therapy for suspected nail fungus without confirmation of fungal infection.

“If a clinician thinks a patient has onychomycosis, he or she is usually right,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “But what’s the added cost/benefit of performing a KOH followed by PAS testing if negative or performing a PAS test directly versus just treating the patient?”

In 2006, he and his colleagues published the results of a decision analysis to address these questions. They determined that the costs of testing to avoid one case of clinically apparent liver injury with terbinafine treatment was $18.2-$43.7 million for the KOH screening pathway and $37.6 to $90.2 million for the PAS testing pathway.

“Is that worth it?” he asked. “Would we get more value for spending the money elsewhere? In this case, the answer is most likely yes.”

Isotretinoin lab testing

Translating research into recommendations and standards of care is one way to help curb costs in dermatology. As an example, he cited lab monitoring for patients treated with isotretinoin for acne.

“There have been a number of papers over the years that have suggested that the number of labs we do is excessive, that the value that they provide is low, and that abnormal results do not impact our decision-making,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “Do some patients on isotretinoin get mildly elevated [liver function tests] and hypertriglyceridemia? Yes, that happens. Does it matter? Nothing has demonstrated that it matters. Does it matter that an 18-year-old has high triglycerides for 6 months? Rarely, if ever.”

To promote a new approach, he and a panel of acne experts from five continents performed a Delphi consensus study. Based on their consensus, they proposed a simple approach: For “generally healthy patients without underlying abnormalities or preexisting conditions warranting further investigation,” check ALT and triglycerides prior to initiating isotretinoin. Then start isotretinoin.

“At the peak dose, recheck ALT and triglycerides – this might be at month 2,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “Other people wait a little bit longer. No labs are required once treatment is complete. Of course, adjust this approach based on your assessment of the patient in front of you. None of these recommendations should replace your clinical judgment and intuition.”

He proposed a new paradigm where dermatologists can ask themselves three questions for every patient they see: Why is this intervention or test being done? Why is it being done in this patient? And why do it at that time? “If we think this way, we can identify some inconsistencies in our own thinking and opportunities for improvement,” he said.

Dr. Mostaghimi reported that he is a consultant to Pfizer, Concert, Lilly, and Bioniz. He is also an advisor to Him & Hers Cosmetics and Digital Diagnostics and is an associate editor for JAMA Dermatology.

PORTLAND, ORE. – About 10 years ago when Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPA, MPH, became an attending physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, he noticed that some of his dermatology colleagues checked the potassium levels religiously in their female patients taking spironolactone, while others never did.

“It led to this question: should we check potassium in healthy young women starting spironolactone for acne?” Dr. Mostaghimi, director of the dermatology inpatient service at Brigham and Women’s, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

To find out, he and his colleagues reviewed 1,802 serum potassium measurements in a study of healthy young women with no known health conditions who were taking spironolactone, published in 2015. They discovered that 13 of those tests suggested mild hyperkalemia, defined as a level greater than 5.0 mEq/L. Of these, six were rechecked and were normal; no action was taken in the other seven patients.

“This led us to conclude that we spent $78,000 at our institution on testing that did not appear to yield clinically significant information for these patients, and that routine potassium monitoring is unnecessary for most women taking spironolactone for acne,” he said. Their findings have been validated “in many cohorts of data,” he added.

The study serves as an example of efforts dermatologists can take to curb unnecessary costs within the field to be “appropriate stewards of resources,” he continued. “We have to think about the ratio of benefit over cost. It’s not just about the cost, it’s about what you’re getting for the amount of money that you’re spending. The idea of this is not restricting or not giving people medications or access to things that they need. The idea is to do it in a thoughtful way that works across the population.”
 

Value thresholds

Determining the value thresholds of a particular medicine or procedure is also essential to good dermatology practice. To illustrate, Dr. Mostaghimi cited a prospective cohort study that compared treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in 1,536 consecutive patients with nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) with and without limited life expectancy. More than two-thirds of the NMSCs (69%) were treated surgically. After adjusting for tumor and patient characteristics, the researchers found that 43% of patients with low life expectancy died within 5 years, but not from NMSC.

“Does that mean we shouldn’t do surgery for NMSC patients with low life expectancy?” he asked. “Should we do it less? Should we let the patients decide? It’s complicated. As a society, we have to decide what’s worth doing and what’s not worth doing,” he said. “What about old diseases with new treatments, like alopecia areata? Is alopecia areata a cosmetic condition? Dermatologists and patients wouldn’t classify it that way, but many insurers do. How do you negotiate that?”

In 2013, the American Academy of Dermatology identified 10 evidence-based recommendations that can support conversations between patients and dermatologists about treatments, tests, and procedures that may not be necessary. One of the recommendations was not to prescribe oral antifungal therapy for suspected nail fungus without confirmation of fungal infection.

“If a clinician thinks a patient has onychomycosis, he or she is usually right,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “But what’s the added cost/benefit of performing a KOH followed by PAS testing if negative or performing a PAS test directly versus just treating the patient?”

In 2006, he and his colleagues published the results of a decision analysis to address these questions. They determined that the costs of testing to avoid one case of clinically apparent liver injury with terbinafine treatment was $18.2-$43.7 million for the KOH screening pathway and $37.6 to $90.2 million for the PAS testing pathway.

“Is that worth it?” he asked. “Would we get more value for spending the money elsewhere? In this case, the answer is most likely yes.”

Isotretinoin lab testing

Translating research into recommendations and standards of care is one way to help curb costs in dermatology. As an example, he cited lab monitoring for patients treated with isotretinoin for acne.

“There have been a number of papers over the years that have suggested that the number of labs we do is excessive, that the value that they provide is low, and that abnormal results do not impact our decision-making,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “Do some patients on isotretinoin get mildly elevated [liver function tests] and hypertriglyceridemia? Yes, that happens. Does it matter? Nothing has demonstrated that it matters. Does it matter that an 18-year-old has high triglycerides for 6 months? Rarely, if ever.”

To promote a new approach, he and a panel of acne experts from five continents performed a Delphi consensus study. Based on their consensus, they proposed a simple approach: For “generally healthy patients without underlying abnormalities or preexisting conditions warranting further investigation,” check ALT and triglycerides prior to initiating isotretinoin. Then start isotretinoin.

“At the peak dose, recheck ALT and triglycerides – this might be at month 2,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “Other people wait a little bit longer. No labs are required once treatment is complete. Of course, adjust this approach based on your assessment of the patient in front of you. None of these recommendations should replace your clinical judgment and intuition.”

He proposed a new paradigm where dermatologists can ask themselves three questions for every patient they see: Why is this intervention or test being done? Why is it being done in this patient? And why do it at that time? “If we think this way, we can identify some inconsistencies in our own thinking and opportunities for improvement,” he said.

Dr. Mostaghimi reported that he is a consultant to Pfizer, Concert, Lilly, and Bioniz. He is also an advisor to Him & Hers Cosmetics and Digital Diagnostics and is an associate editor for JAMA Dermatology.

PORTLAND, ORE. – About 10 years ago when Arash Mostaghimi, MD, MPA, MPH, became an attending physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, he noticed that some of his dermatology colleagues checked the potassium levels religiously in their female patients taking spironolactone, while others never did.

“It led to this question: should we check potassium in healthy young women starting spironolactone for acne?” Dr. Mostaghimi, director of the dermatology inpatient service at Brigham and Women’s, said at the annual meeting of the Pacific Dermatologic Association.

To find out, he and his colleagues reviewed 1,802 serum potassium measurements in a study of healthy young women with no known health conditions who were taking spironolactone, published in 2015. They discovered that 13 of those tests suggested mild hyperkalemia, defined as a level greater than 5.0 mEq/L. Of these, six were rechecked and were normal; no action was taken in the other seven patients.

“This led us to conclude that we spent $78,000 at our institution on testing that did not appear to yield clinically significant information for these patients, and that routine potassium monitoring is unnecessary for most women taking spironolactone for acne,” he said. Their findings have been validated “in many cohorts of data,” he added.

The study serves as an example of efforts dermatologists can take to curb unnecessary costs within the field to be “appropriate stewards of resources,” he continued. “We have to think about the ratio of benefit over cost. It’s not just about the cost, it’s about what you’re getting for the amount of money that you’re spending. The idea of this is not restricting or not giving people medications or access to things that they need. The idea is to do it in a thoughtful way that works across the population.”
 

Value thresholds

Determining the value thresholds of a particular medicine or procedure is also essential to good dermatology practice. To illustrate, Dr. Mostaghimi cited a prospective cohort study that compared treatment patterns and clinical outcomes in 1,536 consecutive patients with nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) with and without limited life expectancy. More than two-thirds of the NMSCs (69%) were treated surgically. After adjusting for tumor and patient characteristics, the researchers found that 43% of patients with low life expectancy died within 5 years, but not from NMSC.

“Does that mean we shouldn’t do surgery for NMSC patients with low life expectancy?” he asked. “Should we do it less? Should we let the patients decide? It’s complicated. As a society, we have to decide what’s worth doing and what’s not worth doing,” he said. “What about old diseases with new treatments, like alopecia areata? Is alopecia areata a cosmetic condition? Dermatologists and patients wouldn’t classify it that way, but many insurers do. How do you negotiate that?”

In 2013, the American Academy of Dermatology identified 10 evidence-based recommendations that can support conversations between patients and dermatologists about treatments, tests, and procedures that may not be necessary. One of the recommendations was not to prescribe oral antifungal therapy for suspected nail fungus without confirmation of fungal infection.

“If a clinician thinks a patient has onychomycosis, he or she is usually right,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “But what’s the added cost/benefit of performing a KOH followed by PAS testing if negative or performing a PAS test directly versus just treating the patient?”

In 2006, he and his colleagues published the results of a decision analysis to address these questions. They determined that the costs of testing to avoid one case of clinically apparent liver injury with terbinafine treatment was $18.2-$43.7 million for the KOH screening pathway and $37.6 to $90.2 million for the PAS testing pathway.

“Is that worth it?” he asked. “Would we get more value for spending the money elsewhere? In this case, the answer is most likely yes.”

Isotretinoin lab testing

Translating research into recommendations and standards of care is one way to help curb costs in dermatology. As an example, he cited lab monitoring for patients treated with isotretinoin for acne.

“There have been a number of papers over the years that have suggested that the number of labs we do is excessive, that the value that they provide is low, and that abnormal results do not impact our decision-making,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “Do some patients on isotretinoin get mildly elevated [liver function tests] and hypertriglyceridemia? Yes, that happens. Does it matter? Nothing has demonstrated that it matters. Does it matter that an 18-year-old has high triglycerides for 6 months? Rarely, if ever.”

To promote a new approach, he and a panel of acne experts from five continents performed a Delphi consensus study. Based on their consensus, they proposed a simple approach: For “generally healthy patients without underlying abnormalities or preexisting conditions warranting further investigation,” check ALT and triglycerides prior to initiating isotretinoin. Then start isotretinoin.

“At the peak dose, recheck ALT and triglycerides – this might be at month 2,” Dr. Mostaghimi said. “Other people wait a little bit longer. No labs are required once treatment is complete. Of course, adjust this approach based on your assessment of the patient in front of you. None of these recommendations should replace your clinical judgment and intuition.”

He proposed a new paradigm where dermatologists can ask themselves three questions for every patient they see: Why is this intervention or test being done? Why is it being done in this patient? And why do it at that time? “If we think this way, we can identify some inconsistencies in our own thinking and opportunities for improvement,” he said.

Dr. Mostaghimi reported that he is a consultant to Pfizer, Concert, Lilly, and Bioniz. He is also an advisor to Him & Hers Cosmetics and Digital Diagnostics and is an associate editor for JAMA Dermatology.