User login
Pulsed field ablation challenges conventional devices in AFib
in a head-to-head trial, an outcome that might favor PFA in the context of other considerations.
“The take-home message is that this is a new technology that has important safety benefits. Patients do not have to worry about the possibility – albeit rare – of esophageal fistulae and other problems. It is faster with at least the same efficacy,” reported Vivek Y. Reddy MD, director of cardiac arrhythmia services, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.
As opposed to conventional catheter-based thermal ablation, which isolates pulmonary veins harboring AF triggers by heating or freezing the tissue, PFA uses microsecond high-voltage electrical fields to produce cellular necrosis. It is largely nonthermal, Dr. Reddy said.
New device might spare adjacent tissue
In experimental studies, PFA has demonstrated a high degree of ablative specificity, limiting effects on adjacent tissues, such as the esophagus and phrenic nerve, he explained.
Several previous clinical studies support the specificity of the PFA ablative effect, but the ADVENT trial, which Dr. Reddy presented Aug. 27 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, is the first trial in which patients have been randomly assigned to PFA or catheter-based ablation.
The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with the ESC presentation.
The primary efficacy endpoint was the absence of a composite of endpoints indicating incomplete ablation. These included an initial procedural failure, atrial tachyarrhythmias arising after a 3-month blanking period, subsequent use of antiarrhythmic drugs, cardioversion, or repeat ablation. The primary safety endpoint involved a composite of procedure-related adverse events.
The 607 patients enrolled in this trial had AF refractory to at least one antiarrhythmic drug class. They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to PFA with a catheter system (Farapulse–Boston Scientific) or to thermal ablation.
Of the thermal approaches, radiofrequency or cryoablation was permitted, but each center was required to use just one for the control arm. For the comparison to PFA, outcomes for the two thermal techniques, which were used in similar proportions of patients, were combined based on previous evidence that these approaches perform similarly.
At 1 year, 73.3% of patients in the PFA group and 71.3% of those in the control group met the primary outcome, meaning none of the events signaling ablation failure occurred. The numeric advantage of PFA confirmed noninferiority, although an evaluation of superiority for efficacy, which was triggered by the advantage of PFA, was not significant.
As predicted by previous studies, stratification of thermal ablation approaches showed that outcomes were similar, although the proportion of patients who remained free of events at 1 year was numerically higher in the cryoablation group relative to the radiofrequency group (73.6% vs. 69.2%).
An adverse safety event occurred in 2.1% of those who underwent PFA and in 1.5% of those who underwent thermal ablation. This 0.6–percentage point difference placed PFA well within the boundary of noninferiority for safety.
Of notable events, the only death in this study occurred in the PFA group, and the only stroke occurred in the control group. Phrenic nerve palsies occurred only in the control group (2 vs. 0) while pericarditis was seen only in the PFA group (2 vs. 0). One case of pulmonary edema occurred in each group.
“Catheter ablation is quite safe and effective,” said Dr. Reddy, explaining why this comparison was conducted on the basis of noninferiority.
Dr. Reddy emphasized that noninferiority for PFA was achieved by operators with little or no experience with this technology, whereas the catheter ablations were delivered by operators who typically had previously performed hundreds of interventions.
“With experience, one would expect even better rates of success. This is the floor,” Dr. Reddy said.
Procedure time faster with PFA
Despite working with a new technology, the mean procedure performance time with PFA was faster (105 vs. 123 minutes) even though mean fluoroscopy time was longer (21.1 vs 13.9 minutes). Dr. Reddy considers the difference in procedure time a meaningful demonstration of the efficiency of PFA.
“When you look at procedure performance, it is remarkable that the procedure times were statistically significantly shorter for a first-use technology in the hands of multiple operators,” Dr. Reddy said.
There was also a statistically significant advantage for PFA regarding change in the mean pulmonary vein cross-sectional area following the procedures (0.9% vs. 12%). Dr. Reddy acknowledged that small changes in pulmonary vein dimension are not clinically meaningful, but this result “gets at the question of whether we can achieve ablation without tissue proliferation that we see with conventional ablation.”
Overall, Dr. Reddy believes that the data from ADVENT provide several reasons “to get excited about PFA,” including the efficiency of this technique in the context of at least similar efficacy but a potential for fewer adverse events.
The ESC-invited discussant, Samuel Kiil Sørensen, MD, Gentofte University Hospital, Copenhagen, agreed that the ADVENT data support PFA as an alternative to thermal ablation. He suggested that the shorter procedure times are clinically meaningful given comparable safety and efficacy.
“Which property of PFA justifies noninferiority?” he asked. “Many of the complications of AF ablation are not specific to the energy modality. The devastating complications from damage to the esophagus, pulmonary veins, and phrenic nerve that the PFA technology may eliminate are rare, so they would not be expected to change the overall complication rate in a [randomized controlled trial] of realistic size.”
However, he suggested PFA might still prove to be an incremental advance for AF. He cited previous evidence that supports the specificity of its ablative activity and emphasized that ADVENT tested a first-generation device that might not capture the full advantages of the PFA technology.
The trial was supported by Farapulse–Boston Scientific. Dr. Reddy reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical or device manufacturers, including Farapulse–Boston Scientific. Dr. Sørensen reports financial relationships with Medtronic and Biosense Webster.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in a head-to-head trial, an outcome that might favor PFA in the context of other considerations.
“The take-home message is that this is a new technology that has important safety benefits. Patients do not have to worry about the possibility – albeit rare – of esophageal fistulae and other problems. It is faster with at least the same efficacy,” reported Vivek Y. Reddy MD, director of cardiac arrhythmia services, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.
As opposed to conventional catheter-based thermal ablation, which isolates pulmonary veins harboring AF triggers by heating or freezing the tissue, PFA uses microsecond high-voltage electrical fields to produce cellular necrosis. It is largely nonthermal, Dr. Reddy said.
New device might spare adjacent tissue
In experimental studies, PFA has demonstrated a high degree of ablative specificity, limiting effects on adjacent tissues, such as the esophagus and phrenic nerve, he explained.
Several previous clinical studies support the specificity of the PFA ablative effect, but the ADVENT trial, which Dr. Reddy presented Aug. 27 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, is the first trial in which patients have been randomly assigned to PFA or catheter-based ablation.
The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with the ESC presentation.
The primary efficacy endpoint was the absence of a composite of endpoints indicating incomplete ablation. These included an initial procedural failure, atrial tachyarrhythmias arising after a 3-month blanking period, subsequent use of antiarrhythmic drugs, cardioversion, or repeat ablation. The primary safety endpoint involved a composite of procedure-related adverse events.
The 607 patients enrolled in this trial had AF refractory to at least one antiarrhythmic drug class. They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to PFA with a catheter system (Farapulse–Boston Scientific) or to thermal ablation.
Of the thermal approaches, radiofrequency or cryoablation was permitted, but each center was required to use just one for the control arm. For the comparison to PFA, outcomes for the two thermal techniques, which were used in similar proportions of patients, were combined based on previous evidence that these approaches perform similarly.
At 1 year, 73.3% of patients in the PFA group and 71.3% of those in the control group met the primary outcome, meaning none of the events signaling ablation failure occurred. The numeric advantage of PFA confirmed noninferiority, although an evaluation of superiority for efficacy, which was triggered by the advantage of PFA, was not significant.
As predicted by previous studies, stratification of thermal ablation approaches showed that outcomes were similar, although the proportion of patients who remained free of events at 1 year was numerically higher in the cryoablation group relative to the radiofrequency group (73.6% vs. 69.2%).
An adverse safety event occurred in 2.1% of those who underwent PFA and in 1.5% of those who underwent thermal ablation. This 0.6–percentage point difference placed PFA well within the boundary of noninferiority for safety.
Of notable events, the only death in this study occurred in the PFA group, and the only stroke occurred in the control group. Phrenic nerve palsies occurred only in the control group (2 vs. 0) while pericarditis was seen only in the PFA group (2 vs. 0). One case of pulmonary edema occurred in each group.
“Catheter ablation is quite safe and effective,” said Dr. Reddy, explaining why this comparison was conducted on the basis of noninferiority.
Dr. Reddy emphasized that noninferiority for PFA was achieved by operators with little or no experience with this technology, whereas the catheter ablations were delivered by operators who typically had previously performed hundreds of interventions.
“With experience, one would expect even better rates of success. This is the floor,” Dr. Reddy said.
Procedure time faster with PFA
Despite working with a new technology, the mean procedure performance time with PFA was faster (105 vs. 123 minutes) even though mean fluoroscopy time was longer (21.1 vs 13.9 minutes). Dr. Reddy considers the difference in procedure time a meaningful demonstration of the efficiency of PFA.
“When you look at procedure performance, it is remarkable that the procedure times were statistically significantly shorter for a first-use technology in the hands of multiple operators,” Dr. Reddy said.
There was also a statistically significant advantage for PFA regarding change in the mean pulmonary vein cross-sectional area following the procedures (0.9% vs. 12%). Dr. Reddy acknowledged that small changes in pulmonary vein dimension are not clinically meaningful, but this result “gets at the question of whether we can achieve ablation without tissue proliferation that we see with conventional ablation.”
Overall, Dr. Reddy believes that the data from ADVENT provide several reasons “to get excited about PFA,” including the efficiency of this technique in the context of at least similar efficacy but a potential for fewer adverse events.
The ESC-invited discussant, Samuel Kiil Sørensen, MD, Gentofte University Hospital, Copenhagen, agreed that the ADVENT data support PFA as an alternative to thermal ablation. He suggested that the shorter procedure times are clinically meaningful given comparable safety and efficacy.
“Which property of PFA justifies noninferiority?” he asked. “Many of the complications of AF ablation are not specific to the energy modality. The devastating complications from damage to the esophagus, pulmonary veins, and phrenic nerve that the PFA technology may eliminate are rare, so they would not be expected to change the overall complication rate in a [randomized controlled trial] of realistic size.”
However, he suggested PFA might still prove to be an incremental advance for AF. He cited previous evidence that supports the specificity of its ablative activity and emphasized that ADVENT tested a first-generation device that might not capture the full advantages of the PFA technology.
The trial was supported by Farapulse–Boston Scientific. Dr. Reddy reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical or device manufacturers, including Farapulse–Boston Scientific. Dr. Sørensen reports financial relationships with Medtronic and Biosense Webster.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
in a head-to-head trial, an outcome that might favor PFA in the context of other considerations.
“The take-home message is that this is a new technology that has important safety benefits. Patients do not have to worry about the possibility – albeit rare – of esophageal fistulae and other problems. It is faster with at least the same efficacy,” reported Vivek Y. Reddy MD, director of cardiac arrhythmia services, Mount Sinai Hospital, New York.
As opposed to conventional catheter-based thermal ablation, which isolates pulmonary veins harboring AF triggers by heating or freezing the tissue, PFA uses microsecond high-voltage electrical fields to produce cellular necrosis. It is largely nonthermal, Dr. Reddy said.
New device might spare adjacent tissue
In experimental studies, PFA has demonstrated a high degree of ablative specificity, limiting effects on adjacent tissues, such as the esophagus and phrenic nerve, he explained.
Several previous clinical studies support the specificity of the PFA ablative effect, but the ADVENT trial, which Dr. Reddy presented Aug. 27 at the annual congress of the European Society of Cardiology, is the first trial in which patients have been randomly assigned to PFA or catheter-based ablation.
The study was published online in the New England Journal of Medicine simultaneously with the ESC presentation.
The primary efficacy endpoint was the absence of a composite of endpoints indicating incomplete ablation. These included an initial procedural failure, atrial tachyarrhythmias arising after a 3-month blanking period, subsequent use of antiarrhythmic drugs, cardioversion, or repeat ablation. The primary safety endpoint involved a composite of procedure-related adverse events.
The 607 patients enrolled in this trial had AF refractory to at least one antiarrhythmic drug class. They were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to PFA with a catheter system (Farapulse–Boston Scientific) or to thermal ablation.
Of the thermal approaches, radiofrequency or cryoablation was permitted, but each center was required to use just one for the control arm. For the comparison to PFA, outcomes for the two thermal techniques, which were used in similar proportions of patients, were combined based on previous evidence that these approaches perform similarly.
At 1 year, 73.3% of patients in the PFA group and 71.3% of those in the control group met the primary outcome, meaning none of the events signaling ablation failure occurred. The numeric advantage of PFA confirmed noninferiority, although an evaluation of superiority for efficacy, which was triggered by the advantage of PFA, was not significant.
As predicted by previous studies, stratification of thermal ablation approaches showed that outcomes were similar, although the proportion of patients who remained free of events at 1 year was numerically higher in the cryoablation group relative to the radiofrequency group (73.6% vs. 69.2%).
An adverse safety event occurred in 2.1% of those who underwent PFA and in 1.5% of those who underwent thermal ablation. This 0.6–percentage point difference placed PFA well within the boundary of noninferiority for safety.
Of notable events, the only death in this study occurred in the PFA group, and the only stroke occurred in the control group. Phrenic nerve palsies occurred only in the control group (2 vs. 0) while pericarditis was seen only in the PFA group (2 vs. 0). One case of pulmonary edema occurred in each group.
“Catheter ablation is quite safe and effective,” said Dr. Reddy, explaining why this comparison was conducted on the basis of noninferiority.
Dr. Reddy emphasized that noninferiority for PFA was achieved by operators with little or no experience with this technology, whereas the catheter ablations were delivered by operators who typically had previously performed hundreds of interventions.
“With experience, one would expect even better rates of success. This is the floor,” Dr. Reddy said.
Procedure time faster with PFA
Despite working with a new technology, the mean procedure performance time with PFA was faster (105 vs. 123 minutes) even though mean fluoroscopy time was longer (21.1 vs 13.9 minutes). Dr. Reddy considers the difference in procedure time a meaningful demonstration of the efficiency of PFA.
“When you look at procedure performance, it is remarkable that the procedure times were statistically significantly shorter for a first-use technology in the hands of multiple operators,” Dr. Reddy said.
There was also a statistically significant advantage for PFA regarding change in the mean pulmonary vein cross-sectional area following the procedures (0.9% vs. 12%). Dr. Reddy acknowledged that small changes in pulmonary vein dimension are not clinically meaningful, but this result “gets at the question of whether we can achieve ablation without tissue proliferation that we see with conventional ablation.”
Overall, Dr. Reddy believes that the data from ADVENT provide several reasons “to get excited about PFA,” including the efficiency of this technique in the context of at least similar efficacy but a potential for fewer adverse events.
The ESC-invited discussant, Samuel Kiil Sørensen, MD, Gentofte University Hospital, Copenhagen, agreed that the ADVENT data support PFA as an alternative to thermal ablation. He suggested that the shorter procedure times are clinically meaningful given comparable safety and efficacy.
“Which property of PFA justifies noninferiority?” he asked. “Many of the complications of AF ablation are not specific to the energy modality. The devastating complications from damage to the esophagus, pulmonary veins, and phrenic nerve that the PFA technology may eliminate are rare, so they would not be expected to change the overall complication rate in a [randomized controlled trial] of realistic size.”
However, he suggested PFA might still prove to be an incremental advance for AF. He cited previous evidence that supports the specificity of its ablative activity and emphasized that ADVENT tested a first-generation device that might not capture the full advantages of the PFA technology.
The trial was supported by Farapulse–Boston Scientific. Dr. Reddy reports financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical or device manufacturers, including Farapulse–Boston Scientific. Dr. Sørensen reports financial relationships with Medtronic and Biosense Webster.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE ESC CONGRESS 2023
Consider housing insecurity, other issues when managing challenging skin diseases in children, expert says
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – , according to a pediatric dermatologist who addressed the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.
As a general principle for treating chronic skin conditions in children who are not doing well, it is reasonable to draw out information about a patient’s access to adequate housing, nutrition, and other basic needs, George Hightower, MD, PhD, of the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology, University of California, San Diego, said at the meeting.
“We need conversations about where patients play, learn, and rest their heads at night,” said Dr. Hightower, who conducts research in this area. Fundamental components of well-being, such as stable housing and secure access to nutrition “are inseparable” from a child’s health, he noted.
“What are the stakes?” he asked. For many children, these factors might mean the difference between effective and poor control of the diseases for which the patient is seeking care.
To illustrate the point, Dr. Hightower used hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a disease that appears to be on the rise among adolescents, as an example of why patient circumstances matter and should be considered. A complex disorder that is more prevalent in resource-poor communities, HS is difficult to control, often requiring extended periods of treatment with medications that can involve complex dosing or regular infusions.
“There is a need for medical providers to help the patient plan for this chronic illness,” said Dr. Hightower, referring to the importance of close follow-up. In adolescents, HS can be sufficiently disruptive from both the physical and psychological perspective that poor control can “derail future aspirations” by complicating educational endeavors and social interactions.
Dr. Hightower acknowledged that simply documenting housing insecurity or other issues does not solve these problems, but he does believe that developing a sensitivity to these obstacles to health care is a first step. It is a process that should permeate into medical training, health care research, and strategies to improve outcomes.
“The connections between fair housing and clinical practice may appear tenuous and inconsequential to the care provided by medical specialists,” Dr. Hightower said, but he emphasized that there are clear consequences when these factors contribute to inadequate control of such diseases as HS. As a source of missed appointments and disjointed care, an unstable home life can be an important barrier to disease control – and because of scarring nodules, fistulae, pain, school absences, and social isolation, complications can be dire.
Solutions to insecure housing are not typically available to an individual clinician, but the awareness that this can be a factor can help both physicians and patients begin to think about the role this plays in impairing recovery and what solutions might be found to modify the impact. Awareness not just among individual clinicians but a broader consortium of those working to improve health care outcomes is needed to “challenge the way we are doing medicine,” he said.
While conversations about the social determinants of health, including access to resources within patients’ neighborhoods, schools, and environment, can demonstrate concern about how to address obstacles, it can also be part of a reorientation to think beyond treatment for the underlying pathology alone. Eliciting trust and emphasizing the importance of environmental barriers to adequate care can be positive steps on the path to solutions.
Participatory action research
Relevant to this orientation, Dr. Hightower spoke about participatory action research (PAR), which provides a framework for patients to participate in the planning of clinical studies to effect change, not just serve as subjects in these studies.
The assumption of PAR is that “all people have valuable knowledge about their lives and experiences,” Dr. Hightower said. From this assumption, individuals who have been historically marginalized by race, income, or other factors can help define the problems from the patient’s perspective and, from there, create studies to seek solutions.
PAR is consistent with a patient-centered approach to medical care, which Dr. Hightower called “the future of medicine.” It involves a big-picture approach to look beyond disease pathology and symptoms to factors that might be creating susceptibility to disease and undermining health care.
Organized medicine alone cannot solve the cause of social inequities leading to disparate risks for disease and risks of inadequate health care, but Dr. Hightower argued that these inequities should not be ignored. He believes medical trainees should learn how to elicit information about the barriers to adequate health care and be aware of solutions, such as fair housing policies.
While he believes that PAR is an example of a pathway to problem solving, he suggested that a comprehensive approach requires an effective method of communication between providers and patients that would lead to a collaborative and mutually reinforcing approach.
“How do we ensure that individuals from communities most impacted by health disparities are treated fairly and empowered to address these disparities?” Dr. Hightower asked. He said that this is the direction of his own research and the issues that inhibit adequate treatment of many dermatologic diseases, as well as other types of disease, in childhood.
Craig Burkhart, MD, director of a private pediatric and adolescent dermatology practice in Cary, N.C., said that Dr. Hightower’s message is relevant. The value of considering and addressing the psychological well-being of patients of any age is not a new concept, but he acknowledged that he, for one, has not routinely inquired about obstacles to follow-up care if there is a signal that this might be an issue.
“As dermatologists, we focus on the acute complaints. We want to make the patient better,” said Dr. Burkhart, who moderated the session in which Dr. Hightower spoke. He agreed with Dr. Hightower that environmental factors make a difference on the road to recovery for a patient, and his presentation was a good reminder, he said, to consider the patient’s circumstances when response to treatment is inadequate, particularly in chronic diseases like HS, for which comprehensive care and close follow-up are needed.
Dr. Hightower and Dr. Burkhart report no potential conflicts of interest.
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – , according to a pediatric dermatologist who addressed the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.
As a general principle for treating chronic skin conditions in children who are not doing well, it is reasonable to draw out information about a patient’s access to adequate housing, nutrition, and other basic needs, George Hightower, MD, PhD, of the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology, University of California, San Diego, said at the meeting.
“We need conversations about where patients play, learn, and rest their heads at night,” said Dr. Hightower, who conducts research in this area. Fundamental components of well-being, such as stable housing and secure access to nutrition “are inseparable” from a child’s health, he noted.
“What are the stakes?” he asked. For many children, these factors might mean the difference between effective and poor control of the diseases for which the patient is seeking care.
To illustrate the point, Dr. Hightower used hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a disease that appears to be on the rise among adolescents, as an example of why patient circumstances matter and should be considered. A complex disorder that is more prevalent in resource-poor communities, HS is difficult to control, often requiring extended periods of treatment with medications that can involve complex dosing or regular infusions.
“There is a need for medical providers to help the patient plan for this chronic illness,” said Dr. Hightower, referring to the importance of close follow-up. In adolescents, HS can be sufficiently disruptive from both the physical and psychological perspective that poor control can “derail future aspirations” by complicating educational endeavors and social interactions.
Dr. Hightower acknowledged that simply documenting housing insecurity or other issues does not solve these problems, but he does believe that developing a sensitivity to these obstacles to health care is a first step. It is a process that should permeate into medical training, health care research, and strategies to improve outcomes.
“The connections between fair housing and clinical practice may appear tenuous and inconsequential to the care provided by medical specialists,” Dr. Hightower said, but he emphasized that there are clear consequences when these factors contribute to inadequate control of such diseases as HS. As a source of missed appointments and disjointed care, an unstable home life can be an important barrier to disease control – and because of scarring nodules, fistulae, pain, school absences, and social isolation, complications can be dire.
Solutions to insecure housing are not typically available to an individual clinician, but the awareness that this can be a factor can help both physicians and patients begin to think about the role this plays in impairing recovery and what solutions might be found to modify the impact. Awareness not just among individual clinicians but a broader consortium of those working to improve health care outcomes is needed to “challenge the way we are doing medicine,” he said.
While conversations about the social determinants of health, including access to resources within patients’ neighborhoods, schools, and environment, can demonstrate concern about how to address obstacles, it can also be part of a reorientation to think beyond treatment for the underlying pathology alone. Eliciting trust and emphasizing the importance of environmental barriers to adequate care can be positive steps on the path to solutions.
Participatory action research
Relevant to this orientation, Dr. Hightower spoke about participatory action research (PAR), which provides a framework for patients to participate in the planning of clinical studies to effect change, not just serve as subjects in these studies.
The assumption of PAR is that “all people have valuable knowledge about their lives and experiences,” Dr. Hightower said. From this assumption, individuals who have been historically marginalized by race, income, or other factors can help define the problems from the patient’s perspective and, from there, create studies to seek solutions.
PAR is consistent with a patient-centered approach to medical care, which Dr. Hightower called “the future of medicine.” It involves a big-picture approach to look beyond disease pathology and symptoms to factors that might be creating susceptibility to disease and undermining health care.
Organized medicine alone cannot solve the cause of social inequities leading to disparate risks for disease and risks of inadequate health care, but Dr. Hightower argued that these inequities should not be ignored. He believes medical trainees should learn how to elicit information about the barriers to adequate health care and be aware of solutions, such as fair housing policies.
While he believes that PAR is an example of a pathway to problem solving, he suggested that a comprehensive approach requires an effective method of communication between providers and patients that would lead to a collaborative and mutually reinforcing approach.
“How do we ensure that individuals from communities most impacted by health disparities are treated fairly and empowered to address these disparities?” Dr. Hightower asked. He said that this is the direction of his own research and the issues that inhibit adequate treatment of many dermatologic diseases, as well as other types of disease, in childhood.
Craig Burkhart, MD, director of a private pediatric and adolescent dermatology practice in Cary, N.C., said that Dr. Hightower’s message is relevant. The value of considering and addressing the psychological well-being of patients of any age is not a new concept, but he acknowledged that he, for one, has not routinely inquired about obstacles to follow-up care if there is a signal that this might be an issue.
“As dermatologists, we focus on the acute complaints. We want to make the patient better,” said Dr. Burkhart, who moderated the session in which Dr. Hightower spoke. He agreed with Dr. Hightower that environmental factors make a difference on the road to recovery for a patient, and his presentation was a good reminder, he said, to consider the patient’s circumstances when response to treatment is inadequate, particularly in chronic diseases like HS, for which comprehensive care and close follow-up are needed.
Dr. Hightower and Dr. Burkhart report no potential conflicts of interest.
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – , according to a pediatric dermatologist who addressed the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.
As a general principle for treating chronic skin conditions in children who are not doing well, it is reasonable to draw out information about a patient’s access to adequate housing, nutrition, and other basic needs, George Hightower, MD, PhD, of the division of pediatric and adolescent dermatology, University of California, San Diego, said at the meeting.
“We need conversations about where patients play, learn, and rest their heads at night,” said Dr. Hightower, who conducts research in this area. Fundamental components of well-being, such as stable housing and secure access to nutrition “are inseparable” from a child’s health, he noted.
“What are the stakes?” he asked. For many children, these factors might mean the difference between effective and poor control of the diseases for which the patient is seeking care.
To illustrate the point, Dr. Hightower used hidradenitis suppurativa (HS), a disease that appears to be on the rise among adolescents, as an example of why patient circumstances matter and should be considered. A complex disorder that is more prevalent in resource-poor communities, HS is difficult to control, often requiring extended periods of treatment with medications that can involve complex dosing or regular infusions.
“There is a need for medical providers to help the patient plan for this chronic illness,” said Dr. Hightower, referring to the importance of close follow-up. In adolescents, HS can be sufficiently disruptive from both the physical and psychological perspective that poor control can “derail future aspirations” by complicating educational endeavors and social interactions.
Dr. Hightower acknowledged that simply documenting housing insecurity or other issues does not solve these problems, but he does believe that developing a sensitivity to these obstacles to health care is a first step. It is a process that should permeate into medical training, health care research, and strategies to improve outcomes.
“The connections between fair housing and clinical practice may appear tenuous and inconsequential to the care provided by medical specialists,” Dr. Hightower said, but he emphasized that there are clear consequences when these factors contribute to inadequate control of such diseases as HS. As a source of missed appointments and disjointed care, an unstable home life can be an important barrier to disease control – and because of scarring nodules, fistulae, pain, school absences, and social isolation, complications can be dire.
Solutions to insecure housing are not typically available to an individual clinician, but the awareness that this can be a factor can help both physicians and patients begin to think about the role this plays in impairing recovery and what solutions might be found to modify the impact. Awareness not just among individual clinicians but a broader consortium of those working to improve health care outcomes is needed to “challenge the way we are doing medicine,” he said.
While conversations about the social determinants of health, including access to resources within patients’ neighborhoods, schools, and environment, can demonstrate concern about how to address obstacles, it can also be part of a reorientation to think beyond treatment for the underlying pathology alone. Eliciting trust and emphasizing the importance of environmental barriers to adequate care can be positive steps on the path to solutions.
Participatory action research
Relevant to this orientation, Dr. Hightower spoke about participatory action research (PAR), which provides a framework for patients to participate in the planning of clinical studies to effect change, not just serve as subjects in these studies.
The assumption of PAR is that “all people have valuable knowledge about their lives and experiences,” Dr. Hightower said. From this assumption, individuals who have been historically marginalized by race, income, or other factors can help define the problems from the patient’s perspective and, from there, create studies to seek solutions.
PAR is consistent with a patient-centered approach to medical care, which Dr. Hightower called “the future of medicine.” It involves a big-picture approach to look beyond disease pathology and symptoms to factors that might be creating susceptibility to disease and undermining health care.
Organized medicine alone cannot solve the cause of social inequities leading to disparate risks for disease and risks of inadequate health care, but Dr. Hightower argued that these inequities should not be ignored. He believes medical trainees should learn how to elicit information about the barriers to adequate health care and be aware of solutions, such as fair housing policies.
While he believes that PAR is an example of a pathway to problem solving, he suggested that a comprehensive approach requires an effective method of communication between providers and patients that would lead to a collaborative and mutually reinforcing approach.
“How do we ensure that individuals from communities most impacted by health disparities are treated fairly and empowered to address these disparities?” Dr. Hightower asked. He said that this is the direction of his own research and the issues that inhibit adequate treatment of many dermatologic diseases, as well as other types of disease, in childhood.
Craig Burkhart, MD, director of a private pediatric and adolescent dermatology practice in Cary, N.C., said that Dr. Hightower’s message is relevant. The value of considering and addressing the psychological well-being of patients of any age is not a new concept, but he acknowledged that he, for one, has not routinely inquired about obstacles to follow-up care if there is a signal that this might be an issue.
“As dermatologists, we focus on the acute complaints. We want to make the patient better,” said Dr. Burkhart, who moderated the session in which Dr. Hightower spoke. He agreed with Dr. Hightower that environmental factors make a difference on the road to recovery for a patient, and his presentation was a good reminder, he said, to consider the patient’s circumstances when response to treatment is inadequate, particularly in chronic diseases like HS, for which comprehensive care and close follow-up are needed.
Dr. Hightower and Dr. Burkhart report no potential conflicts of interest.
AT SPD 2023
GERD with bronchiectasis: New invasive interventions show benefit
NEW YORK – Newer invasive procedures for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are associated with lower risks of postprocedural complications when performed to improve control of bronchiectasis or other serious lung diseases, according to a surgeon who addressed the 6th World Bronchiectasis & NTM Conference.
“The options are not what they were 20 or 30 years ago,” according to Tanuja Damani, MD, surgical director of the Center for Esophageal and Foregut Health, NYU Langone Health, New York.
The more favorable benefit-to-risk ratio of the newer options might make them more attractive to consider earlier for control of GERD in worsening lung disease than interventions have in the past, Dr. Damani suggested.
The association between the presence of GERD and increased severity of bronchiectasis or many other lung diseases is well established, according to Dr. Damani. In the case of bronchiectasis, GERD not only impairs lung function and quality of life, but is strongly linked to greater symptom burden, more exacerbations, more hospitalizations, and even increased mortality.
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are effective in reducing intragastric acid, a source of irritation and discomfort when the contents of the stomach are refluxed past the lower esophageal sphincter (LES), but Dr. Damani explained that this therapy is often inadequate. Control of intragastric acid is an oversimplification of a more complex pathophysiology.
“It is not just the lower esophageal sphincter,” she said, explaining that other factors, particularly hiatal hernias that often contribute to transient LES relaxations, can play an important role in postprandial transit of gastric contents into the esophagus.
“Any procedure aimed at reinforcing just the LES [without addressing other mechanisms of GERD] are destined to fail,” Dr. Damani said.
She backed up this assertion with examples. These include the many endoscopic procedures designed to strengthen the barrier function of the LES, such as the Stretta procedure or transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF). Neither addresses the hiatal hernia. Both typically provide immediate symptom relief, but acid in the lower esophagus and symptoms return over time. This has been shown with pH testing, which Dr. Damani called the gold standard for monitoring GERD control.
In procedures that function only by supporting the barrier function of the LES, symptoms typically recur in 6-12 months, requiring resumption of PPIs, if they were ever discontinued, Dr. Damani said. They also include the return of the complications of GERD in lung disease, which includes the damage to lung tissue associated with aspiration of acid as well as the extraesophageal symptoms, including cough, laryngitis and chest pain.
Nissen fundoplication performed with hiatal hernia repair was long regarded as the gold standard for surgical management of GERD, but this is now changing, according to Dr. Damani. She said most centers, including her own, are moving from this to the related Toupet fundoplication, which differs primarily by its use of a 270-degree rather than a 360-degree fundoplication.
By incompletely wrapping the esophagus with the gastric fundus, “the benefit is the same, but the risk of adverse events is much lower,” said Dr. Damani, referring to the bloating, flatulence, and discomfort experienced by some patients following the Nissen procedure. “It is now our operation of choice.”
This Toupet fundoplication, like the Nissen, can be performed laparoscopically or robotically, according to Dr. Damani, who said that efficacy and safety are achieved at a very high rate of consistency in high-volume centers.
However, Dr. Damani also reported that there has been progress with endoscopic approaches and reversible interventions for GERD. These expand the array of options and might be particularly attractive in patients who are poor candidates for surgery or those seeking a reversible intervention.
Of these options, Dr. Damani paid particular attention to the Linx reflux management system. This device is composed of a chain of titanium beads with a magnetic cord that are looped around the lower esophagus to add a barrier function. The level of the magnetic force allows the chain of beads to expand when food descends or gas rises but prevents transient LES relaxations. As a result of its ability to expand and contract, the device is “very dynamic,” Dr. Damani said.
Prior to placement of the device, “the hiatal hernia is dissected and closed like other effective procedures. Then the Linx device is sized and placed,” Dr. Damani explained. Importantly, this procedure can be reversed simply by removing the device.
“There is no side-by-side comparison with a Nissen, but the results have been excellent so far,” Dr. Damani said. The most significant concern is foreign body reactions, but the erosion rates have been reported as less than 0.1%, according to Dr. Damani, who noted that erosion, if it occurs, can be managed endoscopically.
She did caution that candidates for the Linx device must have normal esophageal motility and be free of metal allergies, but she has been impressed with its durable function.
Perhaps the most difficult question in assessing and treating GERD in the context of bronchiectasis is to determine when it is needed. Dr. Damani warned that many patients with lung disease exacerbated by GERD are asymptomatic, requiring a workup to determine if GERD is present. Even if present, it can be challenging to confirm that GERD is a major treatable contributor to poor lung function.
Illustrative of that point, Doreen J. Addrizzo-Harris, MD, codirector of the NYU Langone Health bronchiectasis & NTM clinical and translational program, and President of American College of Chest Physicians, described a patient with advanced bronchiectasis whose poorly controlled lung function had not been considered to be GERD related even though the patent had been inadequately responsive to multiple aggressive treatment strategies. The decision to surgically correct GERD was taken on the basis of diminishing alternative options.
“The improvement in lung function was substantial and rapid,” she said.
Dr. Addrizzo-Harris, who served as a chair of the 2023 World Bronchiectasis & NTM Conference, recounted this case to support the major potential improvements in selected patients with advanced lung disease when GERD is treated. She indicated that even experts overlook this variable.
This still does not answer the question of when to consider an invasive procedure for GERD, but “there is no hard and fast answer,” according to David Kamelhar, MD, who is the other codirector of the NYU Langone Health bronchiectasis & NTM clinical and translational program.
Dr. Kamelhar admitted that he does not immediately think of GERD as a strategy to control lung disease treatable in patients without GERD-related symptoms, but he has pursued this comorbidity in cases when he has “nothing else to offer.” He suggested that multidisciplinary management is one way to consider GERD as treatment target before it becomes a last resort.
As pulmonologists, “we are not GERD experts, so we need to bring in a gastroenterologist or a surgeon who can help with this decision,” he said, referring to when and how to intervene.
From Dr. Damani’s talk, he suggested that the take-home message is that GERD treatment options have improved, and it might make more sense to consider GERD as a treatable comorbidity of lung disease in earlier rather than later stages of disease.
Dr. Damani, Dr. Addrizzo-Harris, and Dr. Kamelhar reported having no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this topic.
NEW YORK – Newer invasive procedures for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are associated with lower risks of postprocedural complications when performed to improve control of bronchiectasis or other serious lung diseases, according to a surgeon who addressed the 6th World Bronchiectasis & NTM Conference.
“The options are not what they were 20 or 30 years ago,” according to Tanuja Damani, MD, surgical director of the Center for Esophageal and Foregut Health, NYU Langone Health, New York.
The more favorable benefit-to-risk ratio of the newer options might make them more attractive to consider earlier for control of GERD in worsening lung disease than interventions have in the past, Dr. Damani suggested.
The association between the presence of GERD and increased severity of bronchiectasis or many other lung diseases is well established, according to Dr. Damani. In the case of bronchiectasis, GERD not only impairs lung function and quality of life, but is strongly linked to greater symptom burden, more exacerbations, more hospitalizations, and even increased mortality.
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are effective in reducing intragastric acid, a source of irritation and discomfort when the contents of the stomach are refluxed past the lower esophageal sphincter (LES), but Dr. Damani explained that this therapy is often inadequate. Control of intragastric acid is an oversimplification of a more complex pathophysiology.
“It is not just the lower esophageal sphincter,” she said, explaining that other factors, particularly hiatal hernias that often contribute to transient LES relaxations, can play an important role in postprandial transit of gastric contents into the esophagus.
“Any procedure aimed at reinforcing just the LES [without addressing other mechanisms of GERD] are destined to fail,” Dr. Damani said.
She backed up this assertion with examples. These include the many endoscopic procedures designed to strengthen the barrier function of the LES, such as the Stretta procedure or transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF). Neither addresses the hiatal hernia. Both typically provide immediate symptom relief, but acid in the lower esophagus and symptoms return over time. This has been shown with pH testing, which Dr. Damani called the gold standard for monitoring GERD control.
In procedures that function only by supporting the barrier function of the LES, symptoms typically recur in 6-12 months, requiring resumption of PPIs, if they were ever discontinued, Dr. Damani said. They also include the return of the complications of GERD in lung disease, which includes the damage to lung tissue associated with aspiration of acid as well as the extraesophageal symptoms, including cough, laryngitis and chest pain.
Nissen fundoplication performed with hiatal hernia repair was long regarded as the gold standard for surgical management of GERD, but this is now changing, according to Dr. Damani. She said most centers, including her own, are moving from this to the related Toupet fundoplication, which differs primarily by its use of a 270-degree rather than a 360-degree fundoplication.
By incompletely wrapping the esophagus with the gastric fundus, “the benefit is the same, but the risk of adverse events is much lower,” said Dr. Damani, referring to the bloating, flatulence, and discomfort experienced by some patients following the Nissen procedure. “It is now our operation of choice.”
This Toupet fundoplication, like the Nissen, can be performed laparoscopically or robotically, according to Dr. Damani, who said that efficacy and safety are achieved at a very high rate of consistency in high-volume centers.
However, Dr. Damani also reported that there has been progress with endoscopic approaches and reversible interventions for GERD. These expand the array of options and might be particularly attractive in patients who are poor candidates for surgery or those seeking a reversible intervention.
Of these options, Dr. Damani paid particular attention to the Linx reflux management system. This device is composed of a chain of titanium beads with a magnetic cord that are looped around the lower esophagus to add a barrier function. The level of the magnetic force allows the chain of beads to expand when food descends or gas rises but prevents transient LES relaxations. As a result of its ability to expand and contract, the device is “very dynamic,” Dr. Damani said.
Prior to placement of the device, “the hiatal hernia is dissected and closed like other effective procedures. Then the Linx device is sized and placed,” Dr. Damani explained. Importantly, this procedure can be reversed simply by removing the device.
“There is no side-by-side comparison with a Nissen, but the results have been excellent so far,” Dr. Damani said. The most significant concern is foreign body reactions, but the erosion rates have been reported as less than 0.1%, according to Dr. Damani, who noted that erosion, if it occurs, can be managed endoscopically.
She did caution that candidates for the Linx device must have normal esophageal motility and be free of metal allergies, but she has been impressed with its durable function.
Perhaps the most difficult question in assessing and treating GERD in the context of bronchiectasis is to determine when it is needed. Dr. Damani warned that many patients with lung disease exacerbated by GERD are asymptomatic, requiring a workup to determine if GERD is present. Even if present, it can be challenging to confirm that GERD is a major treatable contributor to poor lung function.
Illustrative of that point, Doreen J. Addrizzo-Harris, MD, codirector of the NYU Langone Health bronchiectasis & NTM clinical and translational program, and President of American College of Chest Physicians, described a patient with advanced bronchiectasis whose poorly controlled lung function had not been considered to be GERD related even though the patent had been inadequately responsive to multiple aggressive treatment strategies. The decision to surgically correct GERD was taken on the basis of diminishing alternative options.
“The improvement in lung function was substantial and rapid,” she said.
Dr. Addrizzo-Harris, who served as a chair of the 2023 World Bronchiectasis & NTM Conference, recounted this case to support the major potential improvements in selected patients with advanced lung disease when GERD is treated. She indicated that even experts overlook this variable.
This still does not answer the question of when to consider an invasive procedure for GERD, but “there is no hard and fast answer,” according to David Kamelhar, MD, who is the other codirector of the NYU Langone Health bronchiectasis & NTM clinical and translational program.
Dr. Kamelhar admitted that he does not immediately think of GERD as a strategy to control lung disease treatable in patients without GERD-related symptoms, but he has pursued this comorbidity in cases when he has “nothing else to offer.” He suggested that multidisciplinary management is one way to consider GERD as treatment target before it becomes a last resort.
As pulmonologists, “we are not GERD experts, so we need to bring in a gastroenterologist or a surgeon who can help with this decision,” he said, referring to when and how to intervene.
From Dr. Damani’s talk, he suggested that the take-home message is that GERD treatment options have improved, and it might make more sense to consider GERD as a treatable comorbidity of lung disease in earlier rather than later stages of disease.
Dr. Damani, Dr. Addrizzo-Harris, and Dr. Kamelhar reported having no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this topic.
NEW YORK – Newer invasive procedures for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) are associated with lower risks of postprocedural complications when performed to improve control of bronchiectasis or other serious lung diseases, according to a surgeon who addressed the 6th World Bronchiectasis & NTM Conference.
“The options are not what they were 20 or 30 years ago,” according to Tanuja Damani, MD, surgical director of the Center for Esophageal and Foregut Health, NYU Langone Health, New York.
The more favorable benefit-to-risk ratio of the newer options might make them more attractive to consider earlier for control of GERD in worsening lung disease than interventions have in the past, Dr. Damani suggested.
The association between the presence of GERD and increased severity of bronchiectasis or many other lung diseases is well established, according to Dr. Damani. In the case of bronchiectasis, GERD not only impairs lung function and quality of life, but is strongly linked to greater symptom burden, more exacerbations, more hospitalizations, and even increased mortality.
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are effective in reducing intragastric acid, a source of irritation and discomfort when the contents of the stomach are refluxed past the lower esophageal sphincter (LES), but Dr. Damani explained that this therapy is often inadequate. Control of intragastric acid is an oversimplification of a more complex pathophysiology.
“It is not just the lower esophageal sphincter,” she said, explaining that other factors, particularly hiatal hernias that often contribute to transient LES relaxations, can play an important role in postprandial transit of gastric contents into the esophagus.
“Any procedure aimed at reinforcing just the LES [without addressing other mechanisms of GERD] are destined to fail,” Dr. Damani said.
She backed up this assertion with examples. These include the many endoscopic procedures designed to strengthen the barrier function of the LES, such as the Stretta procedure or transoral incisionless fundoplication (TIF). Neither addresses the hiatal hernia. Both typically provide immediate symptom relief, but acid in the lower esophagus and symptoms return over time. This has been shown with pH testing, which Dr. Damani called the gold standard for monitoring GERD control.
In procedures that function only by supporting the barrier function of the LES, symptoms typically recur in 6-12 months, requiring resumption of PPIs, if they were ever discontinued, Dr. Damani said. They also include the return of the complications of GERD in lung disease, which includes the damage to lung tissue associated with aspiration of acid as well as the extraesophageal symptoms, including cough, laryngitis and chest pain.
Nissen fundoplication performed with hiatal hernia repair was long regarded as the gold standard for surgical management of GERD, but this is now changing, according to Dr. Damani. She said most centers, including her own, are moving from this to the related Toupet fundoplication, which differs primarily by its use of a 270-degree rather than a 360-degree fundoplication.
By incompletely wrapping the esophagus with the gastric fundus, “the benefit is the same, but the risk of adverse events is much lower,” said Dr. Damani, referring to the bloating, flatulence, and discomfort experienced by some patients following the Nissen procedure. “It is now our operation of choice.”
This Toupet fundoplication, like the Nissen, can be performed laparoscopically or robotically, according to Dr. Damani, who said that efficacy and safety are achieved at a very high rate of consistency in high-volume centers.
However, Dr. Damani also reported that there has been progress with endoscopic approaches and reversible interventions for GERD. These expand the array of options and might be particularly attractive in patients who are poor candidates for surgery or those seeking a reversible intervention.
Of these options, Dr. Damani paid particular attention to the Linx reflux management system. This device is composed of a chain of titanium beads with a magnetic cord that are looped around the lower esophagus to add a barrier function. The level of the magnetic force allows the chain of beads to expand when food descends or gas rises but prevents transient LES relaxations. As a result of its ability to expand and contract, the device is “very dynamic,” Dr. Damani said.
Prior to placement of the device, “the hiatal hernia is dissected and closed like other effective procedures. Then the Linx device is sized and placed,” Dr. Damani explained. Importantly, this procedure can be reversed simply by removing the device.
“There is no side-by-side comparison with a Nissen, but the results have been excellent so far,” Dr. Damani said. The most significant concern is foreign body reactions, but the erosion rates have been reported as less than 0.1%, according to Dr. Damani, who noted that erosion, if it occurs, can be managed endoscopically.
She did caution that candidates for the Linx device must have normal esophageal motility and be free of metal allergies, but she has been impressed with its durable function.
Perhaps the most difficult question in assessing and treating GERD in the context of bronchiectasis is to determine when it is needed. Dr. Damani warned that many patients with lung disease exacerbated by GERD are asymptomatic, requiring a workup to determine if GERD is present. Even if present, it can be challenging to confirm that GERD is a major treatable contributor to poor lung function.
Illustrative of that point, Doreen J. Addrizzo-Harris, MD, codirector of the NYU Langone Health bronchiectasis & NTM clinical and translational program, and President of American College of Chest Physicians, described a patient with advanced bronchiectasis whose poorly controlled lung function had not been considered to be GERD related even though the patent had been inadequately responsive to multiple aggressive treatment strategies. The decision to surgically correct GERD was taken on the basis of diminishing alternative options.
“The improvement in lung function was substantial and rapid,” she said.
Dr. Addrizzo-Harris, who served as a chair of the 2023 World Bronchiectasis & NTM Conference, recounted this case to support the major potential improvements in selected patients with advanced lung disease when GERD is treated. She indicated that even experts overlook this variable.
This still does not answer the question of when to consider an invasive procedure for GERD, but “there is no hard and fast answer,” according to David Kamelhar, MD, who is the other codirector of the NYU Langone Health bronchiectasis & NTM clinical and translational program.
Dr. Kamelhar admitted that he does not immediately think of GERD as a strategy to control lung disease treatable in patients without GERD-related symptoms, but he has pursued this comorbidity in cases when he has “nothing else to offer.” He suggested that multidisciplinary management is one way to consider GERD as treatment target before it becomes a last resort.
As pulmonologists, “we are not GERD experts, so we need to bring in a gastroenterologist or a surgeon who can help with this decision,” he said, referring to when and how to intervene.
From Dr. Damani’s talk, he suggested that the take-home message is that GERD treatment options have improved, and it might make more sense to consider GERD as a treatable comorbidity of lung disease in earlier rather than later stages of disease.
Dr. Damani, Dr. Addrizzo-Harris, and Dr. Kamelhar reported having no potential conflicts of interest relevant to this topic.
AT WBC 2023
Pandemic blamed for failed trial of inhaled antibiotic
NEW YORK – When data were combined from two parallel phase 3 bronchiectasis treatment trials, inhaled colistimethate sodium failed to significantly reduce the rate of exacerbations associated with Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection, but the disparity in the findings from the two trials, presented at the 6th World Bronchiectasis & NTM Conference (WBC) 2023, strongly suggests that this therapy is effective after all.
“The totality of the evidence supports a consistent and clinically meaningful benefit [of this therapy] outside of pandemic conditions,” reported Charles Haworth, MD, director, Cambridge Centre for Lung Infection, Royal Papworth Hospital, Cambridge, England.
The key phrase is “outside of pandemic conditions.” PROMIS I, which was fully enrolled before the COVID-19 pandemic descended, associated the inhaled therapy with highly significant benefits. PROMIS II, which was initiated later and enrolled 40% of its participants during the pandemic, did not.
The difference between these two trials, which were essentially identical, was the timing, according to Dr. Haworth. By starting later, PROMIS II caught the onset of the pandemic, which he believes introduced numerous problems that defeated the opportunity to show an advantage for the inhaled antibiotic.
Injectable colistimethate sodium, a decades-old formulation of colistin, is already approved in the United States for gram-negative infections and is considered helpful even in challenging diseases, such as cystic fibrosis. Positive results from a phase 2 trial with inhaled colistimethate sodium in bronchiectasis patients with P. aeruginosa infection provided the rationale for the phase 3 PROMIS program.
The key entry criterion of PROMIS I and PROMIS II, each with nearly 90 participating study sites, was a history of bronchiectasis and ≥ two P. aeruginosa infections requiring oral therapy or ≥ 1 infection requiring intravenous therapy in the prior 12 months. Patients were randomly assigned to receive colistimethate sodium delivered in the proprietary I-neb nebulizer (CMS I-neb) or a matching placebo.
On the primary endpoint of annualized rate of exacerbations, the figures per year were 0.58 for CMS I-neb and 0.95 for placebo in the PROMIS I trial. This produced a rate ratio of 0.65, signaling a significant 35% (P = .00101) reduction in risk. In PROMIS II, the annualized rates of exacerbation were essentially identical in the experimental and control arms (0.089 vs. 0.088; P = .97).
With “no signal of benefit” in the PROMIS II trial, the numerical advantage of CMS I-neb for the combined data did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Haworth reported.
Other endpoints told the same story. For example, the time to first exacerbation was reduced by 41% in PROMIS I (HR, 0.59; P = .0074) but was not reduced significantly (P = .603) in PROMIS II. In PROMIS I, there was a nearly 60% reduction in the risk of severe exacerbations associated with CMS I-neb, but the risk ratio of severe infections was slightly but not significantly higher on CMS I-neb in PROMIS II.
There were signals of benefit in PROMIS II. For example, the reductions in P. aeruginosa density were similar in the two studies (P < .00001 in both), and assessment with the Severe Exacerbations and Quality of Life (SQOL) tool associated CMS I-neb with end-of-study improvement in QOL for the experimental arm in both studies.
While Dr. Haworth acknowledged that he recognizes the “issues of post hoc analysis with any data,” obscuring a benefit that would have been otherwise shown.
Besides the dramatic reduction in rates of hospitalization during the pandemic, an obstacle for showing differences in exacerbations, and other COVID-related factors with the potential to skew results, Dr. Haworth also provided several sets of objective data to make his point.
Most importantly, Dr. Haworth and his coinvestigators conducted a meta-analysis that combined data from the phase 2 trial, data from PROMIS I, and data from the patients enrolled in PROMIS II prior to the COVID pandemic. In this analysis the rate ratio for annualized exacerbations was a “pretty impressive” 0.65 favoring CMS I-neb. Moreover, in contrast to data from the PROMIS II patients enrolled during the COVID pandemic, the other three sets of data were “remarkably consistent.”
If PROMIS II data collected from patients enrolled during COVID are compared with the other sets of data, they are “the clear outlier,” he asserted.
Many guidelines in Europe, including those from the European Respiratory Society and the British Thoracic Society, already recommend inhaled colistin in patients with bronchiectasis for the treatment of P. aeruginosa. Although Dr. Haworth believes that the preponderance of controlled data now argue that CMS I-neb is effective as well as safe (adverse events in the experimental and placebo arms of PROMIS I and II were similar), he is not sure what steps will be taken to confirm a benefit to regulatory authorities. According to Dr. Haworth, there are no approved inhaled antibiotics in the United States.
Referring to Zambon, which funded the trials and is developing CMS I-neb, Dr. Haworth said, “This will be a company decision. There are some logistical hurdles to doing another trial.”
Not least of these hurdles is that clinicians and patients already consider inhalational antibiotics in general and inhaled colistin specifically to be effective for several types of infections, including P. aeruginosa, according to Eva Polverino, MD, PhD, a pulmonologist associated with the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona. She said that these drugs are already a standard of care in her own country as well as in many other countries in Europe.
“There has been a loss of equipoise needed to conduct a randomized placebo-controlled trial,” Dr. Polverino said. In her opinion, the U.S. FDA “should start thinking of other pathways to approval.” She thinks that enrollment in a placebo-controlled trial is no longer appropriate.
Dr. Haworth and Dr. Polverino have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW YORK – When data were combined from two parallel phase 3 bronchiectasis treatment trials, inhaled colistimethate sodium failed to significantly reduce the rate of exacerbations associated with Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection, but the disparity in the findings from the two trials, presented at the 6th World Bronchiectasis & NTM Conference (WBC) 2023, strongly suggests that this therapy is effective after all.
“The totality of the evidence supports a consistent and clinically meaningful benefit [of this therapy] outside of pandemic conditions,” reported Charles Haworth, MD, director, Cambridge Centre for Lung Infection, Royal Papworth Hospital, Cambridge, England.
The key phrase is “outside of pandemic conditions.” PROMIS I, which was fully enrolled before the COVID-19 pandemic descended, associated the inhaled therapy with highly significant benefits. PROMIS II, which was initiated later and enrolled 40% of its participants during the pandemic, did not.
The difference between these two trials, which were essentially identical, was the timing, according to Dr. Haworth. By starting later, PROMIS II caught the onset of the pandemic, which he believes introduced numerous problems that defeated the opportunity to show an advantage for the inhaled antibiotic.
Injectable colistimethate sodium, a decades-old formulation of colistin, is already approved in the United States for gram-negative infections and is considered helpful even in challenging diseases, such as cystic fibrosis. Positive results from a phase 2 trial with inhaled colistimethate sodium in bronchiectasis patients with P. aeruginosa infection provided the rationale for the phase 3 PROMIS program.
The key entry criterion of PROMIS I and PROMIS II, each with nearly 90 participating study sites, was a history of bronchiectasis and ≥ two P. aeruginosa infections requiring oral therapy or ≥ 1 infection requiring intravenous therapy in the prior 12 months. Patients were randomly assigned to receive colistimethate sodium delivered in the proprietary I-neb nebulizer (CMS I-neb) or a matching placebo.
On the primary endpoint of annualized rate of exacerbations, the figures per year were 0.58 for CMS I-neb and 0.95 for placebo in the PROMIS I trial. This produced a rate ratio of 0.65, signaling a significant 35% (P = .00101) reduction in risk. In PROMIS II, the annualized rates of exacerbation were essentially identical in the experimental and control arms (0.089 vs. 0.088; P = .97).
With “no signal of benefit” in the PROMIS II trial, the numerical advantage of CMS I-neb for the combined data did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Haworth reported.
Other endpoints told the same story. For example, the time to first exacerbation was reduced by 41% in PROMIS I (HR, 0.59; P = .0074) but was not reduced significantly (P = .603) in PROMIS II. In PROMIS I, there was a nearly 60% reduction in the risk of severe exacerbations associated with CMS I-neb, but the risk ratio of severe infections was slightly but not significantly higher on CMS I-neb in PROMIS II.
There were signals of benefit in PROMIS II. For example, the reductions in P. aeruginosa density were similar in the two studies (P < .00001 in both), and assessment with the Severe Exacerbations and Quality of Life (SQOL) tool associated CMS I-neb with end-of-study improvement in QOL for the experimental arm in both studies.
While Dr. Haworth acknowledged that he recognizes the “issues of post hoc analysis with any data,” obscuring a benefit that would have been otherwise shown.
Besides the dramatic reduction in rates of hospitalization during the pandemic, an obstacle for showing differences in exacerbations, and other COVID-related factors with the potential to skew results, Dr. Haworth also provided several sets of objective data to make his point.
Most importantly, Dr. Haworth and his coinvestigators conducted a meta-analysis that combined data from the phase 2 trial, data from PROMIS I, and data from the patients enrolled in PROMIS II prior to the COVID pandemic. In this analysis the rate ratio for annualized exacerbations was a “pretty impressive” 0.65 favoring CMS I-neb. Moreover, in contrast to data from the PROMIS II patients enrolled during the COVID pandemic, the other three sets of data were “remarkably consistent.”
If PROMIS II data collected from patients enrolled during COVID are compared with the other sets of data, they are “the clear outlier,” he asserted.
Many guidelines in Europe, including those from the European Respiratory Society and the British Thoracic Society, already recommend inhaled colistin in patients with bronchiectasis for the treatment of P. aeruginosa. Although Dr. Haworth believes that the preponderance of controlled data now argue that CMS I-neb is effective as well as safe (adverse events in the experimental and placebo arms of PROMIS I and II were similar), he is not sure what steps will be taken to confirm a benefit to regulatory authorities. According to Dr. Haworth, there are no approved inhaled antibiotics in the United States.
Referring to Zambon, which funded the trials and is developing CMS I-neb, Dr. Haworth said, “This will be a company decision. There are some logistical hurdles to doing another trial.”
Not least of these hurdles is that clinicians and patients already consider inhalational antibiotics in general and inhaled colistin specifically to be effective for several types of infections, including P. aeruginosa, according to Eva Polverino, MD, PhD, a pulmonologist associated with the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona. She said that these drugs are already a standard of care in her own country as well as in many other countries in Europe.
“There has been a loss of equipoise needed to conduct a randomized placebo-controlled trial,” Dr. Polverino said. In her opinion, the U.S. FDA “should start thinking of other pathways to approval.” She thinks that enrollment in a placebo-controlled trial is no longer appropriate.
Dr. Haworth and Dr. Polverino have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
NEW YORK – When data were combined from two parallel phase 3 bronchiectasis treatment trials, inhaled colistimethate sodium failed to significantly reduce the rate of exacerbations associated with Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection, but the disparity in the findings from the two trials, presented at the 6th World Bronchiectasis & NTM Conference (WBC) 2023, strongly suggests that this therapy is effective after all.
“The totality of the evidence supports a consistent and clinically meaningful benefit [of this therapy] outside of pandemic conditions,” reported Charles Haworth, MD, director, Cambridge Centre for Lung Infection, Royal Papworth Hospital, Cambridge, England.
The key phrase is “outside of pandemic conditions.” PROMIS I, which was fully enrolled before the COVID-19 pandemic descended, associated the inhaled therapy with highly significant benefits. PROMIS II, which was initiated later and enrolled 40% of its participants during the pandemic, did not.
The difference between these two trials, which were essentially identical, was the timing, according to Dr. Haworth. By starting later, PROMIS II caught the onset of the pandemic, which he believes introduced numerous problems that defeated the opportunity to show an advantage for the inhaled antibiotic.
Injectable colistimethate sodium, a decades-old formulation of colistin, is already approved in the United States for gram-negative infections and is considered helpful even in challenging diseases, such as cystic fibrosis. Positive results from a phase 2 trial with inhaled colistimethate sodium in bronchiectasis patients with P. aeruginosa infection provided the rationale for the phase 3 PROMIS program.
The key entry criterion of PROMIS I and PROMIS II, each with nearly 90 participating study sites, was a history of bronchiectasis and ≥ two P. aeruginosa infections requiring oral therapy or ≥ 1 infection requiring intravenous therapy in the prior 12 months. Patients were randomly assigned to receive colistimethate sodium delivered in the proprietary I-neb nebulizer (CMS I-neb) or a matching placebo.
On the primary endpoint of annualized rate of exacerbations, the figures per year were 0.58 for CMS I-neb and 0.95 for placebo in the PROMIS I trial. This produced a rate ratio of 0.65, signaling a significant 35% (P = .00101) reduction in risk. In PROMIS II, the annualized rates of exacerbation were essentially identical in the experimental and control arms (0.089 vs. 0.088; P = .97).
With “no signal of benefit” in the PROMIS II trial, the numerical advantage of CMS I-neb for the combined data did not reach statistical significance, Dr. Haworth reported.
Other endpoints told the same story. For example, the time to first exacerbation was reduced by 41% in PROMIS I (HR, 0.59; P = .0074) but was not reduced significantly (P = .603) in PROMIS II. In PROMIS I, there was a nearly 60% reduction in the risk of severe exacerbations associated with CMS I-neb, but the risk ratio of severe infections was slightly but not significantly higher on CMS I-neb in PROMIS II.
There were signals of benefit in PROMIS II. For example, the reductions in P. aeruginosa density were similar in the two studies (P < .00001 in both), and assessment with the Severe Exacerbations and Quality of Life (SQOL) tool associated CMS I-neb with end-of-study improvement in QOL for the experimental arm in both studies.
While Dr. Haworth acknowledged that he recognizes the “issues of post hoc analysis with any data,” obscuring a benefit that would have been otherwise shown.
Besides the dramatic reduction in rates of hospitalization during the pandemic, an obstacle for showing differences in exacerbations, and other COVID-related factors with the potential to skew results, Dr. Haworth also provided several sets of objective data to make his point.
Most importantly, Dr. Haworth and his coinvestigators conducted a meta-analysis that combined data from the phase 2 trial, data from PROMIS I, and data from the patients enrolled in PROMIS II prior to the COVID pandemic. In this analysis the rate ratio for annualized exacerbations was a “pretty impressive” 0.65 favoring CMS I-neb. Moreover, in contrast to data from the PROMIS II patients enrolled during the COVID pandemic, the other three sets of data were “remarkably consistent.”
If PROMIS II data collected from patients enrolled during COVID are compared with the other sets of data, they are “the clear outlier,” he asserted.
Many guidelines in Europe, including those from the European Respiratory Society and the British Thoracic Society, already recommend inhaled colistin in patients with bronchiectasis for the treatment of P. aeruginosa. Although Dr. Haworth believes that the preponderance of controlled data now argue that CMS I-neb is effective as well as safe (adverse events in the experimental and placebo arms of PROMIS I and II were similar), he is not sure what steps will be taken to confirm a benefit to regulatory authorities. According to Dr. Haworth, there are no approved inhaled antibiotics in the United States.
Referring to Zambon, which funded the trials and is developing CMS I-neb, Dr. Haworth said, “This will be a company decision. There are some logistical hurdles to doing another trial.”
Not least of these hurdles is that clinicians and patients already consider inhalational antibiotics in general and inhaled colistin specifically to be effective for several types of infections, including P. aeruginosa, according to Eva Polverino, MD, PhD, a pulmonologist associated with the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona. She said that these drugs are already a standard of care in her own country as well as in many other countries in Europe.
“There has been a loss of equipoise needed to conduct a randomized placebo-controlled trial,” Dr. Polverino said. In her opinion, the U.S. FDA “should start thinking of other pathways to approval.” She thinks that enrollment in a placebo-controlled trial is no longer appropriate.
Dr. Haworth and Dr. Polverino have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM WBC 2023
Case series supports targeted drugs in treatment of alopecia in children with AD
in children with AA and concomitant atopy.
It was only a little over a year ago that the JAK inhibitor baricitinib became the first systemic therapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration for AA in adults. In June 2023, the JAK inhibitor ritlecitinib was approved for severe AA in patients as young as 12 years of age, but there is accumulating evidence that dupilumab, which binds to the interleukin-4 receptor, might be an option for even younger children with AA.
Of those who have worked with dupilumab for controlling AA in children, Brittany Craiglow, MD, an adjunct associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., updated a case series at the recent MedscapeLive! Annual Women’s and Pediatric Dermatology Seminar in Baltimore. A series of six children with AA treated with dupilumab was published 2 years ago in JAAD Case Reports.
Even in 2021, her case series was not the first report of benefit from dupilumab in children with AA, but instead contributed to a “growing body of literature” supporting the potential benefit in the setting of concomitant atopy, Dr. Craiglow, one of the authors of the series, said in an interview.
Of the six patients in that series, five had improvement and four had complete regrowth with dupilumab, whether as a monotherapy or in combination with other agents. The children ranged in age from 7 to 12 years. The age range at the time of AA onset was 3-11 years. All had atopic dermatitis (AD) and most had additional atopic conditions, such as food allergies or asthma.
Since publication, Dr. Craiglow has successfully treated many more patients with dupilumab, either as monotherapy or in combination with oral minoxidil, corticosteroids, and/or a topical JAK inhibitor. Dupilumab, which is approved for the treatment of AD in children as young as 6 months of age, has been well tolerated.
“Oral minoxidil is often a great adjuvant treatment in patients with AA and should be used unless there are contraindications,” based on the initial and subsequent experience treating AA with dupilumab, said Dr. Craiglow.
“Topical steroids can be used in combination with dupilumab and minoxidil, but in general dupilumab should not be combined with an oral JAK inhibitor,” she added.
Now, with the approval of ritlecitinib, Dr. Craiglow said this JAK inhibitor will become a first-line therapy in children 12 years or older with severe, persistent AA, but she considers a trial of dupilumab reasonable in younger children, given the controlled studies of safety for atopic diseases.
“I would say that dupilumab could be considered in the following clinical scenarios: children under 12 with AA and concomitant atopy, such as atopic dermatitis, asthma, allergies, and/or elevated IgE; and children over the age of 12 with concomitant atopy who either have a contraindication to a JAK inhibitor or whose families have reservations about or are unwilling to take one,” Dr. Craiglow said.
In older children, she believes that dupilumab has “a much lower chance of being effective” than an oral JAK inhibitor like ritlecitinib, but it circumvents the potential safety issues of JAK inhibitors that have been observed in adults.
With ritlecitinib providing an on-label option for AA in older children, Dr. Craiglow suggested it might be easier to obtain third-party coverage for dupilumab as an alternative to a JAK inhibitor for AA in patients younger than 12, particularly when there is an indication for a concomitant atopic condition and a rationale, such as a concern about relative safety.
Two years ago, when Dr. Craiglow and her coinvestigator published their six-patient case series, a second case series was published about the same time by investigators at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. This series of 16 pediatric patients with AA on dupilumab was more heterogeneous, but four of six patients with active disease and more than 4 months of follow-up had improvement in AA, including total regrowth. The improvement was concentrated in patients with moderate to severe AD at the time of treatment.
Based on this series, the authors, led by Leslie Castelo-Soccio, MD, PhD, who is now an attending physician in the Dermatology Branch of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Bethesda, Md., concluded that dupilumab “may be a therapeutic option for AA” when traditional therapies have failed, “especially in patients with concurrent AD or asthma, for which the benefits of dupilumab are clear.”
When contacted about where this therapy might fit on the basis of her case series and the update on Dr. Craiglow’s experience, Dr. Castelo-Soccio, like Dr. Craiglow, stressed the importance of employing this therapy selectively.
“I do think that dupilumab is a reasonable option for AA in children with atopy and IgE levels greater than 200 IU/mL, especially if treatment is for atopic dermatitis or asthma as well,” she said.
Many clinicians, including Dr. Craiglow, have experience with oral JAK inhibitors in children younger than 12. Indeed, a recently published case study associated oral abrocitinib, a JAK inhibitor approved for moderate to severe AD in patients ages 12 and older, with hair regrowth in an 11-year-old child who had persistent AA for more than 6 years despite numerous conventional therapies.
However, the advantage of dupilumab in younger children is the greater evidence of safety, providing a level of reassurance for a treatment that is commonly used for severe atopic diseases but does not have a specific indication for AA, according to Dr. Craiglow.
Dr. Craiglow disclosed being a speaker for AbbVie and a speaker and consultant for Eli Lilly, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Castelo-Soccio had no disclosures.
in children with AA and concomitant atopy.
It was only a little over a year ago that the JAK inhibitor baricitinib became the first systemic therapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration for AA in adults. In June 2023, the JAK inhibitor ritlecitinib was approved for severe AA in patients as young as 12 years of age, but there is accumulating evidence that dupilumab, which binds to the interleukin-4 receptor, might be an option for even younger children with AA.
Of those who have worked with dupilumab for controlling AA in children, Brittany Craiglow, MD, an adjunct associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., updated a case series at the recent MedscapeLive! Annual Women’s and Pediatric Dermatology Seminar in Baltimore. A series of six children with AA treated with dupilumab was published 2 years ago in JAAD Case Reports.
Even in 2021, her case series was not the first report of benefit from dupilumab in children with AA, but instead contributed to a “growing body of literature” supporting the potential benefit in the setting of concomitant atopy, Dr. Craiglow, one of the authors of the series, said in an interview.
Of the six patients in that series, five had improvement and four had complete regrowth with dupilumab, whether as a monotherapy or in combination with other agents. The children ranged in age from 7 to 12 years. The age range at the time of AA onset was 3-11 years. All had atopic dermatitis (AD) and most had additional atopic conditions, such as food allergies or asthma.
Since publication, Dr. Craiglow has successfully treated many more patients with dupilumab, either as monotherapy or in combination with oral minoxidil, corticosteroids, and/or a topical JAK inhibitor. Dupilumab, which is approved for the treatment of AD in children as young as 6 months of age, has been well tolerated.
“Oral minoxidil is often a great adjuvant treatment in patients with AA and should be used unless there are contraindications,” based on the initial and subsequent experience treating AA with dupilumab, said Dr. Craiglow.
“Topical steroids can be used in combination with dupilumab and minoxidil, but in general dupilumab should not be combined with an oral JAK inhibitor,” she added.
Now, with the approval of ritlecitinib, Dr. Craiglow said this JAK inhibitor will become a first-line therapy in children 12 years or older with severe, persistent AA, but she considers a trial of dupilumab reasonable in younger children, given the controlled studies of safety for atopic diseases.
“I would say that dupilumab could be considered in the following clinical scenarios: children under 12 with AA and concomitant atopy, such as atopic dermatitis, asthma, allergies, and/or elevated IgE; and children over the age of 12 with concomitant atopy who either have a contraindication to a JAK inhibitor or whose families have reservations about or are unwilling to take one,” Dr. Craiglow said.
In older children, she believes that dupilumab has “a much lower chance of being effective” than an oral JAK inhibitor like ritlecitinib, but it circumvents the potential safety issues of JAK inhibitors that have been observed in adults.
With ritlecitinib providing an on-label option for AA in older children, Dr. Craiglow suggested it might be easier to obtain third-party coverage for dupilumab as an alternative to a JAK inhibitor for AA in patients younger than 12, particularly when there is an indication for a concomitant atopic condition and a rationale, such as a concern about relative safety.
Two years ago, when Dr. Craiglow and her coinvestigator published their six-patient case series, a second case series was published about the same time by investigators at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. This series of 16 pediatric patients with AA on dupilumab was more heterogeneous, but four of six patients with active disease and more than 4 months of follow-up had improvement in AA, including total regrowth. The improvement was concentrated in patients with moderate to severe AD at the time of treatment.
Based on this series, the authors, led by Leslie Castelo-Soccio, MD, PhD, who is now an attending physician in the Dermatology Branch of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Bethesda, Md., concluded that dupilumab “may be a therapeutic option for AA” when traditional therapies have failed, “especially in patients with concurrent AD or asthma, for which the benefits of dupilumab are clear.”
When contacted about where this therapy might fit on the basis of her case series and the update on Dr. Craiglow’s experience, Dr. Castelo-Soccio, like Dr. Craiglow, stressed the importance of employing this therapy selectively.
“I do think that dupilumab is a reasonable option for AA in children with atopy and IgE levels greater than 200 IU/mL, especially if treatment is for atopic dermatitis or asthma as well,” she said.
Many clinicians, including Dr. Craiglow, have experience with oral JAK inhibitors in children younger than 12. Indeed, a recently published case study associated oral abrocitinib, a JAK inhibitor approved for moderate to severe AD in patients ages 12 and older, with hair regrowth in an 11-year-old child who had persistent AA for more than 6 years despite numerous conventional therapies.
However, the advantage of dupilumab in younger children is the greater evidence of safety, providing a level of reassurance for a treatment that is commonly used for severe atopic diseases but does not have a specific indication for AA, according to Dr. Craiglow.
Dr. Craiglow disclosed being a speaker for AbbVie and a speaker and consultant for Eli Lilly, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Castelo-Soccio had no disclosures.
in children with AA and concomitant atopy.
It was only a little over a year ago that the JAK inhibitor baricitinib became the first systemic therapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration for AA in adults. In June 2023, the JAK inhibitor ritlecitinib was approved for severe AA in patients as young as 12 years of age, but there is accumulating evidence that dupilumab, which binds to the interleukin-4 receptor, might be an option for even younger children with AA.
Of those who have worked with dupilumab for controlling AA in children, Brittany Craiglow, MD, an adjunct associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., updated a case series at the recent MedscapeLive! Annual Women’s and Pediatric Dermatology Seminar in Baltimore. A series of six children with AA treated with dupilumab was published 2 years ago in JAAD Case Reports.
Even in 2021, her case series was not the first report of benefit from dupilumab in children with AA, but instead contributed to a “growing body of literature” supporting the potential benefit in the setting of concomitant atopy, Dr. Craiglow, one of the authors of the series, said in an interview.
Of the six patients in that series, five had improvement and four had complete regrowth with dupilumab, whether as a monotherapy or in combination with other agents. The children ranged in age from 7 to 12 years. The age range at the time of AA onset was 3-11 years. All had atopic dermatitis (AD) and most had additional atopic conditions, such as food allergies or asthma.
Since publication, Dr. Craiglow has successfully treated many more patients with dupilumab, either as monotherapy or in combination with oral minoxidil, corticosteroids, and/or a topical JAK inhibitor. Dupilumab, which is approved for the treatment of AD in children as young as 6 months of age, has been well tolerated.
“Oral minoxidil is often a great adjuvant treatment in patients with AA and should be used unless there are contraindications,” based on the initial and subsequent experience treating AA with dupilumab, said Dr. Craiglow.
“Topical steroids can be used in combination with dupilumab and minoxidil, but in general dupilumab should not be combined with an oral JAK inhibitor,” she added.
Now, with the approval of ritlecitinib, Dr. Craiglow said this JAK inhibitor will become a first-line therapy in children 12 years or older with severe, persistent AA, but she considers a trial of dupilumab reasonable in younger children, given the controlled studies of safety for atopic diseases.
“I would say that dupilumab could be considered in the following clinical scenarios: children under 12 with AA and concomitant atopy, such as atopic dermatitis, asthma, allergies, and/or elevated IgE; and children over the age of 12 with concomitant atopy who either have a contraindication to a JAK inhibitor or whose families have reservations about or are unwilling to take one,” Dr. Craiglow said.
In older children, she believes that dupilumab has “a much lower chance of being effective” than an oral JAK inhibitor like ritlecitinib, but it circumvents the potential safety issues of JAK inhibitors that have been observed in adults.
With ritlecitinib providing an on-label option for AA in older children, Dr. Craiglow suggested it might be easier to obtain third-party coverage for dupilumab as an alternative to a JAK inhibitor for AA in patients younger than 12, particularly when there is an indication for a concomitant atopic condition and a rationale, such as a concern about relative safety.
Two years ago, when Dr. Craiglow and her coinvestigator published their six-patient case series, a second case series was published about the same time by investigators at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. This series of 16 pediatric patients with AA on dupilumab was more heterogeneous, but four of six patients with active disease and more than 4 months of follow-up had improvement in AA, including total regrowth. The improvement was concentrated in patients with moderate to severe AD at the time of treatment.
Based on this series, the authors, led by Leslie Castelo-Soccio, MD, PhD, who is now an attending physician in the Dermatology Branch of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Bethesda, Md., concluded that dupilumab “may be a therapeutic option for AA” when traditional therapies have failed, “especially in patients with concurrent AD or asthma, for which the benefits of dupilumab are clear.”
When contacted about where this therapy might fit on the basis of her case series and the update on Dr. Craiglow’s experience, Dr. Castelo-Soccio, like Dr. Craiglow, stressed the importance of employing this therapy selectively.
“I do think that dupilumab is a reasonable option for AA in children with atopy and IgE levels greater than 200 IU/mL, especially if treatment is for atopic dermatitis or asthma as well,” she said.
Many clinicians, including Dr. Craiglow, have experience with oral JAK inhibitors in children younger than 12. Indeed, a recently published case study associated oral abrocitinib, a JAK inhibitor approved for moderate to severe AD in patients ages 12 and older, with hair regrowth in an 11-year-old child who had persistent AA for more than 6 years despite numerous conventional therapies.
However, the advantage of dupilumab in younger children is the greater evidence of safety, providing a level of reassurance for a treatment that is commonly used for severe atopic diseases but does not have a specific indication for AA, according to Dr. Craiglow.
Dr. Craiglow disclosed being a speaker for AbbVie and a speaker and consultant for Eli Lilly, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Castelo-Soccio had no disclosures.
Progress seen on five fronts for substantially improving treatment of epidermolysis bullosa
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – , according to a prominent EB researcher.
Not only are recent developments in EB “exciting,” the progress on multiple fronts for control of disease or its symptoms suggests “we are on the cusp of a new era,” Jemima Mellerio, BSc, MD, a consultant dermatologist, St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, London, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.
Published clinical studies of cell therapies and gene therapies date back at least 15 years, according to a review by Dr. Mellerio on why developments are starting to move so quickly. The difference now is that many obstacles to routine use of these options are being resolved so that viable strategies have reached or are reaching phase 3 trials.
In addition to cell therapies and gene therapies, Dr. Mellerio discussed progress in three additional areas: gene editing, protein therapy, and drug repurposing.
Summarizing progress in each, she described improvement in levels of collagen VII, an important deficit in most types of EB, that were achieved with fibroblast injections that improved levels of collagen VII and anchoring fibrils in a study published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. Injection of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) have been associated with reduced pain and itch in a series of studies, one of the earliest of which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Since that time, there have been several approaches using MSC.
Of these approaches, intravenous injection of ABCB5+ MSCs might be the first to gain regulatory approval. According to Dr. Mellerio, there is an ongoing phase 3 crossover trial evaluating this approach, which followed several earlier phase studies that demonstrated adequate safety and tolerability while reducing severity scores, relieving pain and itch, and improving wound closure in patients with EB.
In 2006, correction of junctional EB (JEB) was achieved by transplantation of genetically modified epidermal cells to replace the LAMB3 gene, thereby restoring production of laminin 332, which is an essential component of the dermal-epidermal junction, according to Dr. Mellerio, citing a study in Nature Medicine.
The next attempt with this approach did not take place until 2015, resurrected to save the life of a 7-year-old Syrian boy – to generate epidermal sheets that eventually covered 80% of his body. The success is supporting further work on this approach but has also been an inspiration to other gene therapies, including a topical gene therapy recently approved in the United States.
Topically applied beremagene geperpavec (Vyjuvek, formerly known as B-VEC) was approved by the FDA in May for treating wounds in patients 6 months of age and older, with recessive or dominant dystrophic EB, on the basis of a phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, but others are coming. Dr. Mellerio also described a recently completed phase 3 trial with introduction of ex vivo gene-corrected keratinocytes, which has been associated with long-term improvements among patients with recessive dystrophic EB (RDEB). The responses in early phase studies included wound healing and reduction in pain and itch.
Perhaps less advanced but still promising, protein therapy, gene editing, and repurposing of existing therapies are all approaches that are moving forward. Many are supported by at least some clinical data, according to Dr. Mellerio.
As an example of protein therapy, a completed phase I/II trial associated recombinant human collagen with wound healing and pain reduction in RDEB. This study provided proof of principle for a therapy that could be applied topically or intravenously. Further development is anticipated.
Multiple platforms for gene editing have been described with the goal of simply excising pathogenic mutations or antisense oligonucleotides for sustained or permanent control of EB expression. Clinical evidence is limited, but Dr. Mellerio suggested that the theoretical potential for eliminating the source of abnormal transcription is the restoration of functional proteins essential for reversing skin fragility.
In some cases, existing drugs have the same potential. Dr. Mellerio described efforts to use an aminoglycoside to circumvent nonsense mutations that produce messenger RNA decay and impaired production of the proteins that prevent EB. In a pilot study evaluating topical gentamicin in RDEB, there were substantial improvements at 1 month and 3 months in several measures of skin fragility and encouraged studies that are now ongoing in both RDEB and JEB.
More than promising, a multinational randomized phase 3 study with birch bark extract recently published in the British Journal of Dermatology, associated treatment with this topical gel, known as Oleogel-S10, with higher rates of complete wound closure at 45 days (41.3% vs. 28.9% in the control vehicle arm) and a low risk of adverse events.
“This therapy is now approved in Europe and the United Kingdom, although, unfortunately, it is not yet available in the United States,” Dr. Mellerio noted.
Importantly, none of these therapies are necessarily effective across subtypes of EB, which often have different underlying pathogenic mechanisms, she said. However, the growing sophistication with which the pathophysiology of these subtypes is understood makes the numerous treatments in the pipeline “exciting.”
“We are at a point where we can really start to think of personalized medicine in EB,” Dr. Mellerio said. With the clinical advances already available and those expected, she suggested the recently approved treatment options are just the beginning. She expects the treatment landscape to evolve quickly over the next few years.
This does not appear to be a personal opinion. Another prominent researcher in EB, M. Peter Marinkovich, MD, director of the Stanford Bullous Disease and Psoriasis Clinics at Stanford (Calif.) University, is seeing the same real-world promise of therapies that have been in gestation for a decade or more.
“Dr. Mellerio is right. This is an exciting time for EB patients,” Dr. Marinkovich said in an interview. While the approval of B-VEC, the first gene therapy for EB, is the proof, Dr. Marinkovich, the lead author of the NEJM paper on B-VEC, noted that “many other potential EB therapies are being studied right now.” Based on promise in earlier clinical studies with many of these agents, he, like Dr. Mellerio, expects progress in real-world treatments for EB to accelerate.
Dr. Mellerio reported financial relationships with Amryt Pharma and Krystal Biotech. Dr. Marinkovich receives research support from Abeona Therapeutics, Castle Creek Pharmaceuticals, Krystal Biotech, Phoenix Tissue Repair, and WINGS Therapeutics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – , according to a prominent EB researcher.
Not only are recent developments in EB “exciting,” the progress on multiple fronts for control of disease or its symptoms suggests “we are on the cusp of a new era,” Jemima Mellerio, BSc, MD, a consultant dermatologist, St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, London, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.
Published clinical studies of cell therapies and gene therapies date back at least 15 years, according to a review by Dr. Mellerio on why developments are starting to move so quickly. The difference now is that many obstacles to routine use of these options are being resolved so that viable strategies have reached or are reaching phase 3 trials.
In addition to cell therapies and gene therapies, Dr. Mellerio discussed progress in three additional areas: gene editing, protein therapy, and drug repurposing.
Summarizing progress in each, she described improvement in levels of collagen VII, an important deficit in most types of EB, that were achieved with fibroblast injections that improved levels of collagen VII and anchoring fibrils in a study published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. Injection of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) have been associated with reduced pain and itch in a series of studies, one of the earliest of which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Since that time, there have been several approaches using MSC.
Of these approaches, intravenous injection of ABCB5+ MSCs might be the first to gain regulatory approval. According to Dr. Mellerio, there is an ongoing phase 3 crossover trial evaluating this approach, which followed several earlier phase studies that demonstrated adequate safety and tolerability while reducing severity scores, relieving pain and itch, and improving wound closure in patients with EB.
In 2006, correction of junctional EB (JEB) was achieved by transplantation of genetically modified epidermal cells to replace the LAMB3 gene, thereby restoring production of laminin 332, which is an essential component of the dermal-epidermal junction, according to Dr. Mellerio, citing a study in Nature Medicine.
The next attempt with this approach did not take place until 2015, resurrected to save the life of a 7-year-old Syrian boy – to generate epidermal sheets that eventually covered 80% of his body. The success is supporting further work on this approach but has also been an inspiration to other gene therapies, including a topical gene therapy recently approved in the United States.
Topically applied beremagene geperpavec (Vyjuvek, formerly known as B-VEC) was approved by the FDA in May for treating wounds in patients 6 months of age and older, with recessive or dominant dystrophic EB, on the basis of a phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, but others are coming. Dr. Mellerio also described a recently completed phase 3 trial with introduction of ex vivo gene-corrected keratinocytes, which has been associated with long-term improvements among patients with recessive dystrophic EB (RDEB). The responses in early phase studies included wound healing and reduction in pain and itch.
Perhaps less advanced but still promising, protein therapy, gene editing, and repurposing of existing therapies are all approaches that are moving forward. Many are supported by at least some clinical data, according to Dr. Mellerio.
As an example of protein therapy, a completed phase I/II trial associated recombinant human collagen with wound healing and pain reduction in RDEB. This study provided proof of principle for a therapy that could be applied topically or intravenously. Further development is anticipated.
Multiple platforms for gene editing have been described with the goal of simply excising pathogenic mutations or antisense oligonucleotides for sustained or permanent control of EB expression. Clinical evidence is limited, but Dr. Mellerio suggested that the theoretical potential for eliminating the source of abnormal transcription is the restoration of functional proteins essential for reversing skin fragility.
In some cases, existing drugs have the same potential. Dr. Mellerio described efforts to use an aminoglycoside to circumvent nonsense mutations that produce messenger RNA decay and impaired production of the proteins that prevent EB. In a pilot study evaluating topical gentamicin in RDEB, there were substantial improvements at 1 month and 3 months in several measures of skin fragility and encouraged studies that are now ongoing in both RDEB and JEB.
More than promising, a multinational randomized phase 3 study with birch bark extract recently published in the British Journal of Dermatology, associated treatment with this topical gel, known as Oleogel-S10, with higher rates of complete wound closure at 45 days (41.3% vs. 28.9% in the control vehicle arm) and a low risk of adverse events.
“This therapy is now approved in Europe and the United Kingdom, although, unfortunately, it is not yet available in the United States,” Dr. Mellerio noted.
Importantly, none of these therapies are necessarily effective across subtypes of EB, which often have different underlying pathogenic mechanisms, she said. However, the growing sophistication with which the pathophysiology of these subtypes is understood makes the numerous treatments in the pipeline “exciting.”
“We are at a point where we can really start to think of personalized medicine in EB,” Dr. Mellerio said. With the clinical advances already available and those expected, she suggested the recently approved treatment options are just the beginning. She expects the treatment landscape to evolve quickly over the next few years.
This does not appear to be a personal opinion. Another prominent researcher in EB, M. Peter Marinkovich, MD, director of the Stanford Bullous Disease and Psoriasis Clinics at Stanford (Calif.) University, is seeing the same real-world promise of therapies that have been in gestation for a decade or more.
“Dr. Mellerio is right. This is an exciting time for EB patients,” Dr. Marinkovich said in an interview. While the approval of B-VEC, the first gene therapy for EB, is the proof, Dr. Marinkovich, the lead author of the NEJM paper on B-VEC, noted that “many other potential EB therapies are being studied right now.” Based on promise in earlier clinical studies with many of these agents, he, like Dr. Mellerio, expects progress in real-world treatments for EB to accelerate.
Dr. Mellerio reported financial relationships with Amryt Pharma and Krystal Biotech. Dr. Marinkovich receives research support from Abeona Therapeutics, Castle Creek Pharmaceuticals, Krystal Biotech, Phoenix Tissue Repair, and WINGS Therapeutics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – , according to a prominent EB researcher.
Not only are recent developments in EB “exciting,” the progress on multiple fronts for control of disease or its symptoms suggests “we are on the cusp of a new era,” Jemima Mellerio, BSc, MD, a consultant dermatologist, St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, London, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.
Published clinical studies of cell therapies and gene therapies date back at least 15 years, according to a review by Dr. Mellerio on why developments are starting to move so quickly. The difference now is that many obstacles to routine use of these options are being resolved so that viable strategies have reached or are reaching phase 3 trials.
In addition to cell therapies and gene therapies, Dr. Mellerio discussed progress in three additional areas: gene editing, protein therapy, and drug repurposing.
Summarizing progress in each, she described improvement in levels of collagen VII, an important deficit in most types of EB, that were achieved with fibroblast injections that improved levels of collagen VII and anchoring fibrils in a study published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. Injection of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) have been associated with reduced pain and itch in a series of studies, one of the earliest of which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Since that time, there have been several approaches using MSC.
Of these approaches, intravenous injection of ABCB5+ MSCs might be the first to gain regulatory approval. According to Dr. Mellerio, there is an ongoing phase 3 crossover trial evaluating this approach, which followed several earlier phase studies that demonstrated adequate safety and tolerability while reducing severity scores, relieving pain and itch, and improving wound closure in patients with EB.
In 2006, correction of junctional EB (JEB) was achieved by transplantation of genetically modified epidermal cells to replace the LAMB3 gene, thereby restoring production of laminin 332, which is an essential component of the dermal-epidermal junction, according to Dr. Mellerio, citing a study in Nature Medicine.
The next attempt with this approach did not take place until 2015, resurrected to save the life of a 7-year-old Syrian boy – to generate epidermal sheets that eventually covered 80% of his body. The success is supporting further work on this approach but has also been an inspiration to other gene therapies, including a topical gene therapy recently approved in the United States.
Topically applied beremagene geperpavec (Vyjuvek, formerly known as B-VEC) was approved by the FDA in May for treating wounds in patients 6 months of age and older, with recessive or dominant dystrophic EB, on the basis of a phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, but others are coming. Dr. Mellerio also described a recently completed phase 3 trial with introduction of ex vivo gene-corrected keratinocytes, which has been associated with long-term improvements among patients with recessive dystrophic EB (RDEB). The responses in early phase studies included wound healing and reduction in pain and itch.
Perhaps less advanced but still promising, protein therapy, gene editing, and repurposing of existing therapies are all approaches that are moving forward. Many are supported by at least some clinical data, according to Dr. Mellerio.
As an example of protein therapy, a completed phase I/II trial associated recombinant human collagen with wound healing and pain reduction in RDEB. This study provided proof of principle for a therapy that could be applied topically or intravenously. Further development is anticipated.
Multiple platforms for gene editing have been described with the goal of simply excising pathogenic mutations or antisense oligonucleotides for sustained or permanent control of EB expression. Clinical evidence is limited, but Dr. Mellerio suggested that the theoretical potential for eliminating the source of abnormal transcription is the restoration of functional proteins essential for reversing skin fragility.
In some cases, existing drugs have the same potential. Dr. Mellerio described efforts to use an aminoglycoside to circumvent nonsense mutations that produce messenger RNA decay and impaired production of the proteins that prevent EB. In a pilot study evaluating topical gentamicin in RDEB, there were substantial improvements at 1 month and 3 months in several measures of skin fragility and encouraged studies that are now ongoing in both RDEB and JEB.
More than promising, a multinational randomized phase 3 study with birch bark extract recently published in the British Journal of Dermatology, associated treatment with this topical gel, known as Oleogel-S10, with higher rates of complete wound closure at 45 days (41.3% vs. 28.9% in the control vehicle arm) and a low risk of adverse events.
“This therapy is now approved in Europe and the United Kingdom, although, unfortunately, it is not yet available in the United States,” Dr. Mellerio noted.
Importantly, none of these therapies are necessarily effective across subtypes of EB, which often have different underlying pathogenic mechanisms, she said. However, the growing sophistication with which the pathophysiology of these subtypes is understood makes the numerous treatments in the pipeline “exciting.”
“We are at a point where we can really start to think of personalized medicine in EB,” Dr. Mellerio said. With the clinical advances already available and those expected, she suggested the recently approved treatment options are just the beginning. She expects the treatment landscape to evolve quickly over the next few years.
This does not appear to be a personal opinion. Another prominent researcher in EB, M. Peter Marinkovich, MD, director of the Stanford Bullous Disease and Psoriasis Clinics at Stanford (Calif.) University, is seeing the same real-world promise of therapies that have been in gestation for a decade or more.
“Dr. Mellerio is right. This is an exciting time for EB patients,” Dr. Marinkovich said in an interview. While the approval of B-VEC, the first gene therapy for EB, is the proof, Dr. Marinkovich, the lead author of the NEJM paper on B-VEC, noted that “many other potential EB therapies are being studied right now.” Based on promise in earlier clinical studies with many of these agents, he, like Dr. Mellerio, expects progress in real-world treatments for EB to accelerate.
Dr. Mellerio reported financial relationships with Amryt Pharma and Krystal Biotech. Dr. Marinkovich receives research support from Abeona Therapeutics, Castle Creek Pharmaceuticals, Krystal Biotech, Phoenix Tissue Repair, and WINGS Therapeutics.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT SPD 2023
Pediatric dermatologists encouraged to counter misinformation on TikTok, other social media sites
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – , warned an expert at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.
“If we don’t get involved, we are basically letting misinformation win. We need to be there,” said Angelo Landriscina, MD, director of dermatology at a Mount Sinai Doctors Clinic in New York.
Most of the content currently available on medical topics, including dermatology and pediatric dermatology, is not created by health care professionals, Dr. Landriscina noted. Not surprisingly, given that much of the content is based on personal opinion from individuals who have no expertise in medical care, he described the information as being of “low quality” when not fully erroneous.
Dr. Landriscina has been active on social media, including TikTok, for several years. Most of his posts involve responses to misinformation. When he sets the record straight on the basis of existing evidence, he often supports his counterargument with references.
He acknowledged that when he became involved in social media he faced criticism from colleagues about participating on an entertainment platform that many considered unworthy of providing objective information. If that was ever true, he argued, it is no longer the case.
“TikTok has adopted a new strategy. The goal is to unseat Google as a search tool, and it’s working,” he said. He explained that many people now use TikTok and other social media sites as their primary source of information on essentially every topic, from where to eat to whether to be screened for cancer.
The particular problem with TikTok – one of the most popular social media outlets – is that there is no mechanism for vetting the source of information. YouTube, by contrast, now requires some sort of validation for anyone who claims to have a medical degree or any other verifiable qualification, according to Dr. Landriscina. TikTok, like many other platforms, has no such requirement.
“Anyone can buy a pair of scrubs [implying expertise] and then post a video,” Dr. Landriscina said.
Even if information from one content provider is more valid than information from others, the TikTok algorithm is specifically designed to emphasize content that has the potential for going viral, which means it favors videos that are provocative over those that are not.
“The algorithm favors any content that is more controversial, more surprising, and keeps viewers engaged,” Dr. Landriscina pointed out.
This does not mean that objective and factual information is ignored, but the algorithm is indifferent to the validity of information, meaning that it allows videos to be posted without regard to whether the content is true, untrue, purposefully misleading, or utter nonsense. For that reason, it is often easier to attract attention by responding to a post that has already gone viral. Information that is clear and digestible can attract viewers and therefore is distributed more widely with the TikTok algorithm.
Parents are on Tiktok too
There is a misperception that the TikTok audience is younger, according to Dr. Landriscina. While peak use in the United States fell among people between the ages of 25 and 34 years in 2022, he said the number of users falls off relatively slowly with subsequent 10-year increments in age. In 2022, there were nearly 20 million users in the peak 10-year age range, but 7.5 million users were 55 years of age or older.
“Pediatric dermatologists should recognize that it is not just kids who are looking for information about their skin diseases, but also their parents,” Dr. Landriscina said.
The top three dermatology topics searched on TikTok in a recent period were acne, alopecia, and cysts. But top searches are very fluid and are extremely hard to quantify, because the basis of the algorithm, which is a proprietary secret, is not only unknown but produces different results for every user.
“The second you touch the app, it changes,” Dr. Landriscina said. He explained that an inquiry about any subject, including those that are medically related, yields content that is different, or at least ordered differently, “depending on how you behaved on the app in the past.”
The phenomenon that drives social media predates this technology. Dr. Landriscina cited a study in 1956 that described the “parasocial interaction theory.” The theory was based on the observation that those who consume media, such as television, which was relatively new in 1956, believed that they had a personal relationship with media figures.
“The users begin to trust influencers as a source, like a friend providing them advice,” Dr. Landriscina said. As an example, he suggested that a fan of the television show Friends who follows actor Jennifer Aniston on social media platforms may begin to think of her as a trusted source of information on any topic, including those for which she may not have expertise.
The reason that he urges medical professionals to become active on TikTok and other social media platforms is that they have a potentially critical role in responding to information that is not just wrong but harmful.
On TikTok and other social media platforms, “there is a lot of interest in content about dermatologic conditions in children. There is a real need for accurate information,” he said,
In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, Dr. Landriscina’s message was not uniformly embraced. One risk, according to an audience member, is that medical professionals will begin to express their own personal opinions rather than rely on evidence, with the result that they will “just add to the sea of misinformation.”
However, this opinion appeared to be the minority view. Most of those who commented took a “that-ship-has-sailed” stance, recognizing the irreversible ascendancy of social media.
“Whether you like it or not, social media is here to stay. We cannot fight it. Rather, we need to embrace it in a responsible way,” said Dakara R. Wright, MD, a dermatologist at the Mid-Atlantic Kaiser Permanente Group, Halethorpe, Md. She, like others, reported that she has come to recognize that social media is a major source of medical information for her patients.
“We need to be a presence on these platforms for the benefit of our patients and their parents,” she said. She acknowledged that she has not been active in posting on social media in the past but said that she has been speaking with administrators in her organization about how to become involved in a responsible way that can be useful to patients.
Candrice R. Heath, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, has been active on social media for several years, posting content on her own account, which is not related to her academic affiliation. She posts for many reasons, not least of which is drawing attention to her expertise.
Like Dr. Landriscina, she recognizes that users of these platforms are guided by the content to make decisions about health care. She also agreed that physicians should not ignore this phenomenon.
Tips on providing content
Given the fact that the algorithm is intended to produce posts that go viral, Dr. Landriscina urged clinicians to make their content easy to watch. He said it is not necessary to overthink content beyond providing accurate information, but he advised that videos be made with attention to adequate lighting and other simple factors to promote visual quality. He said that accurate information is not necessarily dull.
“Some facts can actually be surprising to patients,” he said. He noted that a calm, coherent video can be particularly effective in attracting an audience when it is in reaction to information that has gone viral but is misleading or patently incorrect.
Dr. Landriscina has been an influencer associated with multiple social media platforms, including TikTok. He has in the past been paid for consulting work for TikTok. Dr. Wright and Dr. Heath reported no potential conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – , warned an expert at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.
“If we don’t get involved, we are basically letting misinformation win. We need to be there,” said Angelo Landriscina, MD, director of dermatology at a Mount Sinai Doctors Clinic in New York.
Most of the content currently available on medical topics, including dermatology and pediatric dermatology, is not created by health care professionals, Dr. Landriscina noted. Not surprisingly, given that much of the content is based on personal opinion from individuals who have no expertise in medical care, he described the information as being of “low quality” when not fully erroneous.
Dr. Landriscina has been active on social media, including TikTok, for several years. Most of his posts involve responses to misinformation. When he sets the record straight on the basis of existing evidence, he often supports his counterargument with references.
He acknowledged that when he became involved in social media he faced criticism from colleagues about participating on an entertainment platform that many considered unworthy of providing objective information. If that was ever true, he argued, it is no longer the case.
“TikTok has adopted a new strategy. The goal is to unseat Google as a search tool, and it’s working,” he said. He explained that many people now use TikTok and other social media sites as their primary source of information on essentially every topic, from where to eat to whether to be screened for cancer.
The particular problem with TikTok – one of the most popular social media outlets – is that there is no mechanism for vetting the source of information. YouTube, by contrast, now requires some sort of validation for anyone who claims to have a medical degree or any other verifiable qualification, according to Dr. Landriscina. TikTok, like many other platforms, has no such requirement.
“Anyone can buy a pair of scrubs [implying expertise] and then post a video,” Dr. Landriscina said.
Even if information from one content provider is more valid than information from others, the TikTok algorithm is specifically designed to emphasize content that has the potential for going viral, which means it favors videos that are provocative over those that are not.
“The algorithm favors any content that is more controversial, more surprising, and keeps viewers engaged,” Dr. Landriscina pointed out.
This does not mean that objective and factual information is ignored, but the algorithm is indifferent to the validity of information, meaning that it allows videos to be posted without regard to whether the content is true, untrue, purposefully misleading, or utter nonsense. For that reason, it is often easier to attract attention by responding to a post that has already gone viral. Information that is clear and digestible can attract viewers and therefore is distributed more widely with the TikTok algorithm.
Parents are on Tiktok too
There is a misperception that the TikTok audience is younger, according to Dr. Landriscina. While peak use in the United States fell among people between the ages of 25 and 34 years in 2022, he said the number of users falls off relatively slowly with subsequent 10-year increments in age. In 2022, there were nearly 20 million users in the peak 10-year age range, but 7.5 million users were 55 years of age or older.
“Pediatric dermatologists should recognize that it is not just kids who are looking for information about their skin diseases, but also their parents,” Dr. Landriscina said.
The top three dermatology topics searched on TikTok in a recent period were acne, alopecia, and cysts. But top searches are very fluid and are extremely hard to quantify, because the basis of the algorithm, which is a proprietary secret, is not only unknown but produces different results for every user.
“The second you touch the app, it changes,” Dr. Landriscina said. He explained that an inquiry about any subject, including those that are medically related, yields content that is different, or at least ordered differently, “depending on how you behaved on the app in the past.”
The phenomenon that drives social media predates this technology. Dr. Landriscina cited a study in 1956 that described the “parasocial interaction theory.” The theory was based on the observation that those who consume media, such as television, which was relatively new in 1956, believed that they had a personal relationship with media figures.
“The users begin to trust influencers as a source, like a friend providing them advice,” Dr. Landriscina said. As an example, he suggested that a fan of the television show Friends who follows actor Jennifer Aniston on social media platforms may begin to think of her as a trusted source of information on any topic, including those for which she may not have expertise.
The reason that he urges medical professionals to become active on TikTok and other social media platforms is that they have a potentially critical role in responding to information that is not just wrong but harmful.
On TikTok and other social media platforms, “there is a lot of interest in content about dermatologic conditions in children. There is a real need for accurate information,” he said,
In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, Dr. Landriscina’s message was not uniformly embraced. One risk, according to an audience member, is that medical professionals will begin to express their own personal opinions rather than rely on evidence, with the result that they will “just add to the sea of misinformation.”
However, this opinion appeared to be the minority view. Most of those who commented took a “that-ship-has-sailed” stance, recognizing the irreversible ascendancy of social media.
“Whether you like it or not, social media is here to stay. We cannot fight it. Rather, we need to embrace it in a responsible way,” said Dakara R. Wright, MD, a dermatologist at the Mid-Atlantic Kaiser Permanente Group, Halethorpe, Md. She, like others, reported that she has come to recognize that social media is a major source of medical information for her patients.
“We need to be a presence on these platforms for the benefit of our patients and their parents,” she said. She acknowledged that she has not been active in posting on social media in the past but said that she has been speaking with administrators in her organization about how to become involved in a responsible way that can be useful to patients.
Candrice R. Heath, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, has been active on social media for several years, posting content on her own account, which is not related to her academic affiliation. She posts for many reasons, not least of which is drawing attention to her expertise.
Like Dr. Landriscina, she recognizes that users of these platforms are guided by the content to make decisions about health care. She also agreed that physicians should not ignore this phenomenon.
Tips on providing content
Given the fact that the algorithm is intended to produce posts that go viral, Dr. Landriscina urged clinicians to make their content easy to watch. He said it is not necessary to overthink content beyond providing accurate information, but he advised that videos be made with attention to adequate lighting and other simple factors to promote visual quality. He said that accurate information is not necessarily dull.
“Some facts can actually be surprising to patients,” he said. He noted that a calm, coherent video can be particularly effective in attracting an audience when it is in reaction to information that has gone viral but is misleading or patently incorrect.
Dr. Landriscina has been an influencer associated with multiple social media platforms, including TikTok. He has in the past been paid for consulting work for TikTok. Dr. Wright and Dr. Heath reported no potential conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – , warned an expert at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.
“If we don’t get involved, we are basically letting misinformation win. We need to be there,” said Angelo Landriscina, MD, director of dermatology at a Mount Sinai Doctors Clinic in New York.
Most of the content currently available on medical topics, including dermatology and pediatric dermatology, is not created by health care professionals, Dr. Landriscina noted. Not surprisingly, given that much of the content is based on personal opinion from individuals who have no expertise in medical care, he described the information as being of “low quality” when not fully erroneous.
Dr. Landriscina has been active on social media, including TikTok, for several years. Most of his posts involve responses to misinformation. When he sets the record straight on the basis of existing evidence, he often supports his counterargument with references.
He acknowledged that when he became involved in social media he faced criticism from colleagues about participating on an entertainment platform that many considered unworthy of providing objective information. If that was ever true, he argued, it is no longer the case.
“TikTok has adopted a new strategy. The goal is to unseat Google as a search tool, and it’s working,” he said. He explained that many people now use TikTok and other social media sites as their primary source of information on essentially every topic, from where to eat to whether to be screened for cancer.
The particular problem with TikTok – one of the most popular social media outlets – is that there is no mechanism for vetting the source of information. YouTube, by contrast, now requires some sort of validation for anyone who claims to have a medical degree or any other verifiable qualification, according to Dr. Landriscina. TikTok, like many other platforms, has no such requirement.
“Anyone can buy a pair of scrubs [implying expertise] and then post a video,” Dr. Landriscina said.
Even if information from one content provider is more valid than information from others, the TikTok algorithm is specifically designed to emphasize content that has the potential for going viral, which means it favors videos that are provocative over those that are not.
“The algorithm favors any content that is more controversial, more surprising, and keeps viewers engaged,” Dr. Landriscina pointed out.
This does not mean that objective and factual information is ignored, but the algorithm is indifferent to the validity of information, meaning that it allows videos to be posted without regard to whether the content is true, untrue, purposefully misleading, or utter nonsense. For that reason, it is often easier to attract attention by responding to a post that has already gone viral. Information that is clear and digestible can attract viewers and therefore is distributed more widely with the TikTok algorithm.
Parents are on Tiktok too
There is a misperception that the TikTok audience is younger, according to Dr. Landriscina. While peak use in the United States fell among people between the ages of 25 and 34 years in 2022, he said the number of users falls off relatively slowly with subsequent 10-year increments in age. In 2022, there were nearly 20 million users in the peak 10-year age range, but 7.5 million users were 55 years of age or older.
“Pediatric dermatologists should recognize that it is not just kids who are looking for information about their skin diseases, but also their parents,” Dr. Landriscina said.
The top three dermatology topics searched on TikTok in a recent period were acne, alopecia, and cysts. But top searches are very fluid and are extremely hard to quantify, because the basis of the algorithm, which is a proprietary secret, is not only unknown but produces different results for every user.
“The second you touch the app, it changes,” Dr. Landriscina said. He explained that an inquiry about any subject, including those that are medically related, yields content that is different, or at least ordered differently, “depending on how you behaved on the app in the past.”
The phenomenon that drives social media predates this technology. Dr. Landriscina cited a study in 1956 that described the “parasocial interaction theory.” The theory was based on the observation that those who consume media, such as television, which was relatively new in 1956, believed that they had a personal relationship with media figures.
“The users begin to trust influencers as a source, like a friend providing them advice,” Dr. Landriscina said. As an example, he suggested that a fan of the television show Friends who follows actor Jennifer Aniston on social media platforms may begin to think of her as a trusted source of information on any topic, including those for which she may not have expertise.
The reason that he urges medical professionals to become active on TikTok and other social media platforms is that they have a potentially critical role in responding to information that is not just wrong but harmful.
On TikTok and other social media platforms, “there is a lot of interest in content about dermatologic conditions in children. There is a real need for accurate information,” he said,
In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, Dr. Landriscina’s message was not uniformly embraced. One risk, according to an audience member, is that medical professionals will begin to express their own personal opinions rather than rely on evidence, with the result that they will “just add to the sea of misinformation.”
However, this opinion appeared to be the minority view. Most of those who commented took a “that-ship-has-sailed” stance, recognizing the irreversible ascendancy of social media.
“Whether you like it or not, social media is here to stay. We cannot fight it. Rather, we need to embrace it in a responsible way,” said Dakara R. Wright, MD, a dermatologist at the Mid-Atlantic Kaiser Permanente Group, Halethorpe, Md. She, like others, reported that she has come to recognize that social media is a major source of medical information for her patients.
“We need to be a presence on these platforms for the benefit of our patients and their parents,” she said. She acknowledged that she has not been active in posting on social media in the past but said that she has been speaking with administrators in her organization about how to become involved in a responsible way that can be useful to patients.
Candrice R. Heath, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, has been active on social media for several years, posting content on her own account, which is not related to her academic affiliation. She posts for many reasons, not least of which is drawing attention to her expertise.
Like Dr. Landriscina, she recognizes that users of these platforms are guided by the content to make decisions about health care. She also agreed that physicians should not ignore this phenomenon.
Tips on providing content
Given the fact that the algorithm is intended to produce posts that go viral, Dr. Landriscina urged clinicians to make their content easy to watch. He said it is not necessary to overthink content beyond providing accurate information, but he advised that videos be made with attention to adequate lighting and other simple factors to promote visual quality. He said that accurate information is not necessarily dull.
“Some facts can actually be surprising to patients,” he said. He noted that a calm, coherent video can be particularly effective in attracting an audience when it is in reaction to information that has gone viral but is misleading or patently incorrect.
Dr. Landriscina has been an influencer associated with multiple social media platforms, including TikTok. He has in the past been paid for consulting work for TikTok. Dr. Wright and Dr. Heath reported no potential conflicts of interest.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT SPD 2023
When treating AD in children, experts consider adherence, other aspects of treatment
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – according to a three-member expert panel mulling over strategies at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.
In introductory remarks, the three panelists briefly addressed different aspects for controlling AD, including drugs in the pipeline, the potential value of alternative therapies, and whom to blame when compliance is poor.
But panel discussion following these presentations provided an opportunity for audience engagement on practical strategies for improving AD control.
In her formal remarks prior to the panel discussion, Amy S. Paller, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and chair of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, and a pediatric dermatologist at the Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, described emerging AD treatments. This included an update on the status of the interleukin-13 (IL-13) inhibitors tralokinumab (Adbry), which was approved by the FDA for treating AD in adults in December 2021, and lebrikizumab, which is thought likely to be soon approved in the United States on the basis of two recently published phase 3 trials.
Along with dupilumab (Dupixent) for moderate-to-severe AD in children who do not respond to optimized use of topical therapies, these new biologics appear likely to further expand choices for AD control for adults (and for kids with AD too, if eventually licensed in children), according to the data from the phase 3 studies.
During a panel discussion that followed, Stephen Gellis, MD, pediatric dermatologist and former chief of pediatric dermatology at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, raised the point of optimizing tried and true topical therapies before using systemic agents. He noted that parents sometimes pressure clinicians to use a biologic – and that moving too quickly to the latest and most expensive drugs may not be necessary.
Dr. Paller acknowledged that she, like many pediatric dermatologists, employed immunosuppressants as her drugs of choice for many years – commonly starting with a few months of cyclosporine before transitioning to methotrexate, which has a delayed onset of action. In fact, she still uses this regimen in some children.
However, she now prefers dupilumab, which is the first biologic available for children in the United States with an AD indication in children as young as 6 months. She said dupilumab has fewer potential risks than cyclosporine, and it offers clinically meaningful improvement in most children. She noted that current guidelines discourage the use of systemic corticosteroids for AD in children, given their potential toxicity.
She strongly agreed with Dr. Gellis that clinicians should resist pressure to use any systemic agent if children are responding well to topical medications. In her own practice, Dr. Paller moves to systemic medications only after ensuring that there has been adherence to appropriate therapy and that there is not another diagnosis that might explain the recalcitrance to topical agents.
When a systemic medication is considered the next step, Dr. Paller reminded the audience of the importance of presenting the benefits and risks of all the options for AD control, which could include dupilumab and immunosuppressants as initial systemic therapy.
“Many parents choose biologic treatment first, given its lack of requirement for blood monitoring and faster action than methotrexate,” Dr. Paller noted.
Nevertheless, “biologics are much more costly than immunosuppressants, require an injection – which is stressful for the child and the parents – and may not be accessible for our patients,” Dr. Paller said. Cyclosporine and methotrexate are effective and are often the best options for moderate to severe disease in areas of the world where dupilumab is not available, but Dr. Paller most commonly uses these therapies only when reimbursement for dupilumab cannot be secured, injection is not an option, or when dupilumab is not sufficiently effective and tolerated.
Providing different perspectives, the two other panelists discussing the treatment of pediatric AD also saw a role for ensuring that topical agents are not offering adequate AD control before turning to the latest and most sophisticated therapies for AD.
For meeting parent expectations when children are improving slowly on topical therapies, Peter A. Lio, MD, director of the Chicago Integrative Eczema Center and clinical assistant professor of dermatology and pediatrics at Northwestern University, suggested that integrative medicine might be helpful.
For parents not fully comfortable with standard pharmacologic agents, Dr. Lio said there is evidence to support some of the complementary approaches, and these can be reassuring to parents with an interest in alternative medicines.
In Western medicine, it is common to hear terms like “attack,” “kill,” and “suppress,” disease, but alternative therapies are generally coupled with terms like “restore,” “strengthen,” and “tonify,” he said. “Who doesn’t want to be tonified?” he asked, noting that there are many sources of data suggesting that the number of patients seeking alternative medicine is “huge.” The alternative medicines are not generally taught in medical school and remain widely ignored in typical practice, but “our patients are interested even if we are not.”
Yet, there are data to support benefit from some of these alternative therapies, providing a win-win situation for patients who derive satisfaction from nontraditional therapies alone or combined with established pharmaceutical treatments.
Of these, Dr. Lio said there is support for the use of hempseed oil as a moisturizing agent and a strategy for improving barrier function in the skin of patients with AD. In a controlled crossover study, 2 teaspoons per day of dietary hempseed oil, a product that can be purchased in some grocery stores, was associated with significant reductions in skin dryness, itchiness, and use of topical medications relative to the same amount of olive oil, he noted.
Other examples include a compress made with black tea that was associated with an anti-inflammatory effect when followed by a moisturizer, a published study asserts. Although this was a trial in adults with facial dermatitis, Dr. Lio suggested that the same anti-inflammatory effect would be anticipated for other skin conditions, including AD in children.
As a third example, Dr. Lio said topical indigo, a traditional Chinese medicine used for a variety of dermatologic conditions, including psoriasis, has also demonstrated efficacy in a randomized trial, compared with vehicle for mild to severe AD.
Complementary medicines are not for everyone, but they may have a role when managing the expectations of parents who are not fully satisfied or express concern about regimens limited to mainstream therapies alone, according to Dr. Lio. In diseases that are not curable, such as AD, he thinks this is a strategy with potential for benefit and is reassuring to patients.
Another way to avoid moving to riskier or more expensive drugs quickly is to assure patients use the drugs that were prescribed first, according to Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.
Dr. Feldman believes that failure to adhere to therapy is basically the fault of the medical care system, not the patient. He made an analogy to a successful piano teacher, who provides a child with sheet music and then sees the child once a week to track progress. He juxtaposed this piano teacher to one who gives the child sheet music and tells the child to come back in 10 weeks for the recital. It is not hard to guess which approach would be more effective.
“Typically, doctors are worse than that second teacher,” he said. “Doctors are like a piano teacher that does not give you the sheet music but says, ‘Here is a prescription for some sheet music. Take this prescription to the sheet music store. I have no idea how much it will cost or whether your insurance will pay for it. But once you fill this prescription for sheet music, I want you to practice this every day,’ ” he said, adding, “Practicing this sheet music may cause rashes, diarrhea, or serious infection. When the patient next comes in 10-12 weeks later and is not better, the doctor says, ‘I will give you a harder piece of sheet music and maybe two or three other instruments to practice at the same time,’ ” said Dr. Feldman, expressing why the way clinicians practice might explain much of the poor adherence problem.
This largely explains why patients with AD do not immediately respond to the therapies doctors prescribe, Dr. Feldman implied, reiterating the theme that emerged from the AD panel: Better and more options are needed for AD of the most severe types, but better management, not better drugs, is typically what is needed for most patients.
Dr. Feldman, Dr. Lio, and Dr. Paller have financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies, some of which manufacture therapies for atopic dermatitis.
This article was updated July 28, 2023, to clarify the comments and viewpoints of Dr. Amy Paller.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – according to a three-member expert panel mulling over strategies at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.
In introductory remarks, the three panelists briefly addressed different aspects for controlling AD, including drugs in the pipeline, the potential value of alternative therapies, and whom to blame when compliance is poor.
But panel discussion following these presentations provided an opportunity for audience engagement on practical strategies for improving AD control.
In her formal remarks prior to the panel discussion, Amy S. Paller, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and chair of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, and a pediatric dermatologist at the Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, described emerging AD treatments. This included an update on the status of the interleukin-13 (IL-13) inhibitors tralokinumab (Adbry), which was approved by the FDA for treating AD in adults in December 2021, and lebrikizumab, which is thought likely to be soon approved in the United States on the basis of two recently published phase 3 trials.
Along with dupilumab (Dupixent) for moderate-to-severe AD in children who do not respond to optimized use of topical therapies, these new biologics appear likely to further expand choices for AD control for adults (and for kids with AD too, if eventually licensed in children), according to the data from the phase 3 studies.
During a panel discussion that followed, Stephen Gellis, MD, pediatric dermatologist and former chief of pediatric dermatology at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, raised the point of optimizing tried and true topical therapies before using systemic agents. He noted that parents sometimes pressure clinicians to use a biologic – and that moving too quickly to the latest and most expensive drugs may not be necessary.
Dr. Paller acknowledged that she, like many pediatric dermatologists, employed immunosuppressants as her drugs of choice for many years – commonly starting with a few months of cyclosporine before transitioning to methotrexate, which has a delayed onset of action. In fact, she still uses this regimen in some children.
However, she now prefers dupilumab, which is the first biologic available for children in the United States with an AD indication in children as young as 6 months. She said dupilumab has fewer potential risks than cyclosporine, and it offers clinically meaningful improvement in most children. She noted that current guidelines discourage the use of systemic corticosteroids for AD in children, given their potential toxicity.
She strongly agreed with Dr. Gellis that clinicians should resist pressure to use any systemic agent if children are responding well to topical medications. In her own practice, Dr. Paller moves to systemic medications only after ensuring that there has been adherence to appropriate therapy and that there is not another diagnosis that might explain the recalcitrance to topical agents.
When a systemic medication is considered the next step, Dr. Paller reminded the audience of the importance of presenting the benefits and risks of all the options for AD control, which could include dupilumab and immunosuppressants as initial systemic therapy.
“Many parents choose biologic treatment first, given its lack of requirement for blood monitoring and faster action than methotrexate,” Dr. Paller noted.
Nevertheless, “biologics are much more costly than immunosuppressants, require an injection – which is stressful for the child and the parents – and may not be accessible for our patients,” Dr. Paller said. Cyclosporine and methotrexate are effective and are often the best options for moderate to severe disease in areas of the world where dupilumab is not available, but Dr. Paller most commonly uses these therapies only when reimbursement for dupilumab cannot be secured, injection is not an option, or when dupilumab is not sufficiently effective and tolerated.
Providing different perspectives, the two other panelists discussing the treatment of pediatric AD also saw a role for ensuring that topical agents are not offering adequate AD control before turning to the latest and most sophisticated therapies for AD.
For meeting parent expectations when children are improving slowly on topical therapies, Peter A. Lio, MD, director of the Chicago Integrative Eczema Center and clinical assistant professor of dermatology and pediatrics at Northwestern University, suggested that integrative medicine might be helpful.
For parents not fully comfortable with standard pharmacologic agents, Dr. Lio said there is evidence to support some of the complementary approaches, and these can be reassuring to parents with an interest in alternative medicines.
In Western medicine, it is common to hear terms like “attack,” “kill,” and “suppress,” disease, but alternative therapies are generally coupled with terms like “restore,” “strengthen,” and “tonify,” he said. “Who doesn’t want to be tonified?” he asked, noting that there are many sources of data suggesting that the number of patients seeking alternative medicine is “huge.” The alternative medicines are not generally taught in medical school and remain widely ignored in typical practice, but “our patients are interested even if we are not.”
Yet, there are data to support benefit from some of these alternative therapies, providing a win-win situation for patients who derive satisfaction from nontraditional therapies alone or combined with established pharmaceutical treatments.
Of these, Dr. Lio said there is support for the use of hempseed oil as a moisturizing agent and a strategy for improving barrier function in the skin of patients with AD. In a controlled crossover study, 2 teaspoons per day of dietary hempseed oil, a product that can be purchased in some grocery stores, was associated with significant reductions in skin dryness, itchiness, and use of topical medications relative to the same amount of olive oil, he noted.
Other examples include a compress made with black tea that was associated with an anti-inflammatory effect when followed by a moisturizer, a published study asserts. Although this was a trial in adults with facial dermatitis, Dr. Lio suggested that the same anti-inflammatory effect would be anticipated for other skin conditions, including AD in children.
As a third example, Dr. Lio said topical indigo, a traditional Chinese medicine used for a variety of dermatologic conditions, including psoriasis, has also demonstrated efficacy in a randomized trial, compared with vehicle for mild to severe AD.
Complementary medicines are not for everyone, but they may have a role when managing the expectations of parents who are not fully satisfied or express concern about regimens limited to mainstream therapies alone, according to Dr. Lio. In diseases that are not curable, such as AD, he thinks this is a strategy with potential for benefit and is reassuring to patients.
Another way to avoid moving to riskier or more expensive drugs quickly is to assure patients use the drugs that were prescribed first, according to Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.
Dr. Feldman believes that failure to adhere to therapy is basically the fault of the medical care system, not the patient. He made an analogy to a successful piano teacher, who provides a child with sheet music and then sees the child once a week to track progress. He juxtaposed this piano teacher to one who gives the child sheet music and tells the child to come back in 10 weeks for the recital. It is not hard to guess which approach would be more effective.
“Typically, doctors are worse than that second teacher,” he said. “Doctors are like a piano teacher that does not give you the sheet music but says, ‘Here is a prescription for some sheet music. Take this prescription to the sheet music store. I have no idea how much it will cost or whether your insurance will pay for it. But once you fill this prescription for sheet music, I want you to practice this every day,’ ” he said, adding, “Practicing this sheet music may cause rashes, diarrhea, or serious infection. When the patient next comes in 10-12 weeks later and is not better, the doctor says, ‘I will give you a harder piece of sheet music and maybe two or three other instruments to practice at the same time,’ ” said Dr. Feldman, expressing why the way clinicians practice might explain much of the poor adherence problem.
This largely explains why patients with AD do not immediately respond to the therapies doctors prescribe, Dr. Feldman implied, reiterating the theme that emerged from the AD panel: Better and more options are needed for AD of the most severe types, but better management, not better drugs, is typically what is needed for most patients.
Dr. Feldman, Dr. Lio, and Dr. Paller have financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies, some of which manufacture therapies for atopic dermatitis.
This article was updated July 28, 2023, to clarify the comments and viewpoints of Dr. Amy Paller.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – according to a three-member expert panel mulling over strategies at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.
In introductory remarks, the three panelists briefly addressed different aspects for controlling AD, including drugs in the pipeline, the potential value of alternative therapies, and whom to blame when compliance is poor.
But panel discussion following these presentations provided an opportunity for audience engagement on practical strategies for improving AD control.
In her formal remarks prior to the panel discussion, Amy S. Paller, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics and chair of dermatology, Northwestern University, Chicago, and a pediatric dermatologist at the Lurie Children’s Hospital of Chicago, described emerging AD treatments. This included an update on the status of the interleukin-13 (IL-13) inhibitors tralokinumab (Adbry), which was approved by the FDA for treating AD in adults in December 2021, and lebrikizumab, which is thought likely to be soon approved in the United States on the basis of two recently published phase 3 trials.
Along with dupilumab (Dupixent) for moderate-to-severe AD in children who do not respond to optimized use of topical therapies, these new biologics appear likely to further expand choices for AD control for adults (and for kids with AD too, if eventually licensed in children), according to the data from the phase 3 studies.
During a panel discussion that followed, Stephen Gellis, MD, pediatric dermatologist and former chief of pediatric dermatology at Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, raised the point of optimizing tried and true topical therapies before using systemic agents. He noted that parents sometimes pressure clinicians to use a biologic – and that moving too quickly to the latest and most expensive drugs may not be necessary.
Dr. Paller acknowledged that she, like many pediatric dermatologists, employed immunosuppressants as her drugs of choice for many years – commonly starting with a few months of cyclosporine before transitioning to methotrexate, which has a delayed onset of action. In fact, she still uses this regimen in some children.
However, she now prefers dupilumab, which is the first biologic available for children in the United States with an AD indication in children as young as 6 months. She said dupilumab has fewer potential risks than cyclosporine, and it offers clinically meaningful improvement in most children. She noted that current guidelines discourage the use of systemic corticosteroids for AD in children, given their potential toxicity.
She strongly agreed with Dr. Gellis that clinicians should resist pressure to use any systemic agent if children are responding well to topical medications. In her own practice, Dr. Paller moves to systemic medications only after ensuring that there has been adherence to appropriate therapy and that there is not another diagnosis that might explain the recalcitrance to topical agents.
When a systemic medication is considered the next step, Dr. Paller reminded the audience of the importance of presenting the benefits and risks of all the options for AD control, which could include dupilumab and immunosuppressants as initial systemic therapy.
“Many parents choose biologic treatment first, given its lack of requirement for blood monitoring and faster action than methotrexate,” Dr. Paller noted.
Nevertheless, “biologics are much more costly than immunosuppressants, require an injection – which is stressful for the child and the parents – and may not be accessible for our patients,” Dr. Paller said. Cyclosporine and methotrexate are effective and are often the best options for moderate to severe disease in areas of the world where dupilumab is not available, but Dr. Paller most commonly uses these therapies only when reimbursement for dupilumab cannot be secured, injection is not an option, or when dupilumab is not sufficiently effective and tolerated.
Providing different perspectives, the two other panelists discussing the treatment of pediatric AD also saw a role for ensuring that topical agents are not offering adequate AD control before turning to the latest and most sophisticated therapies for AD.
For meeting parent expectations when children are improving slowly on topical therapies, Peter A. Lio, MD, director of the Chicago Integrative Eczema Center and clinical assistant professor of dermatology and pediatrics at Northwestern University, suggested that integrative medicine might be helpful.
For parents not fully comfortable with standard pharmacologic agents, Dr. Lio said there is evidence to support some of the complementary approaches, and these can be reassuring to parents with an interest in alternative medicines.
In Western medicine, it is common to hear terms like “attack,” “kill,” and “suppress,” disease, but alternative therapies are generally coupled with terms like “restore,” “strengthen,” and “tonify,” he said. “Who doesn’t want to be tonified?” he asked, noting that there are many sources of data suggesting that the number of patients seeking alternative medicine is “huge.” The alternative medicines are not generally taught in medical school and remain widely ignored in typical practice, but “our patients are interested even if we are not.”
Yet, there are data to support benefit from some of these alternative therapies, providing a win-win situation for patients who derive satisfaction from nontraditional therapies alone or combined with established pharmaceutical treatments.
Of these, Dr. Lio said there is support for the use of hempseed oil as a moisturizing agent and a strategy for improving barrier function in the skin of patients with AD. In a controlled crossover study, 2 teaspoons per day of dietary hempseed oil, a product that can be purchased in some grocery stores, was associated with significant reductions in skin dryness, itchiness, and use of topical medications relative to the same amount of olive oil, he noted.
Other examples include a compress made with black tea that was associated with an anti-inflammatory effect when followed by a moisturizer, a published study asserts. Although this was a trial in adults with facial dermatitis, Dr. Lio suggested that the same anti-inflammatory effect would be anticipated for other skin conditions, including AD in children.
As a third example, Dr. Lio said topical indigo, a traditional Chinese medicine used for a variety of dermatologic conditions, including psoriasis, has also demonstrated efficacy in a randomized trial, compared with vehicle for mild to severe AD.
Complementary medicines are not for everyone, but they may have a role when managing the expectations of parents who are not fully satisfied or express concern about regimens limited to mainstream therapies alone, according to Dr. Lio. In diseases that are not curable, such as AD, he thinks this is a strategy with potential for benefit and is reassuring to patients.
Another way to avoid moving to riskier or more expensive drugs quickly is to assure patients use the drugs that were prescribed first, according to Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C.
Dr. Feldman believes that failure to adhere to therapy is basically the fault of the medical care system, not the patient. He made an analogy to a successful piano teacher, who provides a child with sheet music and then sees the child once a week to track progress. He juxtaposed this piano teacher to one who gives the child sheet music and tells the child to come back in 10 weeks for the recital. It is not hard to guess which approach would be more effective.
“Typically, doctors are worse than that second teacher,” he said. “Doctors are like a piano teacher that does not give you the sheet music but says, ‘Here is a prescription for some sheet music. Take this prescription to the sheet music store. I have no idea how much it will cost or whether your insurance will pay for it. But once you fill this prescription for sheet music, I want you to practice this every day,’ ” he said, adding, “Practicing this sheet music may cause rashes, diarrhea, or serious infection. When the patient next comes in 10-12 weeks later and is not better, the doctor says, ‘I will give you a harder piece of sheet music and maybe two or three other instruments to practice at the same time,’ ” said Dr. Feldman, expressing why the way clinicians practice might explain much of the poor adherence problem.
This largely explains why patients with AD do not immediately respond to the therapies doctors prescribe, Dr. Feldman implied, reiterating the theme that emerged from the AD panel: Better and more options are needed for AD of the most severe types, but better management, not better drugs, is typically what is needed for most patients.
Dr. Feldman, Dr. Lio, and Dr. Paller have financial relationships with more than 30 pharmaceutical and cosmetic companies, some of which manufacture therapies for atopic dermatitis.
This article was updated July 28, 2023, to clarify the comments and viewpoints of Dr. Amy Paller.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT SPD 2023
Fungal cultures in bronchiectasis don’t predict outcomes
The presence of a positive fungal culture in patients with bronchiectasis does not appear to correlate with disease severity or any increased risk of an adverse outcome, according to data pulled from the Bronchiectasis and NTM Registry and presented at the 6th World Bronchiectasis & NTM Conference.
“The question we were asking is whether there is some signal that suggests we need to take care of these patients differently, and the answer is no,” reported Pamela J. McShane, MD, a pulmonologist on the faculty at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Tyler.
or more complex course than did those without a positive fungal culture.
When fungal infections are detected in an initial microbiologic evaluation of patients with bronchiectasis or other lung diseases, first-line clinicians generally assume that coverage is needed. Dr. McShane noted that many of the patients referred to her with bronchiectasis and a positive fungal culture were already on an antifungal.
These data are not supportive of treatment in the absence of fungal-related complications. Dr. McShane suggested they even raise questions about the value of culturing beyond bacterial pathogens in the absence of suspicion that fungal organisms are playing a role in symptoms. She cautioned, however, that more studies specifically studying this possibility are needed.
Study details
The data were drawn in December 2022 from the U.S.-based Bronchiectasis and NTM Registry, which at that time had 22 participating sites. Of the more than 5,000 patients enrolled, the study looked at 2,230 after several exclusions, such as a diagnosis of allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA).
Of these 2,230 patients, 949 had a fungal infection at the time of diagnosis and 1,281 did not. Those with a fungal infection were further subdivided into those with an aspergillosis (331 patients) and those with a nonaspergillosis fungal infection (751 patients). The total of these two numbers is greater than the total number of fungal infections because these were not mutually exclusive.
At enrollment into the registry, there were no statistical differences between groups for age. Some statistical differences were observed among groups stratified by race, but Dr. McShane doubted that these were clinically significant with the exception of a potential disparity among Asians that might deserve further analysis.
Infection results
Of clinical features evaluated for their association with fungal infection, there was no correlation with either body mass index or history of asthma. Eosinophilia was associated significantly with positive fungal cultures.
Baseline FEV1 was slightly lower among those with a positive fungal culture even if the difference was highly significant (P = .0006). Again, Dr. McShane questioned the clinical significance of values that varied by only a few percentage points, even though she was willing to acknowledge that higher is always preferable to a lower FEV1.
In the context of other pathogens, “generally speaking, those with a positive bacterial culture were more likely to have a fungal infection,” Dr. McShane reported, although there was some variation when looking at pathogenicity of the bacteria and other variables.
“Whether this [higher rate of fungal infection] just involves the environment or our antibiotics are driving the opportunity to permit the fungi to exist, we do not have the answer,” she added.
Nontuberculosis mycobacteria (NTM) infection was similarly represented in those with or without a fungal infection, according to Dr. McShane. Noting the high use of antibiotics in an NTM population, Dr. McShane conceded that this challenges the theory that antibiotic use is driving the risk of fungal infection, but these are what the data say.
Steroid use was associated with a statistically significant risk of fungal infection, but Dr. McShane said it is unclear whether steroid use drives the risk or is an epiphenomenon.
“We looked at this a lot of different ways: oral vs. inhaled and oral vs. inhaled and oral, and it did not make much difference. Generally speaking, the fungal cultures were more likely to be positive in patients on any kind of steroid,” she said.
Finally, with the exception of the slightly lower FEV1 in patients with fungal infections, Dr. McShane said that there was no discernible relationship between the presence of a fungal infection and severity of bronchiectasis.
Because of this evidence, Dr. McShane concluded that the presence of fungus in the culture of patients with bronchiectasis does not appear to correlate with outcome or severity. Since completing the study, she said she is now using these data to reassure patients who have a positive fungal culture.
While these data do not affect the need to diagnosis fungal infections in patients who are not responding typically to therapy or otherwise have an abnormal course of bronchiectasis, raising suspicion that fungal infection is participating in the disease course, the data provide a basis for questioning whether routine cultures are needed, according to the discussion that followed Dr. McShane’s presentation.
Expert opinion
Several of the experts at the presentation provided an opinion. Some reported that they would continue to order fungal cultures on a routine basis, while others said that they now, on the basis of these data, plan to order cultures only at the first visit or when fungal infection is suspected of exacerbating the disease.
Of this latter group, which seemed to be dominant, Juzar Ali, MD, professor of medicine, Louisiana State University, New Orleans, said that he has not been ordering fungal cultures on every visit. Rather, he has been doing so selectively. Examples include those who are on steroids or those with an unusual pattern of exacerbations.
“The value of these data is that they have now provided some data to support this approach,” Dr. Ali said in an interview. Noting that this is the first large study to address this question in a systematic way, he considers this to be a valuable contribution for approaching a common clinical issue.
Dr. McShane reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ali reports a financial relationship with Insmed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The presence of a positive fungal culture in patients with bronchiectasis does not appear to correlate with disease severity or any increased risk of an adverse outcome, according to data pulled from the Bronchiectasis and NTM Registry and presented at the 6th World Bronchiectasis & NTM Conference.
“The question we were asking is whether there is some signal that suggests we need to take care of these patients differently, and the answer is no,” reported Pamela J. McShane, MD, a pulmonologist on the faculty at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Tyler.
or more complex course than did those without a positive fungal culture.
When fungal infections are detected in an initial microbiologic evaluation of patients with bronchiectasis or other lung diseases, first-line clinicians generally assume that coverage is needed. Dr. McShane noted that many of the patients referred to her with bronchiectasis and a positive fungal culture were already on an antifungal.
These data are not supportive of treatment in the absence of fungal-related complications. Dr. McShane suggested they even raise questions about the value of culturing beyond bacterial pathogens in the absence of suspicion that fungal organisms are playing a role in symptoms. She cautioned, however, that more studies specifically studying this possibility are needed.
Study details
The data were drawn in December 2022 from the U.S.-based Bronchiectasis and NTM Registry, which at that time had 22 participating sites. Of the more than 5,000 patients enrolled, the study looked at 2,230 after several exclusions, such as a diagnosis of allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA).
Of these 2,230 patients, 949 had a fungal infection at the time of diagnosis and 1,281 did not. Those with a fungal infection were further subdivided into those with an aspergillosis (331 patients) and those with a nonaspergillosis fungal infection (751 patients). The total of these two numbers is greater than the total number of fungal infections because these were not mutually exclusive.
At enrollment into the registry, there were no statistical differences between groups for age. Some statistical differences were observed among groups stratified by race, but Dr. McShane doubted that these were clinically significant with the exception of a potential disparity among Asians that might deserve further analysis.
Infection results
Of clinical features evaluated for their association with fungal infection, there was no correlation with either body mass index or history of asthma. Eosinophilia was associated significantly with positive fungal cultures.
Baseline FEV1 was slightly lower among those with a positive fungal culture even if the difference was highly significant (P = .0006). Again, Dr. McShane questioned the clinical significance of values that varied by only a few percentage points, even though she was willing to acknowledge that higher is always preferable to a lower FEV1.
In the context of other pathogens, “generally speaking, those with a positive bacterial culture were more likely to have a fungal infection,” Dr. McShane reported, although there was some variation when looking at pathogenicity of the bacteria and other variables.
“Whether this [higher rate of fungal infection] just involves the environment or our antibiotics are driving the opportunity to permit the fungi to exist, we do not have the answer,” she added.
Nontuberculosis mycobacteria (NTM) infection was similarly represented in those with or without a fungal infection, according to Dr. McShane. Noting the high use of antibiotics in an NTM population, Dr. McShane conceded that this challenges the theory that antibiotic use is driving the risk of fungal infection, but these are what the data say.
Steroid use was associated with a statistically significant risk of fungal infection, but Dr. McShane said it is unclear whether steroid use drives the risk or is an epiphenomenon.
“We looked at this a lot of different ways: oral vs. inhaled and oral vs. inhaled and oral, and it did not make much difference. Generally speaking, the fungal cultures were more likely to be positive in patients on any kind of steroid,” she said.
Finally, with the exception of the slightly lower FEV1 in patients with fungal infections, Dr. McShane said that there was no discernible relationship between the presence of a fungal infection and severity of bronchiectasis.
Because of this evidence, Dr. McShane concluded that the presence of fungus in the culture of patients with bronchiectasis does not appear to correlate with outcome or severity. Since completing the study, she said she is now using these data to reassure patients who have a positive fungal culture.
While these data do not affect the need to diagnosis fungal infections in patients who are not responding typically to therapy or otherwise have an abnormal course of bronchiectasis, raising suspicion that fungal infection is participating in the disease course, the data provide a basis for questioning whether routine cultures are needed, according to the discussion that followed Dr. McShane’s presentation.
Expert opinion
Several of the experts at the presentation provided an opinion. Some reported that they would continue to order fungal cultures on a routine basis, while others said that they now, on the basis of these data, plan to order cultures only at the first visit or when fungal infection is suspected of exacerbating the disease.
Of this latter group, which seemed to be dominant, Juzar Ali, MD, professor of medicine, Louisiana State University, New Orleans, said that he has not been ordering fungal cultures on every visit. Rather, he has been doing so selectively. Examples include those who are on steroids or those with an unusual pattern of exacerbations.
“The value of these data is that they have now provided some data to support this approach,” Dr. Ali said in an interview. Noting that this is the first large study to address this question in a systematic way, he considers this to be a valuable contribution for approaching a common clinical issue.
Dr. McShane reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ali reports a financial relationship with Insmed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
The presence of a positive fungal culture in patients with bronchiectasis does not appear to correlate with disease severity or any increased risk of an adverse outcome, according to data pulled from the Bronchiectasis and NTM Registry and presented at the 6th World Bronchiectasis & NTM Conference.
“The question we were asking is whether there is some signal that suggests we need to take care of these patients differently, and the answer is no,” reported Pamela J. McShane, MD, a pulmonologist on the faculty at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Tyler.
or more complex course than did those without a positive fungal culture.
When fungal infections are detected in an initial microbiologic evaluation of patients with bronchiectasis or other lung diseases, first-line clinicians generally assume that coverage is needed. Dr. McShane noted that many of the patients referred to her with bronchiectasis and a positive fungal culture were already on an antifungal.
These data are not supportive of treatment in the absence of fungal-related complications. Dr. McShane suggested they even raise questions about the value of culturing beyond bacterial pathogens in the absence of suspicion that fungal organisms are playing a role in symptoms. She cautioned, however, that more studies specifically studying this possibility are needed.
Study details
The data were drawn in December 2022 from the U.S.-based Bronchiectasis and NTM Registry, which at that time had 22 participating sites. Of the more than 5,000 patients enrolled, the study looked at 2,230 after several exclusions, such as a diagnosis of allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis (ABPA).
Of these 2,230 patients, 949 had a fungal infection at the time of diagnosis and 1,281 did not. Those with a fungal infection were further subdivided into those with an aspergillosis (331 patients) and those with a nonaspergillosis fungal infection (751 patients). The total of these two numbers is greater than the total number of fungal infections because these were not mutually exclusive.
At enrollment into the registry, there were no statistical differences between groups for age. Some statistical differences were observed among groups stratified by race, but Dr. McShane doubted that these were clinically significant with the exception of a potential disparity among Asians that might deserve further analysis.
Infection results
Of clinical features evaluated for their association with fungal infection, there was no correlation with either body mass index or history of asthma. Eosinophilia was associated significantly with positive fungal cultures.
Baseline FEV1 was slightly lower among those with a positive fungal culture even if the difference was highly significant (P = .0006). Again, Dr. McShane questioned the clinical significance of values that varied by only a few percentage points, even though she was willing to acknowledge that higher is always preferable to a lower FEV1.
In the context of other pathogens, “generally speaking, those with a positive bacterial culture were more likely to have a fungal infection,” Dr. McShane reported, although there was some variation when looking at pathogenicity of the bacteria and other variables.
“Whether this [higher rate of fungal infection] just involves the environment or our antibiotics are driving the opportunity to permit the fungi to exist, we do not have the answer,” she added.
Nontuberculosis mycobacteria (NTM) infection was similarly represented in those with or without a fungal infection, according to Dr. McShane. Noting the high use of antibiotics in an NTM population, Dr. McShane conceded that this challenges the theory that antibiotic use is driving the risk of fungal infection, but these are what the data say.
Steroid use was associated with a statistically significant risk of fungal infection, but Dr. McShane said it is unclear whether steroid use drives the risk or is an epiphenomenon.
“We looked at this a lot of different ways: oral vs. inhaled and oral vs. inhaled and oral, and it did not make much difference. Generally speaking, the fungal cultures were more likely to be positive in patients on any kind of steroid,” she said.
Finally, with the exception of the slightly lower FEV1 in patients with fungal infections, Dr. McShane said that there was no discernible relationship between the presence of a fungal infection and severity of bronchiectasis.
Because of this evidence, Dr. McShane concluded that the presence of fungus in the culture of patients with bronchiectasis does not appear to correlate with outcome or severity. Since completing the study, she said she is now using these data to reassure patients who have a positive fungal culture.
While these data do not affect the need to diagnosis fungal infections in patients who are not responding typically to therapy or otherwise have an abnormal course of bronchiectasis, raising suspicion that fungal infection is participating in the disease course, the data provide a basis for questioning whether routine cultures are needed, according to the discussion that followed Dr. McShane’s presentation.
Expert opinion
Several of the experts at the presentation provided an opinion. Some reported that they would continue to order fungal cultures on a routine basis, while others said that they now, on the basis of these data, plan to order cultures only at the first visit or when fungal infection is suspected of exacerbating the disease.
Of this latter group, which seemed to be dominant, Juzar Ali, MD, professor of medicine, Louisiana State University, New Orleans, said that he has not been ordering fungal cultures on every visit. Rather, he has been doing so selectively. Examples include those who are on steroids or those with an unusual pattern of exacerbations.
“The value of these data is that they have now provided some data to support this approach,” Dr. Ali said in an interview. Noting that this is the first large study to address this question in a systematic way, he considers this to be a valuable contribution for approaching a common clinical issue.
Dr. McShane reports no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Ali reports a financial relationship with Insmed.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Ocular complications of dermatologic treatments: Advice from a pediatric ophthalmologist
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – The, according to one of several clinical messages from a pediatric ophthalmologist who spoke at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.
“There is a lot of steroid fear out there, which you can argue is actually harmful in itself, because not treating periorbital eczema is related to a lot of eye problems, including chronic discomfort and the eye rubbing that can cause corneal abrasions and keratoconus,” said Sara Grace, MD, a pediatric ophthalmologist who is on the clinical staff at Duke University, Durham, N.C. She maintains a practice at North Carolina Eye, Ear, Nose, and Throat in Durham.
Although the risks of periorbital steroid absorption are real, a limited course of low potency topical steroids is generally adequate for common periorbital indications, and these appear to be safe.
“There is insufficient evidence to link weak periocular topical corticosteroids such as desonide or hydrocortisone with ocular complications,” said Dr. Grace, suggesting that pediatric dermatologists can be reassured when using these medications at low concentrations.
“Potent periocular steroids have been associated with ocular complications, but this has typically involved exposures over months to years,” Dr. Grace specified.
When topical corticosteroids are applied at high concentrations on the face away from the periorbital area, glaucoma and other feared ophthalmic complications cannot be entirely ruled out, but, again, the risk is low in the absence of “very large quantities” of potent topical agents applied for lengthy periods of time, according to Dr. Grace, basing this observation on case studies.
In children, as in adults, the potential exception is a child with existing ocular disease. In such cases, or in children with risk factors for ocular disease, Dr. Grace recommends referral to an ophthalmologist for a baseline examination prior to a course of topical corticosteroids with the potential of periocular absorption. With a baseline assessment, adverse effects are more easily documented if exposure is prolonged.
The message, although not identical, is similar for use of dupilumab (Dupixent) or other biologics that target the interleukin-13 (IL-13) pathway. The potential for complications cannot be ignored but these are often time-limited and the benefit is likely to exceed the risk in children who have severe atopic dermatitis or other skin conditions for which these treatments are effective.
There are several potential mechanisms by which biologics targeting IL-13 might increase risk of ocular complications, one of which is the role that IL-13 plays in ocular mucus production, regulation of conjunctival goblet cells, and tear production, according to several published reports.
“Up to 30% of children will get some type of eye complication but, fortunately, most of them will not have to stop therapy,” Dr. Grace said. These side effects include conjunctivitis, blepharitis, keratitis, dry eye, and itching, but they are typically manageable. Topical steroids or calcineurin inhibitors can be offered if needed, but many of these conditions will self-resolve. Dr. Grace estimated that less than 1% of patients need to stop treatment because of ophthalmic side effects.
Lesions that obstruct vision
Dr. Grace urged pediatric dermatologists to be aware of the risk for amblyopia in young children with lesions that obstruct vision in one eye. In early development, prolonged obstruction of vision in one eye can alter neural communication with the brain, producing permanent vision impairment.
She explained that clearing the obstructed vision, whether from a capillary hemangioma or any periorbital growth, should be considered urgent to avoid irreversible damage.
Similarly, periorbital port-wine stains associated with Sturge-Weber syndrome, which is primarily a vascular disorder that predisposes children to glaucoma, represents a condition that requires prompt attention. Sturge-Weber syndrome is often but not always identified at birth, but it is a condition for which evaluation and treatment should involve the participation of an ophthalmologist.
Meibomian gland disease is another disorder that is often seen first by a pediatric dermatologist but also requires collaborative management. The challenge is sorting out the underlying cause or causes and initiating a therapy that unclogs the gland without having to resort to incision and drainage.
“Drainage is hard to do and is not necessarily effective,” explained Dr. Grace. While scrubs, warmth, and massage frequently are adequate to unclog the gland – which secretes meibum, a complex of lipids that perform several functions in protecting the eye – therapies specific to the cause, such as Demodex-related blepharitis, chalazions, and styes, might be needed.
Dr. Grace indicated that patience is often needed. The process of unclogging these glands often takes time, but she emphasized that a first-line conservative approach is always appropriate to avoid the difficulty and potential problems of incisions.
In general, these messages are not novel, but they provide a refresher for pediatric dermatologists who do not regularly confront complications that involve the eyes. According to session moderator, Elizabeth Neiman, MD, assistant professor of pediatric dermatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the messages regarding topical steroids on the face and the eyes are “important” and worth emphasizing.
“It’s useful to reinforce the point that corticosteroids should be used when needed in the periorbital area [to control skin diseases] if they are used in low concentrations,” Dr. Neiman told this news organization.
Similarly, conjunctivitis and other ocular complications of dupilumab are a source of concern for parents as well as dermatologists. Dr. Neiman indicated that a review of the benefit-to-risk ratio is important when considering these treatments in patients with indications for severe skin disorders.
Dr. Grace and Dr. Nieman have no potential financial conflicts related to this topic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – The, according to one of several clinical messages from a pediatric ophthalmologist who spoke at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.
“There is a lot of steroid fear out there, which you can argue is actually harmful in itself, because not treating periorbital eczema is related to a lot of eye problems, including chronic discomfort and the eye rubbing that can cause corneal abrasions and keratoconus,” said Sara Grace, MD, a pediatric ophthalmologist who is on the clinical staff at Duke University, Durham, N.C. She maintains a practice at North Carolina Eye, Ear, Nose, and Throat in Durham.
Although the risks of periorbital steroid absorption are real, a limited course of low potency topical steroids is generally adequate for common periorbital indications, and these appear to be safe.
“There is insufficient evidence to link weak periocular topical corticosteroids such as desonide or hydrocortisone with ocular complications,” said Dr. Grace, suggesting that pediatric dermatologists can be reassured when using these medications at low concentrations.
“Potent periocular steroids have been associated with ocular complications, but this has typically involved exposures over months to years,” Dr. Grace specified.
When topical corticosteroids are applied at high concentrations on the face away from the periorbital area, glaucoma and other feared ophthalmic complications cannot be entirely ruled out, but, again, the risk is low in the absence of “very large quantities” of potent topical agents applied for lengthy periods of time, according to Dr. Grace, basing this observation on case studies.
In children, as in adults, the potential exception is a child with existing ocular disease. In such cases, or in children with risk factors for ocular disease, Dr. Grace recommends referral to an ophthalmologist for a baseline examination prior to a course of topical corticosteroids with the potential of periocular absorption. With a baseline assessment, adverse effects are more easily documented if exposure is prolonged.
The message, although not identical, is similar for use of dupilumab (Dupixent) or other biologics that target the interleukin-13 (IL-13) pathway. The potential for complications cannot be ignored but these are often time-limited and the benefit is likely to exceed the risk in children who have severe atopic dermatitis or other skin conditions for which these treatments are effective.
There are several potential mechanisms by which biologics targeting IL-13 might increase risk of ocular complications, one of which is the role that IL-13 plays in ocular mucus production, regulation of conjunctival goblet cells, and tear production, according to several published reports.
“Up to 30% of children will get some type of eye complication but, fortunately, most of them will not have to stop therapy,” Dr. Grace said. These side effects include conjunctivitis, blepharitis, keratitis, dry eye, and itching, but they are typically manageable. Topical steroids or calcineurin inhibitors can be offered if needed, but many of these conditions will self-resolve. Dr. Grace estimated that less than 1% of patients need to stop treatment because of ophthalmic side effects.
Lesions that obstruct vision
Dr. Grace urged pediatric dermatologists to be aware of the risk for amblyopia in young children with lesions that obstruct vision in one eye. In early development, prolonged obstruction of vision in one eye can alter neural communication with the brain, producing permanent vision impairment.
She explained that clearing the obstructed vision, whether from a capillary hemangioma or any periorbital growth, should be considered urgent to avoid irreversible damage.
Similarly, periorbital port-wine stains associated with Sturge-Weber syndrome, which is primarily a vascular disorder that predisposes children to glaucoma, represents a condition that requires prompt attention. Sturge-Weber syndrome is often but not always identified at birth, but it is a condition for which evaluation and treatment should involve the participation of an ophthalmologist.
Meibomian gland disease is another disorder that is often seen first by a pediatric dermatologist but also requires collaborative management. The challenge is sorting out the underlying cause or causes and initiating a therapy that unclogs the gland without having to resort to incision and drainage.
“Drainage is hard to do and is not necessarily effective,” explained Dr. Grace. While scrubs, warmth, and massage frequently are adequate to unclog the gland – which secretes meibum, a complex of lipids that perform several functions in protecting the eye – therapies specific to the cause, such as Demodex-related blepharitis, chalazions, and styes, might be needed.
Dr. Grace indicated that patience is often needed. The process of unclogging these glands often takes time, but she emphasized that a first-line conservative approach is always appropriate to avoid the difficulty and potential problems of incisions.
In general, these messages are not novel, but they provide a refresher for pediatric dermatologists who do not regularly confront complications that involve the eyes. According to session moderator, Elizabeth Neiman, MD, assistant professor of pediatric dermatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the messages regarding topical steroids on the face and the eyes are “important” and worth emphasizing.
“It’s useful to reinforce the point that corticosteroids should be used when needed in the periorbital area [to control skin diseases] if they are used in low concentrations,” Dr. Neiman told this news organization.
Similarly, conjunctivitis and other ocular complications of dupilumab are a source of concern for parents as well as dermatologists. Dr. Neiman indicated that a review of the benefit-to-risk ratio is important when considering these treatments in patients with indications for severe skin disorders.
Dr. Grace and Dr. Nieman have no potential financial conflicts related to this topic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
ASHEVILLE, N.C. – The, according to one of several clinical messages from a pediatric ophthalmologist who spoke at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.
“There is a lot of steroid fear out there, which you can argue is actually harmful in itself, because not treating periorbital eczema is related to a lot of eye problems, including chronic discomfort and the eye rubbing that can cause corneal abrasions and keratoconus,” said Sara Grace, MD, a pediatric ophthalmologist who is on the clinical staff at Duke University, Durham, N.C. She maintains a practice at North Carolina Eye, Ear, Nose, and Throat in Durham.
Although the risks of periorbital steroid absorption are real, a limited course of low potency topical steroids is generally adequate for common periorbital indications, and these appear to be safe.
“There is insufficient evidence to link weak periocular topical corticosteroids such as desonide or hydrocortisone with ocular complications,” said Dr. Grace, suggesting that pediatric dermatologists can be reassured when using these medications at low concentrations.
“Potent periocular steroids have been associated with ocular complications, but this has typically involved exposures over months to years,” Dr. Grace specified.
When topical corticosteroids are applied at high concentrations on the face away from the periorbital area, glaucoma and other feared ophthalmic complications cannot be entirely ruled out, but, again, the risk is low in the absence of “very large quantities” of potent topical agents applied for lengthy periods of time, according to Dr. Grace, basing this observation on case studies.
In children, as in adults, the potential exception is a child with existing ocular disease. In such cases, or in children with risk factors for ocular disease, Dr. Grace recommends referral to an ophthalmologist for a baseline examination prior to a course of topical corticosteroids with the potential of periocular absorption. With a baseline assessment, adverse effects are more easily documented if exposure is prolonged.
The message, although not identical, is similar for use of dupilumab (Dupixent) or other biologics that target the interleukin-13 (IL-13) pathway. The potential for complications cannot be ignored but these are often time-limited and the benefit is likely to exceed the risk in children who have severe atopic dermatitis or other skin conditions for which these treatments are effective.
There are several potential mechanisms by which biologics targeting IL-13 might increase risk of ocular complications, one of which is the role that IL-13 plays in ocular mucus production, regulation of conjunctival goblet cells, and tear production, according to several published reports.
“Up to 30% of children will get some type of eye complication but, fortunately, most of them will not have to stop therapy,” Dr. Grace said. These side effects include conjunctivitis, blepharitis, keratitis, dry eye, and itching, but they are typically manageable. Topical steroids or calcineurin inhibitors can be offered if needed, but many of these conditions will self-resolve. Dr. Grace estimated that less than 1% of patients need to stop treatment because of ophthalmic side effects.
Lesions that obstruct vision
Dr. Grace urged pediatric dermatologists to be aware of the risk for amblyopia in young children with lesions that obstruct vision in one eye. In early development, prolonged obstruction of vision in one eye can alter neural communication with the brain, producing permanent vision impairment.
She explained that clearing the obstructed vision, whether from a capillary hemangioma or any periorbital growth, should be considered urgent to avoid irreversible damage.
Similarly, periorbital port-wine stains associated with Sturge-Weber syndrome, which is primarily a vascular disorder that predisposes children to glaucoma, represents a condition that requires prompt attention. Sturge-Weber syndrome is often but not always identified at birth, but it is a condition for which evaluation and treatment should involve the participation of an ophthalmologist.
Meibomian gland disease is another disorder that is often seen first by a pediatric dermatologist but also requires collaborative management. The challenge is sorting out the underlying cause or causes and initiating a therapy that unclogs the gland without having to resort to incision and drainage.
“Drainage is hard to do and is not necessarily effective,” explained Dr. Grace. While scrubs, warmth, and massage frequently are adequate to unclog the gland – which secretes meibum, a complex of lipids that perform several functions in protecting the eye – therapies specific to the cause, such as Demodex-related blepharitis, chalazions, and styes, might be needed.
Dr. Grace indicated that patience is often needed. The process of unclogging these glands often takes time, but she emphasized that a first-line conservative approach is always appropriate to avoid the difficulty and potential problems of incisions.
In general, these messages are not novel, but they provide a refresher for pediatric dermatologists who do not regularly confront complications that involve the eyes. According to session moderator, Elizabeth Neiman, MD, assistant professor of pediatric dermatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the messages regarding topical steroids on the face and the eyes are “important” and worth emphasizing.
“It’s useful to reinforce the point that corticosteroids should be used when needed in the periorbital area [to control skin diseases] if they are used in low concentrations,” Dr. Neiman told this news organization.
Similarly, conjunctivitis and other ocular complications of dupilumab are a source of concern for parents as well as dermatologists. Dr. Neiman indicated that a review of the benefit-to-risk ratio is important when considering these treatments in patients with indications for severe skin disorders.
Dr. Grace and Dr. Nieman have no potential financial conflicts related to this topic.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
AT SPD 2023