No time of the year is more exciting than the unveiling of the American Contact Dermatitis Society Allergen of the Year. Sometimes the selected allergen represents a completely novel cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) with an unpronounceable chemical name. Not this time! The 2022 Allergen of the Year is likely to be lurking in your kitchen drawer at this very moment, as this year aluminum was chosen for this most prestigious honor.¹ But do not throw out your aluminum foil just yet—aluminum allergy tends to be confined to specific scenarios. In this article, we highlight the growing recognition of aluminum contact allergy, particularly in the pediatric population, focusing on distinct presentations of aluminum ACD, unique sources of exposure, and nuances of patch testing to this metal.

Aluminum Is All Around Us

As the third most common element in the Earth’s crust, aluminum can be found quite literally everywhere.¹ However, aluminum rarely is found in its pure elemental form; instead, it reacts with other elements around it, most commonly oxygen, to form aluminum-containing compounds. Known for their stability and safety, aluminum and its salts are incorporated in myriad products ranging from electronic equipment to foods and their packaging, medications, cosmetics, orthopedic and dental implants, and even tattoos. Aluminum also is found in the air and water supply and may even be encountered in certain workplaces, such as aircraft and machine industries. As such, contact with aluminum is all but certain in modern life.

The use of aluminum in consumer products is widely accepted as safe by public health agencies in the United States.² Although there has been public concern that aluminum could be linked to development of breast cancer or Alzheimer disease, there is no clear evidence that these conditions are associated with routine aluminum exposure through ingestion or consumer products.^3-5

Aluminum Contact Allergy

In part because of its ubiquity and in part because of the stability of aluminum-containing compounds, it was long thought that aluminum was nonallergenic. Contact allergy to elemental aluminum is rare; on the other hand, aluminum salts (the forms we are likely to encounter in daily life) are now recognized in the field of contact dermatitis as allergens of significance, particularly in the pediatric population.^1,6

First reported as a possible occupational allergen in 1944,⁷ aluminum allergy came to prominence in the 1990s in association with vaccines. Aluminum is included in some vaccines as an adjuvant that bolsters the immune response⁸; the eTable lists currently available aluminum-containing vaccines in the United States; of note, none of the COVID-19 vaccines approved in the United States or Europe contain aluminum.¹¹ Although the use of aluminum in vaccines is considered to be safe by the US Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,^12,13 a small number of children become sensitized to aluminum through vaccines and may develop persistent pruritic subcutaneous nodules (also known as vaccination granulomas) at the injection site; however, the incidence of this adverse effect was less than 1% in large studies including as many as 76,000 children, suggesting that it is relatively rare.^14,15 Upon patch testing, aluminum allergy has been detected in 77% to 95% of such cases.¹⁴ There is wide variation in the onset of the nodules ranging from weeks to years following vaccination.¹⁵ Due to pruritus, the examination may reveal accompanying excoriations, hyperpigmentation, and sometimes hypertrichosis at the injection site. Aluminum allergy related to vaccination also can manifest with widespread eruptions representing systemic contact dermatitis.¹⁶

Along with vaccines, the second major source of aluminum sensitization is allergen-specific immunotherapies administered by allergists/immunologists, many of which contain aluminum hydroxide.^17,18

On the consumer product front, antiperspirants are the most common source of cutaneous exposure to aluminum. Aluminum complexes react with electrolytes in sweat to form plugs in eccrine ducts, thereby preventing sweat excretion.⁶ Allergic contact dermatitis to these products presents with axillary-vault dermatitis. There also have been reports of ACD to aluminum in sunscreen and toothpaste, with the latter implicated in causing systemic ACD.^19,20

Prevalence of Sensitization to Aluminum

There have been a few large-scale studies evaluating rates of sensitization to aluminum in general patch-test patient populations; additionally, because of the complexities of testing this metal, investigators have utilized differing formulations for patch testing. A recent Swedish study found that 0.9% of 5448 adults and 5.1% of 196 children showed positive reactions to aluminum chloride hexahydrate (ACH) 10% in petrolatum and/or aluminum lactate 12% in petrolatum.²¹ Notably, there was a significant association between aluminum allergy and history of atopy for both adults (P=.0056) and children (P=.046), which remains to be further explored. A systematic review and meta-analysis found comparable rates of aluminum allergy in 0.4% of adults and 5.6% of children without vaccine granulomas who were tested.²² With this evidence in mind, it has been recommended by contact dermatitis experts that aluminum be included in pediatric baseline patch test series and also investigated for potential inclusion in baseline series for adults.¹

Differential Diagnosis of Aluminum ACD

The differential diagnosis for subcutaneous nodules following vaccination is broad and includes various forms of panniculitis, sarcoidosis, foreign body reactions, vascular malformations, infections, and malignancies.^23-25 The diagnosis may be obscured in cases with delayed onset. Biopsy is not mandatory to establish the diagnosis; although variable histopathologic findings have been reported, a common feature is histiocytes with abundant granular cytoplasm.²⁶ It may be possible to demonstrate the presence of aluminum particles in tissue using electron microscopy and X-ray microanalysis.

For those patients who present with axillary-vault dermatitis, the differential includes ACD to more common allergens in antiperspirants (eg, fragrance), as well as other axillary dermatoses including inverse psoriasis, erythrasma, Hailey-Hailey disease, and various forms of intertrigo. Dermatitis localized to the axillary rim suggests textile allergy.

Patch Testing to Aluminum

Due to its physicochemical properties, patch testing for aluminum allergy is complicated, and historically there has been a lack of consensus on the ideal test formulation.^1,27,28 At this time, it appears that the most sensitive formulation for patch testing to aluminum is ACH 10% in petrolatum.¹ Some contact dermatitis experts recommend that children younger than 8 years should be tested with ACH 2% in petrolatum to minimize the risk of extreme patch test reactions.^29,30 In some patients sensitized to aluminum, the use of aluminum patch test chambers has been noted to produce false-positive reactions, taking the form of multiple ring-shaped reactions to the chambers themselves or reactions to certain allergens whose chemical properties cause corrosion of the aluminum within the chambers.^31-33 Therefore, when testing for suspected aluminum allergy, plastic chambers should be used; given the higher prevalence of aluminum allergy in children, some clinics routinely use plastic chambers for all pediatric patch testing.³⁴ Importantly, elemental aluminum, including empty aluminum test chambers or aluminum foil, alone is not sufficient for patch testing as it lacks sensitivity.¹ Additionally, nearly 20% of positive tests will be missed if a day 7 reading is not performed, making delayed reading a must in cases with high suspicion for aluminum allergy.²¹

Management of Aluminum Allergy

The development of pruritic subcutaneous nodules is uncomfortable for children and their guardians alike and may be associated with prolonged symptoms that negatively impact quality of life^35,36; nonetheless, expert authorities have determined that the preventive benefits of childhood vaccination far outweigh any risk posed by the presence of aluminum in vaccines.^12,13,37 Because aluminum-free formulations may not be available for all vaccines, it is essential to educate patients and families who may be at risk for developing vaccine hesitancy or avoidance.^35,36,38 Given the hypothesis that epidermal dendritic cells mediate aluminum sensitization, it has been proposed that vaccine administration via deep intramuscular rather than subcutaneous injection may mitigate the risk, but more evidence is needed to support this approach.^39,40 The good news is that the nodules tend to fade with age, with a median time to resolution of 18 to 49 months.¹⁴ In addition, patients may experience loss of sensitization to aluminum over time⁴¹; in one study, 77% of 241 children lost patch test reactivity when retested 5 to 9 years later.⁴² The exact reason for this diminishment of reactivity is not well understood. Adjunctive treatments to relieve symptoms of vaccine granulomas include topical and intralesional corticosteroids and antihistamines.

For patients reacting to aluminum in antiperspirants, there are many aluminum-free formulations on the market as well as recipes for homemade antiperspirants.⁶ On a case-by-case basis, patients may need to avoid aluminum-containing medications, permanent tattoos, and orthopedic or dental implants. To the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence suggesting a need to avoid aluminum in foods and their containers in routine daily life; although some patients report exacerbations of their symptoms associated with food-related aluminum exposures (eg, canned food, dried fruit) and improvement with dietary modification, further investigation is needed to confirm the relevance of these sources of contact.^36,38 For patients who require allergen-specific immunotherapy, aluminum-free allergen extracts are available.⁶

Final Interpretation

Exposure to aluminum is ubiquitous; although relatively uncommon, awareness of the potential for ACD to aluminum is increasingly important, particularly in children. Given the prevalence of aluminum contact allergy, it has been recommended by contact dermatitis experts for inclusion in baseline pediatric patch test series.¹ Although it is a complex issue, the development of ACD in a small proportion of children exposed to aluminum in vaccines does not outweigh the benefit of vaccination for almost all children. When conducting patch testing to aluminum, studies support testing to ACH 10% in petrolatum for adults, and consider reducing the concentration to ACH 2% for children.

Acknowledgment—The authors thank Ian Fritz, MD (South Portland, Maine), for his critical input during preparation of this article.

No time of the year is more exciting than the unveiling of the American Contact Dermatitis Society Allergen of the Year. Sometimes the selected allergen represents a completely novel cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) with an unpronounceable chemical name. Not this time! The 2022 Allergen of the Year is likely to be lurking in your kitchen drawer at this very moment, as this year aluminum was chosen for this most prestigious honor.¹ But do not throw out your aluminum foil just yet—aluminum allergy tends to be confined to specific scenarios. In this article, we highlight the growing recognition of aluminum contact allergy, particularly in the pediatric population, focusing on distinct presentations of aluminum ACD, unique sources of exposure, and nuances of patch testing to this metal.

Aluminum Is All Around Us

As the third most common element in the Earth’s crust, aluminum can be found quite literally everywhere.¹ However, aluminum rarely is found in its pure elemental form; instead, it reacts with other elements around it, most commonly oxygen, to form aluminum-containing compounds. Known for their stability and safety, aluminum and its salts are incorporated in myriad products ranging from electronic equipment to foods and their packaging, medications, cosmetics, orthopedic and dental implants, and even tattoos. Aluminum also is found in the air and water supply and may even be encountered in certain workplaces, such as aircraft and machine industries. As such, contact with aluminum is all but certain in modern life.

The use of aluminum in consumer products is widely accepted as safe by public health agencies in the United States.² Although there has been public concern that aluminum could be linked to development of breast cancer or Alzheimer disease, there is no clear evidence that these conditions are associated with routine aluminum exposure through ingestion or consumer products.^3-5

Aluminum Contact Allergy

In part because of its ubiquity and in part because of the stability of aluminum-containing compounds, it was long thought that aluminum was nonallergenic. Contact allergy to elemental aluminum is rare; on the other hand, aluminum salts (the forms we are likely to encounter in daily life) are now recognized in the field of contact dermatitis as allergens of significance, particularly in the pediatric population.^1,6

First reported as a possible occupational allergen in 1944,⁷ aluminum allergy came to prominence in the 1990s in association with vaccines. Aluminum is included in some vaccines as an adjuvant that bolsters the immune response⁸; the eTable lists currently available aluminum-containing vaccines in the United States; of note, none of the COVID-19 vaccines approved in the United States or Europe contain aluminum.¹¹ Although the use of aluminum in vaccines is considered to be safe by the US Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,^12,13 a small number of children become sensitized to aluminum through vaccines and may develop persistent pruritic subcutaneous nodules (also known as vaccination granulomas) at the injection site; however, the incidence of this adverse effect was less than 1% in large studies including as many as 76,000 children, suggesting that it is relatively rare.^14,15 Upon patch testing, aluminum allergy has been detected in 77% to 95% of such cases.¹⁴ There is wide variation in the onset of the nodules ranging from weeks to years following vaccination.¹⁵ Due to pruritus, the examination may reveal accompanying excoriations, hyperpigmentation, and sometimes hypertrichosis at the injection site. Aluminum allergy related to vaccination also can manifest with widespread eruptions representing systemic contact dermatitis.¹⁶

Along with vaccines, the second major source of aluminum sensitization is allergen-specific immunotherapies administered by allergists/immunologists, many of which contain aluminum hydroxide.^17,18

On the consumer product front, antiperspirants are the most common source of cutaneous exposure to aluminum. Aluminum complexes react with electrolytes in sweat to form plugs in eccrine ducts, thereby preventing sweat excretion.⁶ Allergic contact dermatitis to these products presents with axillary-vault dermatitis. There also have been reports of ACD to aluminum in sunscreen and toothpaste, with the latter implicated in causing systemic ACD.^19,20

Prevalence of Sensitization to Aluminum

There have been a few large-scale studies evaluating rates of sensitization to aluminum in general patch-test patient populations; additionally, because of the complexities of testing this metal, investigators have utilized differing formulations for patch testing. A recent Swedish study found that 0.9% of 5448 adults and 5.1% of 196 children showed positive reactions to aluminum chloride hexahydrate (ACH) 10% in petrolatum and/or aluminum lactate 12% in petrolatum.²¹ Notably, there was a significant association between aluminum allergy and history of atopy for both adults (P=.0056) and children (P=.046), which remains to be further explored. A systematic review and meta-analysis found comparable rates of aluminum allergy in 0.4% of adults and 5.6% of children without vaccine granulomas who were tested.²² With this evidence in mind, it has been recommended by contact dermatitis experts that aluminum be included in pediatric baseline patch test series and also investigated for potential inclusion in baseline series for adults.¹

Differential Diagnosis of Aluminum ACD

The differential diagnosis for subcutaneous nodules following vaccination is broad and includes various forms of panniculitis, sarcoidosis, foreign body reactions, vascular malformations, infections, and malignancies.^23-25 The diagnosis may be obscured in cases with delayed onset. Biopsy is not mandatory to establish the diagnosis; although variable histopathologic findings have been reported, a common feature is histiocytes with abundant granular cytoplasm.²⁶ It may be possible to demonstrate the presence of aluminum particles in tissue using electron microscopy and X-ray microanalysis.

For those patients who present with axillary-vault dermatitis, the differential includes ACD to more common allergens in antiperspirants (eg, fragrance), as well as other axillary dermatoses including inverse psoriasis, erythrasma, Hailey-Hailey disease, and various forms of intertrigo. Dermatitis localized to the axillary rim suggests textile allergy.

Patch Testing to Aluminum

Due to its physicochemical properties, patch testing for aluminum allergy is complicated, and historically there has been a lack of consensus on the ideal test formulation.^1,27,28 At this time, it appears that the most sensitive formulation for patch testing to aluminum is ACH 10% in petrolatum.¹ Some contact dermatitis experts recommend that children younger than 8 years should be tested with ACH 2% in petrolatum to minimize the risk of extreme patch test reactions.^29,30 In some patients sensitized to aluminum, the use of aluminum patch test chambers has been noted to produce false-positive reactions, taking the form of multiple ring-shaped reactions to the chambers themselves or reactions to certain allergens whose chemical properties cause corrosion of the aluminum within the chambers.^31-33 Therefore, when testing for suspected aluminum allergy, plastic chambers should be used; given the higher prevalence of aluminum allergy in children, some clinics routinely use plastic chambers for all pediatric patch testing.³⁴ Importantly, elemental aluminum, including empty aluminum test chambers or aluminum foil, alone is not sufficient for patch testing as it lacks sensitivity.¹ Additionally, nearly 20% of positive tests will be missed if a day 7 reading is not performed, making delayed reading a must in cases with high suspicion for aluminum allergy.²¹

Management of Aluminum Allergy

The development of pruritic subcutaneous nodules is uncomfortable for children and their guardians alike and may be associated with prolonged symptoms that negatively impact quality of life^35,36; nonetheless, expert authorities have determined that the preventive benefits of childhood vaccination far outweigh any risk posed by the presence of aluminum in vaccines.^12,13,37 Because aluminum-free formulations may not be available for all vaccines, it is essential to educate patients and families who may be at risk for developing vaccine hesitancy or avoidance.^35,36,38 Given the hypothesis that epidermal dendritic cells mediate aluminum sensitization, it has been proposed that vaccine administration via deep intramuscular rather than subcutaneous injection may mitigate the risk, but more evidence is needed to support this approach.^39,40 The good news is that the nodules tend to fade with age, with a median time to resolution of 18 to 49 months.¹⁴ In addition, patients may experience loss of sensitization to aluminum over time⁴¹; in one study, 77% of 241 children lost patch test reactivity when retested 5 to 9 years later.⁴² The exact reason for this diminishment of reactivity is not well understood. Adjunctive treatments to relieve symptoms of vaccine granulomas include topical and intralesional corticosteroids and antihistamines.

For patients reacting to aluminum in antiperspirants, there are many aluminum-free formulations on the market as well as recipes for homemade antiperspirants.⁶ On a case-by-case basis, patients may need to avoid aluminum-containing medications, permanent tattoos, and orthopedic or dental implants. To the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence suggesting a need to avoid aluminum in foods and their containers in routine daily life; although some patients report exacerbations of their symptoms associated with food-related aluminum exposures (eg, canned food, dried fruit) and improvement with dietary modification, further investigation is needed to confirm the relevance of these sources of contact.^36,38 For patients who require allergen-specific immunotherapy, aluminum-free allergen extracts are available.⁶

Final Interpretation

Exposure to aluminum is ubiquitous; although relatively uncommon, awareness of the potential for ACD to aluminum is increasingly important, particularly in children. Given the prevalence of aluminum contact allergy, it has been recommended by contact dermatitis experts for inclusion in baseline pediatric patch test series.¹ Although it is a complex issue, the development of ACD in a small proportion of children exposed to aluminum in vaccines does not outweigh the benefit of vaccination for almost all children. When conducting patch testing to aluminum, studies support testing to ACH 10% in petrolatum for adults, and consider reducing the concentration to ACH 2% for children.

Acknowledgment—The authors thank Ian Fritz, MD (South Portland, Maine), for his critical input during preparation of this article.

No time of the year is more exciting than the unveiling of the American Contact Dermatitis Society Allergen of the Year. Sometimes the selected allergen represents a completely novel cause of allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) with an unpronounceable chemical name. Not this time! The 2022 Allergen of the Year is likely to be lurking in your kitchen drawer at this very moment, as this year aluminum was chosen for this most prestigious honor.¹ But do not throw out your aluminum foil just yet—aluminum allergy tends to be confined to specific scenarios. In this article, we highlight the growing recognition of aluminum contact allergy, particularly in the pediatric population, focusing on distinct presentations of aluminum ACD, unique sources of exposure, and nuances of patch testing to this metal.

Aluminum Is All Around Us

As the third most common element in the Earth’s crust, aluminum can be found quite literally everywhere.¹ However, aluminum rarely is found in its pure elemental form; instead, it reacts with other elements around it, most commonly oxygen, to form aluminum-containing compounds. Known for their stability and safety, aluminum and its salts are incorporated in myriad products ranging from electronic equipment to foods and their packaging, medications, cosmetics, orthopedic and dental implants, and even tattoos. Aluminum also is found in the air and water supply and may even be encountered in certain workplaces, such as aircraft and machine industries. As such, contact with aluminum is all but certain in modern life.

The use of aluminum in consumer products is widely accepted as safe by public health agencies in the United States.² Although there has been public concern that aluminum could be linked to development of breast cancer or Alzheimer disease, there is no clear evidence that these conditions are associated with routine aluminum exposure through ingestion or consumer products.^3-5

Aluminum Contact Allergy

In part because of its ubiquity and in part because of the stability of aluminum-containing compounds, it was long thought that aluminum was nonallergenic. Contact allergy to elemental aluminum is rare; on the other hand, aluminum salts (the forms we are likely to encounter in daily life) are now recognized in the field of contact dermatitis as allergens of significance, particularly in the pediatric population.^1,6

First reported as a possible occupational allergen in 1944,⁷ aluminum allergy came to prominence in the 1990s in association with vaccines. Aluminum is included in some vaccines as an adjuvant that bolsters the immune response⁸; the eTable lists currently available aluminum-containing vaccines in the United States; of note, none of the COVID-19 vaccines approved in the United States or Europe contain aluminum.¹¹ Although the use of aluminum in vaccines is considered to be safe by the US Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,^12,13 a small number of children become sensitized to aluminum through vaccines and may develop persistent pruritic subcutaneous nodules (also known as vaccination granulomas) at the injection site; however, the incidence of this adverse effect was less than 1% in large studies including as many as 76,000 children, suggesting that it is relatively rare.^14,15 Upon patch testing, aluminum allergy has been detected in 77% to 95% of such cases.¹⁴ There is wide variation in the onset of the nodules ranging from weeks to years following vaccination.¹⁵ Due to pruritus, the examination may reveal accompanying excoriations, hyperpigmentation, and sometimes hypertrichosis at the injection site. Aluminum allergy related to vaccination also can manifest with widespread eruptions representing systemic contact dermatitis.¹⁶

Along with vaccines, the second major source of aluminum sensitization is allergen-specific immunotherapies administered by allergists/immunologists, many of which contain aluminum hydroxide.^17,18

On the consumer product front, antiperspirants are the most common source of cutaneous exposure to aluminum. Aluminum complexes react with electrolytes in sweat to form plugs in eccrine ducts, thereby preventing sweat excretion.⁶ Allergic contact dermatitis to these products presents with axillary-vault dermatitis. There also have been reports of ACD to aluminum in sunscreen and toothpaste, with the latter implicated in causing systemic ACD.^19,20

Prevalence of Sensitization to Aluminum

There have been a few large-scale studies evaluating rates of sensitization to aluminum in general patch-test patient populations; additionally, because of the complexities of testing this metal, investigators have utilized differing formulations for patch testing. A recent Swedish study found that 0.9% of 5448 adults and 5.1% of 196 children showed positive reactions to aluminum chloride hexahydrate (ACH) 10% in petrolatum and/or aluminum lactate 12% in petrolatum.²¹ Notably, there was a significant association between aluminum allergy and history of atopy for both adults (P=.0056) and children (P=.046), which remains to be further explored. A systematic review and meta-analysis found comparable rates of aluminum allergy in 0.4% of adults and 5.6% of children without vaccine granulomas who were tested.²² With this evidence in mind, it has been recommended by contact dermatitis experts that aluminum be included in pediatric baseline patch test series and also investigated for potential inclusion in baseline series for adults.¹

Differential Diagnosis of Aluminum ACD

The differential diagnosis for subcutaneous nodules following vaccination is broad and includes various forms of panniculitis, sarcoidosis, foreign body reactions, vascular malformations, infections, and malignancies.^23-25 The diagnosis may be obscured in cases with delayed onset. Biopsy is not mandatory to establish the diagnosis; although variable histopathologic findings have been reported, a common feature is histiocytes with abundant granular cytoplasm.²⁶ It may be possible to demonstrate the presence of aluminum particles in tissue using electron microscopy and X-ray microanalysis.

For those patients who present with axillary-vault dermatitis, the differential includes ACD to more common allergens in antiperspirants (eg, fragrance), as well as other axillary dermatoses including inverse psoriasis, erythrasma, Hailey-Hailey disease, and various forms of intertrigo. Dermatitis localized to the axillary rim suggests textile allergy.

Patch Testing to Aluminum

Due to its physicochemical properties, patch testing for aluminum allergy is complicated, and historically there has been a lack of consensus on the ideal test formulation.^1,27,28 At this time, it appears that the most sensitive formulation for patch testing to aluminum is ACH 10% in petrolatum.¹ Some contact dermatitis experts recommend that children younger than 8 years should be tested with ACH 2% in petrolatum to minimize the risk of extreme patch test reactions.^29,30 In some patients sensitized to aluminum, the use of aluminum patch test chambers has been noted to produce false-positive reactions, taking the form of multiple ring-shaped reactions to the chambers themselves or reactions to certain allergens whose chemical properties cause corrosion of the aluminum within the chambers.^31-33 Therefore, when testing for suspected aluminum allergy, plastic chambers should be used; given the higher prevalence of aluminum allergy in children, some clinics routinely use plastic chambers for all pediatric patch testing.³⁴ Importantly, elemental aluminum, including empty aluminum test chambers or aluminum foil, alone is not sufficient for patch testing as it lacks sensitivity.¹ Additionally, nearly 20% of positive tests will be missed if a day 7 reading is not performed, making delayed reading a must in cases with high suspicion for aluminum allergy.²¹

Management of Aluminum Allergy

The development of pruritic subcutaneous nodules is uncomfortable for children and their guardians alike and may be associated with prolonged symptoms that negatively impact quality of life^35,36; nonetheless, expert authorities have determined that the preventive benefits of childhood vaccination far outweigh any risk posed by the presence of aluminum in vaccines.^12,13,37 Because aluminum-free formulations may not be available for all vaccines, it is essential to educate patients and families who may be at risk for developing vaccine hesitancy or avoidance.^35,36,38 Given the hypothesis that epidermal dendritic cells mediate aluminum sensitization, it has been proposed that vaccine administration via deep intramuscular rather than subcutaneous injection may mitigate the risk, but more evidence is needed to support this approach.^39,40 The good news is that the nodules tend to fade with age, with a median time to resolution of 18 to 49 months.¹⁴ In addition, patients may experience loss of sensitization to aluminum over time⁴¹; in one study, 77% of 241 children lost patch test reactivity when retested 5 to 9 years later.⁴² The exact reason for this diminishment of reactivity is not well understood. Adjunctive treatments to relieve symptoms of vaccine granulomas include topical and intralesional corticosteroids and antihistamines.

For patients reacting to aluminum in antiperspirants, there are many aluminum-free formulations on the market as well as recipes for homemade antiperspirants.⁶ On a case-by-case basis, patients may need to avoid aluminum-containing medications, permanent tattoos, and orthopedic or dental implants. To the best of our knowledge, there is no evidence suggesting a need to avoid aluminum in foods and their containers in routine daily life; although some patients report exacerbations of their symptoms associated with food-related aluminum exposures (eg, canned food, dried fruit) and improvement with dietary modification, further investigation is needed to confirm the relevance of these sources of contact.^36,38 For patients who require allergen-specific immunotherapy, aluminum-free allergen extracts are available.⁶

Final Interpretation

Exposure to aluminum is ubiquitous; although relatively uncommon, awareness of the potential for ACD to aluminum is increasingly important, particularly in children. Given the prevalence of aluminum contact allergy, it has been recommended by contact dermatitis experts for inclusion in baseline pediatric patch test series.¹ Although it is a complex issue, the development of ACD in a small proportion of children exposed to aluminum in vaccines does not outweigh the benefit of vaccination for almost all children. When conducting patch testing to aluminum, studies support testing to ACH 10% in petrolatum for adults, and consider reducing the concentration to ACH 2% for children.

Acknowledgment—The authors thank Ian Fritz, MD (South Portland, Maine), for his critical input during preparation of this article.

A patient presenting with a hand pustule is a phenomenon encountered worldwide requiring careful history-taking. Some occupations, activities, and various religious practices (eg, Eid al-Adha, Passover, Easter) have been implicated worldwide in orf infection. In the United States, orf virus usually is spread from infected animal hosts to humans. Herein, we review the differential for a single hand pustule, which includes both infectious and noninfectious causes. Recognizing orf virus as the etiology of a cutaneous hand pustule in patients is important, as misdiagnosis can lead to unnecessary invasive testing and/or treatments with suboptimal clinical outcomes.

Case Series

When conducting a search for orf virus cases at our institution (University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa), 5 patient cases were identified.

Patient 1—A 27-year-old otherwise healthy woman presented to clinic with a tender red bump on the right ring finger that had been slowly growing over the course of 2 weeks and had recently started to bleed. A social history revealed that she owned several goats, which she frequently milked; 1 of the goats had a cyst on the mouth, which she popped approximately 1 to 2 weeks prior to the appearance of the lesion on the finger. She also endorsed that she owned several cattle and various other animals with which she had frequent contact. A biopsy was obtained with features consistent with orf virus.

Patient 2—A 33-year-old man presented to clinic with a lesion of concern on the left index finger. Several days prior to presentation, the patient had visited the emergency department for swelling and erythema of the same finger after cutting himself with a knife while preparing sheep meat. Radiographs were normal, and the patient was referred to dermatology. In clinic, there was a 0.5-cm fluctuant mass on the distal interphalangeal joint of the third finger. The patient declined a biopsy, and the lesion healed over 4 to 6 weeks without complication.

Patient 3—A 38-year-old man presented to clinic with 2 painless, large, round nodules on the right proximal index finger, with open friable centers noted on physical examination (Figure 1). The patient reported cutting the finger while preparing sheep meat several days prior. The nodules had been present for a few weeks and continued to grow. A punch biopsy revealed evidence of parapoxvirus infection consistent with a diagnosis of orf.

Patient 4—A 48-year-old man was referred to our dermatology clinic for evaluation of a bleeding lesion on the left middle finger. Physical examination revealed an exophytic, friable, ulcerated nodule on the dorsal aspect of the left middle finger (Figure 2). Upon further questioning, the patient mentioned that he handled raw lamb meat after cutting the finger. A punch biopsy was obtained and was consistent with orf virus infection.

Patient 5—A 43-year-old woman presented to clinic with a chronic wound on the mid lower back that was noted to drain and crust over. She thought the lesion was improving, but it had become painful over the last few weeks. A shave biopsy of the lesion was consistent with orf virus. At follow-up, the patient was unable to identify any recent contact with animals.

Transmission From Animals to Humans—Orf virus is a member of the Parapoxvirus genus of the Poxviridae family.¹ This virus is highly contagious among animals and has been described around the globe. The resulting disease also is known as contagious pustular dermatitis,² soremuzzle,³ ecthyma contagiosum of sheep,⁴ and scabby mouth.⁵ This virus most commonly infects young lambs and manifests as raw to crusty papules, pustules, or vesicles around the mouth and nose of the animal.⁴ Additional signs include excessive salivation and weight loss or starvation from the inability to suckle because of the lesions.⁵ Although ecthyma contagiosum infection of sheep and goats has been well known for centuries, human infection was first reported in the literature in 1934.⁶

Transmission of orf to humans can occur when direct contact with an infected animal exhibiting active lesions occurs.⁷ Orf virus also can be transmitted through fomites (eg, from knives, wool, buildings, equipment) that previously were in contact with infected animals, making it relevant to ask all farmers about any animals with pustules around the mouth, nose, udders, or other commonly affected areas. Although sanitation efforts are important for prevention, orf virus is hardy, and fomites can remain on surfaces for many months.⁸ Transmission among animals and from animals to humans frequently occurs; however, human-to-human transmission is less common.⁹ Ecthyma contagiosum is considered an occupational hazard, with the disease being most prevalent in shepherds, veterinarians, and butchers.^1,8 Disease prevalence in these occupations has been reported to be as high as 50%.¹⁰ Infections also are seen in patients who attend petting zoos or who slaughter goats and sheep for cultural practices.⁸

Clinical Characteristics in Humans—The clinical diagnosis of orf is dependent on taking a thorough patient history that includes social, occupational, and religious activities. Development of a nodule or papule on a patient’s hand with recent exposure to fomites or direct contact with a goat or sheep up to 1 week prior is extremely suggestive of an orf virus infection.

Clinically, orf most often begins as an individual papule or nodule on the dorsal surface of the patient’s finger or hand and ranges from completely asymptomatic to pruritic or even painful.^1,8 Depending on how the infection was inoculated, lesions can vary in size and number. Other sites that have been reported less frequently include the genitals, legs, axillae, and head.^11,12 Lesions are roughly 1 cm in diameter but can vary in size. Ecthyma contagiosum is not a static disease but changes in appearance over the course of infection. Typically, lesions will appear 3 to 7 days after inoculation with the orf virus and will self-resolve 6 to 8 weeks later.

Orf lesions have been described to progress through 6 distinct phases before resolving: maculopapular (erythematous macule or papule forms), targetoid (formation of a necrotic center with red outer halo), acute (lesion begins to weep), regenerative (lesion becomes dry), papilloma (dry crust becomes papillomatous), and regression (skin returns to normal appearance).^1,8,9 Each phase of ecthyma contagiosum is unique and will last up to 1 week before progressing. Because of this prolonged clinical course, patients can present at any stage.

Reports of systemic symptoms are uncommon but can include lymphadenopathy, fever, and malaise.¹³ Although the disease course in immunocompetent individuals is quite mild, immunocompromised patients may experience persistent orf lesions that are painful and can be much larger, with reports of several centimeters in diameter.¹⁴

Dermatopathology and Molecular Studies—When a clinical diagnosis is not possible, biopsy or molecular studies can be helpful.⁸ Histopathology can vary depending on the phase of the lesion. Early stages are characterized by spongiform degeneration of the epidermis with variable vesiculation of the superficial epidermis and eosinophilic cytoplasmic inclusion bodies of keratinocytes (Figure 3). Later stages demonstrate full-thickness necrosis with epidermal balloon degeneration and dense inflammation of the dermis with edema and extravasated erythrocytes from dilated blood vessels. Both early- and late-stage disease commonly show characteristic elongated thin rete ridges.⁸

Molecular studies are another reliable method for diagnosis, though these are not always readily available. Polymerase chain reaction can be used for sensitive and rapid diagnosis.¹⁵ Less commonly, electron microscopy, Western blot, or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays are used.¹⁶ Laboratory studies, such as complete blood cell count with differential, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein, often are unnecessary but may be helpful in ruling out other infectious causes. Tissue culture can be considered if bacterial, fungal, or acid-fast bacilli are in the differential; however, no growth will be seen in the case of orf viral infection.

Differential Diagnosis—The differential diagnosis for patients presenting with a large pustule on the hand or fingers can depend on geographic location, as the potential etiology may vary widely around the world. Several zoonotic viral infections other than orf can present with pustular lesions on the hands (Table).^17-24

Clinically, infection with these named viruses can be hard to distinguish; however, appropriate social history or polymerase chain reaction can be obtained to differentiate them. Other infectious entities include herpetic whitlow, giant molluscum, and anthrax (eTable).^24-26 Biopsy of the lesion with bacterial tissue culture may lead to definitive diagnosis.²⁶

Treatment—Because of the self-resolving nature of orf, treatment usually is not needed in immunocompetent patients with a solitary lesion. However, wound care is essential to prevent secondary infections of the lesion. If secondarily infected, topical or oral antibiotics may be prescribed. Immunocompromised individuals are at increased risk for developing large persistent lesions and sometimes require intervention for successful treatment. Several successful treatment methods have been described and include intralesional interferon injections, electrocautery, topical imiquimod, topical cidofovir, and cryotherapy.^8,14,27-30 Infections that continue to be refractory to less-invasive treatment can be considered for wide local excision; however, recurrence is possible.⁸ Vaccinations are available for animals to prevent the spread of infection in the flock, but there are no formulations of vaccines for human use. Prevention of spread to humans can be done through animal vaccination, careful handling of animal products while wearing nonporous gloves, and proper sanitation techniques.

Complications—Orf has an excellent long-term prognosis in immunocompetent patients, as the virus is epitheliotropic, and inoculation does not lead to viremia.² Although lesions typically are asymptomatic in most patients, complications can occur, especially in immunosuppressed individuals. These complications include systemic symptoms, giant persistent lesions prone to infection or scarring, erysipelas, lymphadenitis, and erythema multiforme.^8,31 Common systemic symptoms of ecthyma contagiosum include fever, fatigue, and myalgia. Lymphadenitis can occur along with local swelling and lymphatic streaking. Although erythema multiforme is a rare complication occurring after initial ecthyma contagiosum infection, this hypersensitivity reaction is postulated to be in response to the immunologic clearing of the orf virus.^32,33 Patients receiving systemic immunosuppressive medications are at an increased risk of developing complications from infection and may even be required to pause systemic treatment for complete resolution of orf lesions.³⁴ Other cutaneous diseases that decrease the skin’s barrier protection, such as bullous pemphigoid or eczema, also can place patients at an increased risk for complications.³⁵ Although human-to-human orf virus transmission is exceptionally rare, there is a case report of this phenomenon in immunosuppressed patients residing in a burn unit.³⁶ Transplant recipients on immunosuppressive medications also can experience orf lesions with exaggerated presentations that continue to grow up to several centimeters in diameter.³¹ Long-term prognosis is still good in these patients with appropriate disease recognition and treatment. Reinfection is not uncommon with repeated exposure to the source, but lesions are less severe and resolve faster than with initial infection.^1,8

Conclusion

The contagious hand pustule caused by orf virus is a distinct clinical entity that is prevalent worldwide and requires thorough evaluation of the clinical course of the lesion and the patient’s social history. Several zoonotic viral infections have been implicated in this presentation. Although biopsy and molecular studies can be helpful, the expert diagnostician can make a clinical diagnosis with careful attention to social history, geographic location, and cultural practices.

A patient presenting with a hand pustule is a phenomenon encountered worldwide requiring careful history-taking. Some occupations, activities, and various religious practices (eg, Eid al-Adha, Passover, Easter) have been implicated worldwide in orf infection. In the United States, orf virus usually is spread from infected animal hosts to humans. Herein, we review the differential for a single hand pustule, which includes both infectious and noninfectious causes. Recognizing orf virus as the etiology of a cutaneous hand pustule in patients is important, as misdiagnosis can lead to unnecessary invasive testing and/or treatments with suboptimal clinical outcomes.

Case Series

When conducting a search for orf virus cases at our institution (University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa), 5 patient cases were identified.

Patient 1—A 27-year-old otherwise healthy woman presented to clinic with a tender red bump on the right ring finger that had been slowly growing over the course of 2 weeks and had recently started to bleed. A social history revealed that she owned several goats, which she frequently milked; 1 of the goats had a cyst on the mouth, which she popped approximately 1 to 2 weeks prior to the appearance of the lesion on the finger. She also endorsed that she owned several cattle and various other animals with which she had frequent contact. A biopsy was obtained with features consistent with orf virus.

Patient 2—A 33-year-old man presented to clinic with a lesion of concern on the left index finger. Several days prior to presentation, the patient had visited the emergency department for swelling and erythema of the same finger after cutting himself with a knife while preparing sheep meat. Radiographs were normal, and the patient was referred to dermatology. In clinic, there was a 0.5-cm fluctuant mass on the distal interphalangeal joint of the third finger. The patient declined a biopsy, and the lesion healed over 4 to 6 weeks without complication.

Patient 3—A 38-year-old man presented to clinic with 2 painless, large, round nodules on the right proximal index finger, with open friable centers noted on physical examination (Figure 1). The patient reported cutting the finger while preparing sheep meat several days prior. The nodules had been present for a few weeks and continued to grow. A punch biopsy revealed evidence of parapoxvirus infection consistent with a diagnosis of orf.

Patient 4—A 48-year-old man was referred to our dermatology clinic for evaluation of a bleeding lesion on the left middle finger. Physical examination revealed an exophytic, friable, ulcerated nodule on the dorsal aspect of the left middle finger (Figure 2). Upon further questioning, the patient mentioned that he handled raw lamb meat after cutting the finger. A punch biopsy was obtained and was consistent with orf virus infection.

Patient 5—A 43-year-old woman presented to clinic with a chronic wound on the mid lower back that was noted to drain and crust over. She thought the lesion was improving, but it had become painful over the last few weeks. A shave biopsy of the lesion was consistent with orf virus. At follow-up, the patient was unable to identify any recent contact with animals.

Transmission From Animals to Humans—Orf virus is a member of the Parapoxvirus genus of the Poxviridae family.¹ This virus is highly contagious among animals and has been described around the globe. The resulting disease also is known as contagious pustular dermatitis,² soremuzzle,³ ecthyma contagiosum of sheep,⁴ and scabby mouth.⁵ This virus most commonly infects young lambs and manifests as raw to crusty papules, pustules, or vesicles around the mouth and nose of the animal.⁴ Additional signs include excessive salivation and weight loss or starvation from the inability to suckle because of the lesions.⁵ Although ecthyma contagiosum infection of sheep and goats has been well known for centuries, human infection was first reported in the literature in 1934.⁶

Transmission of orf to humans can occur when direct contact with an infected animal exhibiting active lesions occurs.⁷ Orf virus also can be transmitted through fomites (eg, from knives, wool, buildings, equipment) that previously were in contact with infected animals, making it relevant to ask all farmers about any animals with pustules around the mouth, nose, udders, or other commonly affected areas. Although sanitation efforts are important for prevention, orf virus is hardy, and fomites can remain on surfaces for many months.⁸ Transmission among animals and from animals to humans frequently occurs; however, human-to-human transmission is less common.⁹ Ecthyma contagiosum is considered an occupational hazard, with the disease being most prevalent in shepherds, veterinarians, and butchers.^1,8 Disease prevalence in these occupations has been reported to be as high as 50%.¹⁰ Infections also are seen in patients who attend petting zoos or who slaughter goats and sheep for cultural practices.⁸

Clinical Characteristics in Humans—The clinical diagnosis of orf is dependent on taking a thorough patient history that includes social, occupational, and religious activities. Development of a nodule or papule on a patient’s hand with recent exposure to fomites or direct contact with a goat or sheep up to 1 week prior is extremely suggestive of an orf virus infection.

Clinically, orf most often begins as an individual papule or nodule on the dorsal surface of the patient’s finger or hand and ranges from completely asymptomatic to pruritic or even painful.^1,8 Depending on how the infection was inoculated, lesions can vary in size and number. Other sites that have been reported less frequently include the genitals, legs, axillae, and head.^11,12 Lesions are roughly 1 cm in diameter but can vary in size. Ecthyma contagiosum is not a static disease but changes in appearance over the course of infection. Typically, lesions will appear 3 to 7 days after inoculation with the orf virus and will self-resolve 6 to 8 weeks later.

Orf lesions have been described to progress through 6 distinct phases before resolving: maculopapular (erythematous macule or papule forms), targetoid (formation of a necrotic center with red outer halo), acute (lesion begins to weep), regenerative (lesion becomes dry), papilloma (dry crust becomes papillomatous), and regression (skin returns to normal appearance).^1,8,9 Each phase of ecthyma contagiosum is unique and will last up to 1 week before progressing. Because of this prolonged clinical course, patients can present at any stage.

Reports of systemic symptoms are uncommon but can include lymphadenopathy, fever, and malaise.¹³ Although the disease course in immunocompetent individuals is quite mild, immunocompromised patients may experience persistent orf lesions that are painful and can be much larger, with reports of several centimeters in diameter.¹⁴

Dermatopathology and Molecular Studies—When a clinical diagnosis is not possible, biopsy or molecular studies can be helpful.⁸ Histopathology can vary depending on the phase of the lesion. Early stages are characterized by spongiform degeneration of the epidermis with variable vesiculation of the superficial epidermis and eosinophilic cytoplasmic inclusion bodies of keratinocytes (Figure 3). Later stages demonstrate full-thickness necrosis with epidermal balloon degeneration and dense inflammation of the dermis with edema and extravasated erythrocytes from dilated blood vessels. Both early- and late-stage disease commonly show characteristic elongated thin rete ridges.⁸

Molecular studies are another reliable method for diagnosis, though these are not always readily available. Polymerase chain reaction can be used for sensitive and rapid diagnosis.¹⁵ Less commonly, electron microscopy, Western blot, or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays are used.¹⁶ Laboratory studies, such as complete blood cell count with differential, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein, often are unnecessary but may be helpful in ruling out other infectious causes. Tissue culture can be considered if bacterial, fungal, or acid-fast bacilli are in the differential; however, no growth will be seen in the case of orf viral infection.

Differential Diagnosis—The differential diagnosis for patients presenting with a large pustule on the hand or fingers can depend on geographic location, as the potential etiology may vary widely around the world. Several zoonotic viral infections other than orf can present with pustular lesions on the hands (Table).^17-24

Clinically, infection with these named viruses can be hard to distinguish; however, appropriate social history or polymerase chain reaction can be obtained to differentiate them. Other infectious entities include herpetic whitlow, giant molluscum, and anthrax (eTable).^24-26 Biopsy of the lesion with bacterial tissue culture may lead to definitive diagnosis.²⁶

Treatment—Because of the self-resolving nature of orf, treatment usually is not needed in immunocompetent patients with a solitary lesion. However, wound care is essential to prevent secondary infections of the lesion. If secondarily infected, topical or oral antibiotics may be prescribed. Immunocompromised individuals are at increased risk for developing large persistent lesions and sometimes require intervention for successful treatment. Several successful treatment methods have been described and include intralesional interferon injections, electrocautery, topical imiquimod, topical cidofovir, and cryotherapy.^8,14,27-30 Infections that continue to be refractory to less-invasive treatment can be considered for wide local excision; however, recurrence is possible.⁸ Vaccinations are available for animals to prevent the spread of infection in the flock, but there are no formulations of vaccines for human use. Prevention of spread to humans can be done through animal vaccination, careful handling of animal products while wearing nonporous gloves, and proper sanitation techniques.

Complications—Orf has an excellent long-term prognosis in immunocompetent patients, as the virus is epitheliotropic, and inoculation does not lead to viremia.² Although lesions typically are asymptomatic in most patients, complications can occur, especially in immunosuppressed individuals. These complications include systemic symptoms, giant persistent lesions prone to infection or scarring, erysipelas, lymphadenitis, and erythema multiforme.^8,31 Common systemic symptoms of ecthyma contagiosum include fever, fatigue, and myalgia. Lymphadenitis can occur along with local swelling and lymphatic streaking. Although erythema multiforme is a rare complication occurring after initial ecthyma contagiosum infection, this hypersensitivity reaction is postulated to be in response to the immunologic clearing of the orf virus.^32,33 Patients receiving systemic immunosuppressive medications are at an increased risk of developing complications from infection and may even be required to pause systemic treatment for complete resolution of orf lesions.³⁴ Other cutaneous diseases that decrease the skin’s barrier protection, such as bullous pemphigoid or eczema, also can place patients at an increased risk for complications.³⁵ Although human-to-human orf virus transmission is exceptionally rare, there is a case report of this phenomenon in immunosuppressed patients residing in a burn unit.³⁶ Transplant recipients on immunosuppressive medications also can experience orf lesions with exaggerated presentations that continue to grow up to several centimeters in diameter.³¹ Long-term prognosis is still good in these patients with appropriate disease recognition and treatment. Reinfection is not uncommon with repeated exposure to the source, but lesions are less severe and resolve faster than with initial infection.^1,8

Conclusion

The contagious hand pustule caused by orf virus is a distinct clinical entity that is prevalent worldwide and requires thorough evaluation of the clinical course of the lesion and the patient’s social history. Several zoonotic viral infections have been implicated in this presentation. Although biopsy and molecular studies can be helpful, the expert diagnostician can make a clinical diagnosis with careful attention to social history, geographic location, and cultural practices.

A patient presenting with a hand pustule is a phenomenon encountered worldwide requiring careful history-taking. Some occupations, activities, and various religious practices (eg, Eid al-Adha, Passover, Easter) have been implicated worldwide in orf infection. In the United States, orf virus usually is spread from infected animal hosts to humans. Herein, we review the differential for a single hand pustule, which includes both infectious and noninfectious causes. Recognizing orf virus as the etiology of a cutaneous hand pustule in patients is important, as misdiagnosis can lead to unnecessary invasive testing and/or treatments with suboptimal clinical outcomes.

Case Series

When conducting a search for orf virus cases at our institution (University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, Iowa City, Iowa), 5 patient cases were identified.

Patient 1—A 27-year-old otherwise healthy woman presented to clinic with a tender red bump on the right ring finger that had been slowly growing over the course of 2 weeks and had recently started to bleed. A social history revealed that she owned several goats, which she frequently milked; 1 of the goats had a cyst on the mouth, which she popped approximately 1 to 2 weeks prior to the appearance of the lesion on the finger. She also endorsed that she owned several cattle and various other animals with which she had frequent contact. A biopsy was obtained with features consistent with orf virus.

Patient 2—A 33-year-old man presented to clinic with a lesion of concern on the left index finger. Several days prior to presentation, the patient had visited the emergency department for swelling and erythema of the same finger after cutting himself with a knife while preparing sheep meat. Radiographs were normal, and the patient was referred to dermatology. In clinic, there was a 0.5-cm fluctuant mass on the distal interphalangeal joint of the third finger. The patient declined a biopsy, and the lesion healed over 4 to 6 weeks without complication.

Patient 3—A 38-year-old man presented to clinic with 2 painless, large, round nodules on the right proximal index finger, with open friable centers noted on physical examination (Figure 1). The patient reported cutting the finger while preparing sheep meat several days prior. The nodules had been present for a few weeks and continued to grow. A punch biopsy revealed evidence of parapoxvirus infection consistent with a diagnosis of orf.

Patient 4—A 48-year-old man was referred to our dermatology clinic for evaluation of a bleeding lesion on the left middle finger. Physical examination revealed an exophytic, friable, ulcerated nodule on the dorsal aspect of the left middle finger (Figure 2). Upon further questioning, the patient mentioned that he handled raw lamb meat after cutting the finger. A punch biopsy was obtained and was consistent with orf virus infection.

Patient 5—A 43-year-old woman presented to clinic with a chronic wound on the mid lower back that was noted to drain and crust over. She thought the lesion was improving, but it had become painful over the last few weeks. A shave biopsy of the lesion was consistent with orf virus. At follow-up, the patient was unable to identify any recent contact with animals.

Transmission From Animals to Humans—Orf virus is a member of the Parapoxvirus genus of the Poxviridae family.¹ This virus is highly contagious among animals and has been described around the globe. The resulting disease also is known as contagious pustular dermatitis,² soremuzzle,³ ecthyma contagiosum of sheep,⁴ and scabby mouth.⁵ This virus most commonly infects young lambs and manifests as raw to crusty papules, pustules, or vesicles around the mouth and nose of the animal.⁴ Additional signs include excessive salivation and weight loss or starvation from the inability to suckle because of the lesions.⁵ Although ecthyma contagiosum infection of sheep and goats has been well known for centuries, human infection was first reported in the literature in 1934.⁶

Transmission of orf to humans can occur when direct contact with an infected animal exhibiting active lesions occurs.⁷ Orf virus also can be transmitted through fomites (eg, from knives, wool, buildings, equipment) that previously were in contact with infected animals, making it relevant to ask all farmers about any animals with pustules around the mouth, nose, udders, or other commonly affected areas. Although sanitation efforts are important for prevention, orf virus is hardy, and fomites can remain on surfaces for many months.⁸ Transmission among animals and from animals to humans frequently occurs; however, human-to-human transmission is less common.⁹ Ecthyma contagiosum is considered an occupational hazard, with the disease being most prevalent in shepherds, veterinarians, and butchers.^1,8 Disease prevalence in these occupations has been reported to be as high as 50%.¹⁰ Infections also are seen in patients who attend petting zoos or who slaughter goats and sheep for cultural practices.⁸

Clinical Characteristics in Humans—The clinical diagnosis of orf is dependent on taking a thorough patient history that includes social, occupational, and religious activities. Development of a nodule or papule on a patient’s hand with recent exposure to fomites or direct contact with a goat or sheep up to 1 week prior is extremely suggestive of an orf virus infection.

Clinically, orf most often begins as an individual papule or nodule on the dorsal surface of the patient’s finger or hand and ranges from completely asymptomatic to pruritic or even painful.^1,8 Depending on how the infection was inoculated, lesions can vary in size and number. Other sites that have been reported less frequently include the genitals, legs, axillae, and head.^11,12 Lesions are roughly 1 cm in diameter but can vary in size. Ecthyma contagiosum is not a static disease but changes in appearance over the course of infection. Typically, lesions will appear 3 to 7 days after inoculation with the orf virus and will self-resolve 6 to 8 weeks later.

Orf lesions have been described to progress through 6 distinct phases before resolving: maculopapular (erythematous macule or papule forms), targetoid (formation of a necrotic center with red outer halo), acute (lesion begins to weep), regenerative (lesion becomes dry), papilloma (dry crust becomes papillomatous), and regression (skin returns to normal appearance).^1,8,9 Each phase of ecthyma contagiosum is unique and will last up to 1 week before progressing. Because of this prolonged clinical course, patients can present at any stage.

Reports of systemic symptoms are uncommon but can include lymphadenopathy, fever, and malaise.¹³ Although the disease course in immunocompetent individuals is quite mild, immunocompromised patients may experience persistent orf lesions that are painful and can be much larger, with reports of several centimeters in diameter.¹⁴

Dermatopathology and Molecular Studies—When a clinical diagnosis is not possible, biopsy or molecular studies can be helpful.⁸ Histopathology can vary depending on the phase of the lesion. Early stages are characterized by spongiform degeneration of the epidermis with variable vesiculation of the superficial epidermis and eosinophilic cytoplasmic inclusion bodies of keratinocytes (Figure 3). Later stages demonstrate full-thickness necrosis with epidermal balloon degeneration and dense inflammation of the dermis with edema and extravasated erythrocytes from dilated blood vessels. Both early- and late-stage disease commonly show characteristic elongated thin rete ridges.⁸

Molecular studies are another reliable method for diagnosis, though these are not always readily available. Polymerase chain reaction can be used for sensitive and rapid diagnosis.¹⁵ Less commonly, electron microscopy, Western blot, or enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays are used.¹⁶ Laboratory studies, such as complete blood cell count with differential, erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and C-reactive protein, often are unnecessary but may be helpful in ruling out other infectious causes. Tissue culture can be considered if bacterial, fungal, or acid-fast bacilli are in the differential; however, no growth will be seen in the case of orf viral infection.

Differential Diagnosis—The differential diagnosis for patients presenting with a large pustule on the hand or fingers can depend on geographic location, as the potential etiology may vary widely around the world. Several zoonotic viral infections other than orf can present with pustular lesions on the hands (Table).^17-24

Clinically, infection with these named viruses can be hard to distinguish; however, appropriate social history or polymerase chain reaction can be obtained to differentiate them. Other infectious entities include herpetic whitlow, giant molluscum, and anthrax (eTable).^24-26 Biopsy of the lesion with bacterial tissue culture may lead to definitive diagnosis.²⁶

Treatment—Because of the self-resolving nature of orf, treatment usually is not needed in immunocompetent patients with a solitary lesion. However, wound care is essential to prevent secondary infections of the lesion. If secondarily infected, topical or oral antibiotics may be prescribed. Immunocompromised individuals are at increased risk for developing large persistent lesions and sometimes require intervention for successful treatment. Several successful treatment methods have been described and include intralesional interferon injections, electrocautery, topical imiquimod, topical cidofovir, and cryotherapy.^8,14,27-30 Infections that continue to be refractory to less-invasive treatment can be considered for wide local excision; however, recurrence is possible.⁸ Vaccinations are available for animals to prevent the spread of infection in the flock, but there are no formulations of vaccines for human use. Prevention of spread to humans can be done through animal vaccination, careful handling of animal products while wearing nonporous gloves, and proper sanitation techniques.

Complications—Orf has an excellent long-term prognosis in immunocompetent patients, as the virus is epitheliotropic, and inoculation does not lead to viremia.² Although lesions typically are asymptomatic in most patients, complications can occur, especially in immunosuppressed individuals. These complications include systemic symptoms, giant persistent lesions prone to infection or scarring, erysipelas, lymphadenitis, and erythema multiforme.^8,31 Common systemic symptoms of ecthyma contagiosum include fever, fatigue, and myalgia. Lymphadenitis can occur along with local swelling and lymphatic streaking. Although erythema multiforme is a rare complication occurring after initial ecthyma contagiosum infection, this hypersensitivity reaction is postulated to be in response to the immunologic clearing of the orf virus.^32,33 Patients receiving systemic immunosuppressive medications are at an increased risk of developing complications from infection and may even be required to pause systemic treatment for complete resolution of orf lesions.³⁴ Other cutaneous diseases that decrease the skin’s barrier protection, such as bullous pemphigoid or eczema, also can place patients at an increased risk for complications.³⁵ Although human-to-human orf virus transmission is exceptionally rare, there is a case report of this phenomenon in immunosuppressed patients residing in a burn unit.³⁶ Transplant recipients on immunosuppressive medications also can experience orf lesions with exaggerated presentations that continue to grow up to several centimeters in diameter.³¹ Long-term prognosis is still good in these patients with appropriate disease recognition and treatment. Reinfection is not uncommon with repeated exposure to the source, but lesions are less severe and resolve faster than with initial infection.^1,8

Conclusion

The contagious hand pustule caused by orf virus is a distinct clinical entity that is prevalent worldwide and requires thorough evaluation of the clinical course of the lesion and the patient’s social history. Several zoonotic viral infections have been implicated in this presentation. Although biopsy and molecular studies can be helpful, the expert diagnostician can make a clinical diagnosis with careful attention to social history, geographic location, and cultural practices.

High use of telemental health services by patients with serious mental illness (SMI) who live in nonmetropolitan U.S. counties is associated with improvements in key outcomes, including greater posthospitalization follow-up, new research suggests.

In a nationwide study, researchers drew on Medicare data from nearly 3,000 counties covering the period from 2000 to 2018. Results show that counties in which there was greater use of telemental health services reported higher increases of clinical visits and better follow-up after hospitalization among patients with bipolar 1 disorder and schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders.

In the study, “clinical visits” referred to both in-person and telemental health visits.

Courtesy Gretchen Ertl

“These findings really support the idea that telemental health can be safe and effective and beneficial for in-person care for people with severe mental illness,” coinvestigator Haiden Huskamp, PhD, professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Continuing trend?

Past studies have pointed to a sharp increase in the use of telepsychiatry services for patients with SMI. As reported by this news organization, this is a trend some clinicians say is likely to continue after the pandemic.

Use of telemedicine during the pandemic received a boost by the temporary suspension of certain Medicare rules that restrict telehealth use. Debate continues at the federal and state levels on whether to make that suspension permanent. Dr. Huskamp said more information is needed about the efficacy and accessibility of telemental health.

To investigate, researchers used Medicare fee-for-service data from 118,170 patients in 2,916 counties. More than two-thirds of the patients were aged 65 years or younger.

During the study period, telemental health service increased from 0.03 visits per patient with SMI in 2010 to 0.19 visits per patient in 2018. This increase was broad, with the number of counties reporting high use of telemental health increasing from 2% in 2010 to 17% in 2018.

Compared with counties in which there was no telemental health services, those with high use were less densely populated and had fewer health care professionals and hospital beds.

The number of overall visits with a mental health professional increased slightly in high-use counties compared to no-use counties, from 4.65 visits in 2010 to 4.79 visits in 2018. The number of in-person visits during that period declined from 4.55 visits in 2010 to 3.73 visits in 2018, which suggests that the overall increase was due to higher use of telemental health.

In the high-use group, the number of patients who had at least four mental health care visits increased 8%, and the number of patients who had a follow-up visit within 30 days of a hospitalization increased 20.4%.
 

A ‘helpful option’

“Telemedicine doesn’t address the national shortage of providers, but it definitely helps in underserved areas [and] rural areas,” Dr. Huskamp said.

“We need more mental health providers and need to develop new models of care that can leverage the providers we have in the best way possible. This is at least a helpful option, especially when you’re thinking about the maldistribution of providers across the country,” she added.

The study results showed that there was no difference in medication adherence between low- and high-use counties.

There was greater contact with mental health care providers in counties with high use of telemental health, and patients in the high-use group were 7.6% more likely to be hospitalized within a year compared with their peers in counties that had no telemental health use.

“We did see modest increases in inpatient use in counties that shifted the most to telemental health services, but that’s not typically viewed as a measure of quality because it can mean so many different things,” Dr. Huskamp said.

For example, it could mean that counties with greater telemental health use did a better job of identifying and responding to patients’ need for acute care, she noted. It could also be a reflection of the loss of psychiatric inpatient care in low-use communities.
 

Another tool

Commenting on the findings, Robert Caudill, MD, director of Telemedicine and Information Technology Programs at the University of Louisville (Ky.), called the increase in hospitalization in high-use counties “surprising.” However, he noted it might be a reflection of the need to fine-tune telemental health for patients with SMI.

“I think that more time and experience with telehealth will further normalize the practice and help to narrow, if not close, the gap,” said Dr. Caudill, who was not involved with the research.

“There are so many side benefits to doing things via telehealth,” he added. “It is a simple matter of continuing to learn how to do those things better.”

A multidisciplinary approach that includes psychiatric care and case management is generally considered to be the gold standard in treating patients with the types of mental illness included in this study, Dr. Caudill said.

While some of that care can be delivered effectively via telemedicine, it is possible other aspects, such as case management, are better handled in person, he added.

“I don’t think it is the role of telehealth to make in-person care obsolete. It is simply a tool to be used when appropriate,” said Dr. Caudill, past chair of the American Telemedicine Association’s Telemental Health Special Interest Group.

“Surgeons did not abandon scalpels when laser surgery became possible,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Mental Health. Dr. Huskamp and Dr. Caudill report no relevant financial relationships.

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

High use of telemental health services by patients with serious mental illness (SMI) who live in nonmetropolitan U.S. counties is associated with improvements in key outcomes, including greater posthospitalization follow-up, new research suggests.

In a nationwide study, researchers drew on Medicare data from nearly 3,000 counties covering the period from 2000 to 2018. Results show that counties in which there was greater use of telemental health services reported higher increases of clinical visits and better follow-up after hospitalization among patients with bipolar 1 disorder and schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders.

In the study, “clinical visits” referred to both in-person and telemental health visits.

Courtesy Gretchen Ertl

“These findings really support the idea that telemental health can be safe and effective and beneficial for in-person care for people with severe mental illness,” coinvestigator Haiden Huskamp, PhD, professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Continuing trend?

Past studies have pointed to a sharp increase in the use of telepsychiatry services for patients with SMI. As reported by this news organization, this is a trend some clinicians say is likely to continue after the pandemic.

Use of telemedicine during the pandemic received a boost by the temporary suspension of certain Medicare rules that restrict telehealth use. Debate continues at the federal and state levels on whether to make that suspension permanent. Dr. Huskamp said more information is needed about the efficacy and accessibility of telemental health.

To investigate, researchers used Medicare fee-for-service data from 118,170 patients in 2,916 counties. More than two-thirds of the patients were aged 65 years or younger.

During the study period, telemental health service increased from 0.03 visits per patient with SMI in 2010 to 0.19 visits per patient in 2018. This increase was broad, with the number of counties reporting high use of telemental health increasing from 2% in 2010 to 17% in 2018.

Compared with counties in which there was no telemental health services, those with high use were less densely populated and had fewer health care professionals and hospital beds.

The number of overall visits with a mental health professional increased slightly in high-use counties compared to no-use counties, from 4.65 visits in 2010 to 4.79 visits in 2018. The number of in-person visits during that period declined from 4.55 visits in 2010 to 3.73 visits in 2018, which suggests that the overall increase was due to higher use of telemental health.

In the high-use group, the number of patients who had at least four mental health care visits increased 8%, and the number of patients who had a follow-up visit within 30 days of a hospitalization increased 20.4%.
 

A ‘helpful option’

“Telemedicine doesn’t address the national shortage of providers, but it definitely helps in underserved areas [and] rural areas,” Dr. Huskamp said.

“We need more mental health providers and need to develop new models of care that can leverage the providers we have in the best way possible. This is at least a helpful option, especially when you’re thinking about the maldistribution of providers across the country,” she added.

The study results showed that there was no difference in medication adherence between low- and high-use counties.

There was greater contact with mental health care providers in counties with high use of telemental health, and patients in the high-use group were 7.6% more likely to be hospitalized within a year compared with their peers in counties that had no telemental health use.

“We did see modest increases in inpatient use in counties that shifted the most to telemental health services, but that’s not typically viewed as a measure of quality because it can mean so many different things,” Dr. Huskamp said.

For example, it could mean that counties with greater telemental health use did a better job of identifying and responding to patients’ need for acute care, she noted. It could also be a reflection of the loss of psychiatric inpatient care in low-use communities.
 

Another tool

Commenting on the findings, Robert Caudill, MD, director of Telemedicine and Information Technology Programs at the University of Louisville (Ky.), called the increase in hospitalization in high-use counties “surprising.” However, he noted it might be a reflection of the need to fine-tune telemental health for patients with SMI.

“I think that more time and experience with telehealth will further normalize the practice and help to narrow, if not close, the gap,” said Dr. Caudill, who was not involved with the research.

“There are so many side benefits to doing things via telehealth,” he added. “It is a simple matter of continuing to learn how to do those things better.”

A multidisciplinary approach that includes psychiatric care and case management is generally considered to be the gold standard in treating patients with the types of mental illness included in this study, Dr. Caudill said.

While some of that care can be delivered effectively via telemedicine, it is possible other aspects, such as case management, are better handled in person, he added.

“I don’t think it is the role of telehealth to make in-person care obsolete. It is simply a tool to be used when appropriate,” said Dr. Caudill, past chair of the American Telemedicine Association’s Telemental Health Special Interest Group.

“Surgeons did not abandon scalpels when laser surgery became possible,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Mental Health. Dr. Huskamp and Dr. Caudill report no relevant financial relationships.

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

High use of telemental health services by patients with serious mental illness (SMI) who live in nonmetropolitan U.S. counties is associated with improvements in key outcomes, including greater posthospitalization follow-up, new research suggests.

In a nationwide study, researchers drew on Medicare data from nearly 3,000 counties covering the period from 2000 to 2018. Results show that counties in which there was greater use of telemental health services reported higher increases of clinical visits and better follow-up after hospitalization among patients with bipolar 1 disorder and schizophrenia or other psychotic disorders.

In the study, “clinical visits” referred to both in-person and telemental health visits.

Courtesy Gretchen Ertl

“These findings really support the idea that telemental health can be safe and effective and beneficial for in-person care for people with severe mental illness,” coinvestigator Haiden Huskamp, PhD, professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School, Boston, said in an interview.

The findings were published online in JAMA Network Open.
 

Continuing trend?

Past studies have pointed to a sharp increase in the use of telepsychiatry services for patients with SMI. As reported by this news organization, this is a trend some clinicians say is likely to continue after the pandemic.

Use of telemedicine during the pandemic received a boost by the temporary suspension of certain Medicare rules that restrict telehealth use. Debate continues at the federal and state levels on whether to make that suspension permanent. Dr. Huskamp said more information is needed about the efficacy and accessibility of telemental health.

To investigate, researchers used Medicare fee-for-service data from 118,170 patients in 2,916 counties. More than two-thirds of the patients were aged 65 years or younger.

During the study period, telemental health service increased from 0.03 visits per patient with SMI in 2010 to 0.19 visits per patient in 2018. This increase was broad, with the number of counties reporting high use of telemental health increasing from 2% in 2010 to 17% in 2018.

Compared with counties in which there was no telemental health services, those with high use were less densely populated and had fewer health care professionals and hospital beds.

The number of overall visits with a mental health professional increased slightly in high-use counties compared to no-use counties, from 4.65 visits in 2010 to 4.79 visits in 2018. The number of in-person visits during that period declined from 4.55 visits in 2010 to 3.73 visits in 2018, which suggests that the overall increase was due to higher use of telemental health.

In the high-use group, the number of patients who had at least four mental health care visits increased 8%, and the number of patients who had a follow-up visit within 30 days of a hospitalization increased 20.4%.
 

A ‘helpful option’

“Telemedicine doesn’t address the national shortage of providers, but it definitely helps in underserved areas [and] rural areas,” Dr. Huskamp said.

“We need more mental health providers and need to develop new models of care that can leverage the providers we have in the best way possible. This is at least a helpful option, especially when you’re thinking about the maldistribution of providers across the country,” she added.

The study results showed that there was no difference in medication adherence between low- and high-use counties.

There was greater contact with mental health care providers in counties with high use of telemental health, and patients in the high-use group were 7.6% more likely to be hospitalized within a year compared with their peers in counties that had no telemental health use.

“We did see modest increases in inpatient use in counties that shifted the most to telemental health services, but that’s not typically viewed as a measure of quality because it can mean so many different things,” Dr. Huskamp said.

For example, it could mean that counties with greater telemental health use did a better job of identifying and responding to patients’ need for acute care, she noted. It could also be a reflection of the loss of psychiatric inpatient care in low-use communities.
 

Another tool

Commenting on the findings, Robert Caudill, MD, director of Telemedicine and Information Technology Programs at the University of Louisville (Ky.), called the increase in hospitalization in high-use counties “surprising.” However, he noted it might be a reflection of the need to fine-tune telemental health for patients with SMI.

“I think that more time and experience with telehealth will further normalize the practice and help to narrow, if not close, the gap,” said Dr. Caudill, who was not involved with the research.

“There are so many side benefits to doing things via telehealth,” he added. “It is a simple matter of continuing to learn how to do those things better.”

A multidisciplinary approach that includes psychiatric care and case management is generally considered to be the gold standard in treating patients with the types of mental illness included in this study, Dr. Caudill said.

While some of that care can be delivered effectively via telemedicine, it is possible other aspects, such as case management, are better handled in person, he added.

“I don’t think it is the role of telehealth to make in-person care obsolete. It is simply a tool to be used when appropriate,” said Dr. Caudill, past chair of the American Telemedicine Association’s Telemental Health Special Interest Group.

“Surgeons did not abandon scalpels when laser surgery became possible,” he said.

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Mental Health. Dr. Huskamp and Dr. Caudill report no relevant financial relationships.

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

GLASGOW – Dermatologists do not feel confident in independently prescribing antipsychotic medications for patients with delusional infestation, shows a U.K. survey that also indicated there is a clear demand for training in prescribing these drugs.

Delusional infestation is a rare disorder characterized by an individual’s belief that his or her skin, body, or immediate environment is infested by small, living pathogens, despite a lack of any medical evidence. Most of these patients require antipsychotic medication to alleviate symptoms.

The survey of almost 80 dermatologists found that almost 90% had not prescribed antipsychotics in the previous month for patients with psychodermatology conditions and that the most common barrier to prescribing was lack of experience with the drugs.

This was reflected in only 10% of survey respondents who said they were “happy to” prescribe antipsychotics without consulting either dermatology or psychiatric colleagues, and less than half having attended a related course.

Yet the research, presented at the annual meeting of the British Association of Dermatologists, indicated that more than 75% of respondents would attend such a course to increase their confidence.

This finding, said study presenter Ling Li, MD, Churchill Hospital, Oxford (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, shows that there is a “clear demand for training, particularly among all the registrars [residents] who we surveyed.”

Dr. Li noted that the UK’s Joint Royal Colleges of Physicians Training Board’s latest curriculum for dermatology training highlights psychocutaneous medicine as a key area, and “that will include antipsychotic medication.”

The BAD also recently published guidelines for the management of adults with delusional infestation, which includes a recommendation to conduct a survey on attitudes toward antipsychotic prescribing for the condition among U.K. dermatologists.

Heeding that call, Dr. Li and colleagues sent an email containing a 10-question online survey to members of the BAD and the British Society for Medical Dermatology. Questions covered familiarity with antipsychotics and frequency of prescribing, confidence around antipsychotics, and current training and future needs. Responses were received between February through April 2021.

Among the 79 respondents, 51 (65%) were consultants and 20 (25%) were dermatology registrars, with the remainder dermatology clinical fellows, foundation doctors, or other doctors. A total of 31 respondents had an average of more than 50 visits with patients per week, 18 had an average of 41-50 patient visits, and 13 had an average of 31-40 visits per week; the remainder had an average of 11-30 visits per week.

Most of the respondents (39) said they had seen 2-5 patients with psychodermatology conditions in the last 6 months, while 17 said they had seen 1 patient, 13 said they had seen more than 10 patients, and 6 said they had seen 6-10 patients (4 had seen none and 1 could not remember).

The most commonly prescribed antipsychotics for psychodermatology patients in the past 6 months were risperidone (Risperdal; prescribed by five respondents), followed by olanzapine (Zyprexa; by four respondents). Seventy respondents had not prescribed any antipsychotics.

Asked about how confident they felt about prescribing antipsychotic medication for patients with delusional infestation, 8 (10%) said they were happy to prescribe independently, while 42 (54%) said they were not at all confident. Another 10 (13%) respondents said they would be happy to prescribe the medications after liaising with a dermatology colleague, while 17 (22%) said they would prefer to consult with the psychiatry team.

The most common barrier to prescribing antipsychotic medications was a lack of experience with the drugs, cited by 66 respondents, followed by concerns over drug monitoring, cited by 43 respondents.

In addition, 42 respondents highlighted concerns over adverse effects, 36 cited lack of experience in psychodermatology clinics, and 19 cited lack of experience in discussing psychodermatologic conditions with patients. Other barriers mentioned by the respondents included difficulties with patient acceptance of a psychiatric medication prescribed by a dermatologist.

An audience member went further, saying that clinicians have been told not to “confront” such patients and that the temptation is therefore to cloak the discussion of antipsychotics in nonthreatening language so that it is more acceptable to the patient.

However, under the U.K. system, a letter with the results of the consultation, including information that an antipsychotic has been prescribed, must be sent to the patient’s family doctor along with a copy that goes to the patient. “The situation is almost impossible,” the audience member said, adding that there “must be some arrangement where in certain circumstances dermatologists could be allowed not to write to the patient” or alternatively, “write an entirely different letter” to the family doctor.

Session cochair Susannah Baron, MD, a consultant dermatologist at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, said that, in these situations, it is “really helpful to talk about doses” with patients.

She explained that she uses the analogy of aspirin, which has different effects depending on the dose given, giving pain relief at high doses but primarily an antiplatelet effect at low doses.

In the case of an antipsychotic, it is helpful to explain to the patient that “you don’t think they’re psychotic, and you’re prescribing it in a very low dose, because what it can do is help with their symptoms,” Dr. Baron added. “You have to be very open because if you’re not, they go to the pharmacy, and the pharmacist says: ‘Why are you on an antipsychotic?’ ”

Further results from the survey revealed that 56 (71%) respondents did not have access to a specialist psychodermatology clinic, whereas 36 (46%) had not yet attended a psychodermatology course.

Despite these responses, 60 (77%) respondents said they would be interested in attending a training course for prescribing antipsychotics, which included all 20 of the registrars who took part in the survey. a psychodermatologist at Frimley Health Foundation Trust, Windsor, England, and lead author of the BAD guidelines, commented from the audience that the survey results were “sort of what we expected.”

She explained that the intention of the authors when developing the guidelines “was to be able to help our junior colleagues and our peers to be able to feel competent to discuss antipsychotics with patients with delusional infestation and also initiate management.”

Dr. Ahmed added: “Why we’re encouraging our colleagues to prescribe antipsychotics is the longer you leave this type of psychotic illness untreated, the worse the prognosis.”

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

GLASGOW – Dermatologists do not feel confident in independently prescribing antipsychotic medications for patients with delusional infestation, shows a U.K. survey that also indicated there is a clear demand for training in prescribing these drugs.

Delusional infestation is a rare disorder characterized by an individual’s belief that his or her skin, body, or immediate environment is infested by small, living pathogens, despite a lack of any medical evidence. Most of these patients require antipsychotic medication to alleviate symptoms.

The survey of almost 80 dermatologists found that almost 90% had not prescribed antipsychotics in the previous month for patients with psychodermatology conditions and that the most common barrier to prescribing was lack of experience with the drugs.

This was reflected in only 10% of survey respondents who said they were “happy to” prescribe antipsychotics without consulting either dermatology or psychiatric colleagues, and less than half having attended a related course.

Yet the research, presented at the annual meeting of the British Association of Dermatologists, indicated that more than 75% of respondents would attend such a course to increase their confidence.

This finding, said study presenter Ling Li, MD, Churchill Hospital, Oxford (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, shows that there is a “clear demand for training, particularly among all the registrars [residents] who we surveyed.”

Dr. Li noted that the UK’s Joint Royal Colleges of Physicians Training Board’s latest curriculum for dermatology training highlights psychocutaneous medicine as a key area, and “that will include antipsychotic medication.”

The BAD also recently published guidelines for the management of adults with delusional infestation, which includes a recommendation to conduct a survey on attitudes toward antipsychotic prescribing for the condition among U.K. dermatologists.

Heeding that call, Dr. Li and colleagues sent an email containing a 10-question online survey to members of the BAD and the British Society for Medical Dermatology. Questions covered familiarity with antipsychotics and frequency of prescribing, confidence around antipsychotics, and current training and future needs. Responses were received between February through April 2021.

Among the 79 respondents, 51 (65%) were consultants and 20 (25%) were dermatology registrars, with the remainder dermatology clinical fellows, foundation doctors, or other doctors. A total of 31 respondents had an average of more than 50 visits with patients per week, 18 had an average of 41-50 patient visits, and 13 had an average of 31-40 visits per week; the remainder had an average of 11-30 visits per week.

Most of the respondents (39) said they had seen 2-5 patients with psychodermatology conditions in the last 6 months, while 17 said they had seen 1 patient, 13 said they had seen more than 10 patients, and 6 said they had seen 6-10 patients (4 had seen none and 1 could not remember).

The most commonly prescribed antipsychotics for psychodermatology patients in the past 6 months were risperidone (Risperdal; prescribed by five respondents), followed by olanzapine (Zyprexa; by four respondents). Seventy respondents had not prescribed any antipsychotics.

Asked about how confident they felt about prescribing antipsychotic medication for patients with delusional infestation, 8 (10%) said they were happy to prescribe independently, while 42 (54%) said they were not at all confident. Another 10 (13%) respondents said they would be happy to prescribe the medications after liaising with a dermatology colleague, while 17 (22%) said they would prefer to consult with the psychiatry team.

The most common barrier to prescribing antipsychotic medications was a lack of experience with the drugs, cited by 66 respondents, followed by concerns over drug monitoring, cited by 43 respondents.

In addition, 42 respondents highlighted concerns over adverse effects, 36 cited lack of experience in psychodermatology clinics, and 19 cited lack of experience in discussing psychodermatologic conditions with patients. Other barriers mentioned by the respondents included difficulties with patient acceptance of a psychiatric medication prescribed by a dermatologist.

An audience member went further, saying that clinicians have been told not to “confront” such patients and that the temptation is therefore to cloak the discussion of antipsychotics in nonthreatening language so that it is more acceptable to the patient.

However, under the U.K. system, a letter with the results of the consultation, including information that an antipsychotic has been prescribed, must be sent to the patient’s family doctor along with a copy that goes to the patient. “The situation is almost impossible,” the audience member said, adding that there “must be some arrangement where in certain circumstances dermatologists could be allowed not to write to the patient” or alternatively, “write an entirely different letter” to the family doctor.

Session cochair Susannah Baron, MD, a consultant dermatologist at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, said that, in these situations, it is “really helpful to talk about doses” with patients.

She explained that she uses the analogy of aspirin, which has different effects depending on the dose given, giving pain relief at high doses but primarily an antiplatelet effect at low doses.

In the case of an antipsychotic, it is helpful to explain to the patient that “you don’t think they’re psychotic, and you’re prescribing it in a very low dose, because what it can do is help with their symptoms,” Dr. Baron added. “You have to be very open because if you’re not, they go to the pharmacy, and the pharmacist says: ‘Why are you on an antipsychotic?’ ”

Further results from the survey revealed that 56 (71%) respondents did not have access to a specialist psychodermatology clinic, whereas 36 (46%) had not yet attended a psychodermatology course.

Despite these responses, 60 (77%) respondents said they would be interested in attending a training course for prescribing antipsychotics, which included all 20 of the registrars who took part in the survey. a psychodermatologist at Frimley Health Foundation Trust, Windsor, England, and lead author of the BAD guidelines, commented from the audience that the survey results were “sort of what we expected.”

She explained that the intention of the authors when developing the guidelines “was to be able to help our junior colleagues and our peers to be able to feel competent to discuss antipsychotics with patients with delusional infestation and also initiate management.”

Dr. Ahmed added: “Why we’re encouraging our colleagues to prescribe antipsychotics is the longer you leave this type of psychotic illness untreated, the worse the prognosis.”

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

GLASGOW – Dermatologists do not feel confident in independently prescribing antipsychotic medications for patients with delusional infestation, shows a U.K. survey that also indicated there is a clear demand for training in prescribing these drugs.

Delusional infestation is a rare disorder characterized by an individual’s belief that his or her skin, body, or immediate environment is infested by small, living pathogens, despite a lack of any medical evidence. Most of these patients require antipsychotic medication to alleviate symptoms.

The survey of almost 80 dermatologists found that almost 90% had not prescribed antipsychotics in the previous month for patients with psychodermatology conditions and that the most common barrier to prescribing was lack of experience with the drugs.

This was reflected in only 10% of survey respondents who said they were “happy to” prescribe antipsychotics without consulting either dermatology or psychiatric colleagues, and less than half having attended a related course.

Yet the research, presented at the annual meeting of the British Association of Dermatologists, indicated that more than 75% of respondents would attend such a course to increase their confidence.

This finding, said study presenter Ling Li, MD, Churchill Hospital, Oxford (England) University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, shows that there is a “clear demand for training, particularly among all the registrars [residents] who we surveyed.”

Dr. Li noted that the UK’s Joint Royal Colleges of Physicians Training Board’s latest curriculum for dermatology training highlights psychocutaneous medicine as a key area, and “that will include antipsychotic medication.”

The BAD also recently published guidelines for the management of adults with delusional infestation, which includes a recommendation to conduct a survey on attitudes toward antipsychotic prescribing for the condition among U.K. dermatologists.

Heeding that call, Dr. Li and colleagues sent an email containing a 10-question online survey to members of the BAD and the British Society for Medical Dermatology. Questions covered familiarity with antipsychotics and frequency of prescribing, confidence around antipsychotics, and current training and future needs. Responses were received between February through April 2021.

Among the 79 respondents, 51 (65%) were consultants and 20 (25%) were dermatology registrars, with the remainder dermatology clinical fellows, foundation doctors, or other doctors. A total of 31 respondents had an average of more than 50 visits with patients per week, 18 had an average of 41-50 patient visits, and 13 had an average of 31-40 visits per week; the remainder had an average of 11-30 visits per week.

Most of the respondents (39) said they had seen 2-5 patients with psychodermatology conditions in the last 6 months, while 17 said they had seen 1 patient, 13 said they had seen more than 10 patients, and 6 said they had seen 6-10 patients (4 had seen none and 1 could not remember).

The most commonly prescribed antipsychotics for psychodermatology patients in the past 6 months were risperidone (Risperdal; prescribed by five respondents), followed by olanzapine (Zyprexa; by four respondents). Seventy respondents had not prescribed any antipsychotics.

Asked about how confident they felt about prescribing antipsychotic medication for patients with delusional infestation, 8 (10%) said they were happy to prescribe independently, while 42 (54%) said they were not at all confident. Another 10 (13%) respondents said they would be happy to prescribe the medications after liaising with a dermatology colleague, while 17 (22%) said they would prefer to consult with the psychiatry team.

The most common barrier to prescribing antipsychotic medications was a lack of experience with the drugs, cited by 66 respondents, followed by concerns over drug monitoring, cited by 43 respondents.

In addition, 42 respondents highlighted concerns over adverse effects, 36 cited lack of experience in psychodermatology clinics, and 19 cited lack of experience in discussing psychodermatologic conditions with patients. Other barriers mentioned by the respondents included difficulties with patient acceptance of a psychiatric medication prescribed by a dermatologist.

An audience member went further, saying that clinicians have been told not to “confront” such patients and that the temptation is therefore to cloak the discussion of antipsychotics in nonthreatening language so that it is more acceptable to the patient.

However, under the U.K. system, a letter with the results of the consultation, including information that an antipsychotic has been prescribed, must be sent to the patient’s family doctor along with a copy that goes to the patient. “The situation is almost impossible,” the audience member said, adding that there “must be some arrangement where in certain circumstances dermatologists could be allowed not to write to the patient” or alternatively, “write an entirely different letter” to the family doctor.

Session cochair Susannah Baron, MD, a consultant dermatologist at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Hospital, London, said that, in these situations, it is “really helpful to talk about doses” with patients.

She explained that she uses the analogy of aspirin, which has different effects depending on the dose given, giving pain relief at high doses but primarily an antiplatelet effect at low doses.

In the case of an antipsychotic, it is helpful to explain to the patient that “you don’t think they’re psychotic, and you’re prescribing it in a very low dose, because what it can do is help with their symptoms,” Dr. Baron added. “You have to be very open because if you’re not, they go to the pharmacy, and the pharmacist says: ‘Why are you on an antipsychotic?’ ”

Further results from the survey revealed that 56 (71%) respondents did not have access to a specialist psychodermatology clinic, whereas 36 (46%) had not yet attended a psychodermatology course.

Despite these responses, 60 (77%) respondents said they would be interested in attending a training course for prescribing antipsychotics, which included all 20 of the registrars who took part in the survey. a psychodermatologist at Frimley Health Foundation Trust, Windsor, England, and lead author of the BAD guidelines, commented from the audience that the survey results were “sort of what we expected.”

She explained that the intention of the authors when developing the guidelines “was to be able to help our junior colleagues and our peers to be able to feel competent to discuss antipsychotics with patients with delusional infestation and also initiate management.”

Dr. Ahmed added: “Why we’re encouraging our colleagues to prescribe antipsychotics is the longer you leave this type of psychotic illness untreated, the worse the prognosis.”

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

Racial differences in cancer outcomes are widespread. Studies indicate that Black people face higher rates of mortality for most cancers than their White counterparts. To bridge this racial gap, researchers need to investigate the biological effects of structural racism and discrimination on cancer outcomes, experts say.

“As a physician, I always like to think that I can influence care in that if I just find the right drugs, help patients understand what their options are, it will help them,” said Ruth Carlos, MD, a radiologist with the University of Michigan Hospital, Ann Arbor. But these things alone are often not enough, because a large proportion of the variation in cancer outcomes is attributable to neighborhood social conditions and the physical environment. “It is incredibly important for us to start to understand just how the neighborhood exerts this effect.”

In a commentary published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Carlos and colleagues highlighted the limitations of previous studies aimed at identifying the causes of racial differences in cancer outcomes. They call upon researchers to turn instead to the long-underexamined biological effects of structural racism and discrimination that contribute to these differences.

In the past, studies on the role of race in health outcomes largely looked at race as a proxy for genetic predisposition. But such an interpretation is flawed, because no genes are specific for a racial or ethnic group, Dr. Carlos and coauthors wrote. Researchers have shown that the vast majority of genetic variation occurs within, rather than between groups.

In an analysis published in Science, researchers reported that within-group differences account for more than 90% of genetic variation.

“Using race in these analyses was not necessarily wrong, but the inferences may have been flawed or incomplete,” Dr. Carlos said. On one hand, looking at genetic predisposition has led to important insights, such as the link between mutations in the BRCA gene and increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer.

However, genetic variation alone is not enough to explain the disparities in cancer outcomes between racial and ethnic groups. The fact that breast cancer can be more aggressive in Black women raises several questions, Dr. Carlos said. Is the cancer worse because Black women have a specific genetic predisposition? Is it worse because Black women exist in a society that marginalizes them and exposes them to increased stress, which in turn produces bad outcomes? Or, could it be both?

Despite progress in the screening, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, Black women are 40% more likely to die from the disease than White women. At the time of diagnosis, Black women are more likely to have high-grade, more aggressive breast cancer molecular subtypes, and to have had their cancer spread to the lymph nodes. They also tend to be diagnosed at more advanced stages of breast cancer while at the same time, experience higher rates of false-positive screening results.

Although researchers have hypothesized that genetic differences related to African or European ancestry might contribute, studies have not turned up any differences in cancer susceptibility genes by race. Other factors, such as racial differences in the stage of presentation, molecular subtypes, and disparities in treatment, have also emerged as potential culprits.

In her commentary, Dr. Carlos and colleagues wrote that disparities in breast cancer outcomes previously attributed to race need to be examined from multiple angles. This means looking at both the complex interactions between social conditions and policies, which encompass racism both at the individual and structural level, and stressors such as the experience of discrimination in addition to potential biological and genetic contributions.

Many studies now provide evidence for the harmful effects of racism on health. For breast cancer, specifically, studies also suggest that factors such as racial segregation can influence the stage at which Black women get diagnosed and their likelihood of dying from the disease.

However, an important question that remains is what biological changes occur in women exposed to the kind of persistent low-level stress that is associated with structural racism and discrimination, Dr. Carlos said. “We don’t know what stress pathways actually manifest in the body and how they eventually produce the disease.” Studies to address this issue are important, “especially if you would like to develop interventions to prevent or mitigate disease.”

To address this issue, Dr. Carlos and colleagues called upon the research community to conduct both studies that delineate the underlying biology as well as those that test potential interventions – particularly those associated with breast cancer screening outcomes – to try to shed light on why Black women receive more false positives and diagnoses of more aggressive cancer.

Interventions that can target these specific biological pathways could potentially reduce the negative effects of structural racism and discrimination as well as the effects of other social factors that contribute to breast cancer outcomes, “to ultimately help enhance clinical outcomes and close persistent disparities gaps,” the authors wrote.

Racial differences in cancer outcomes are widespread. Studies indicate that Black people face higher rates of mortality for most cancers than their White counterparts. To bridge this racial gap, researchers need to investigate the biological effects of structural racism and discrimination on cancer outcomes, experts say.

“As a physician, I always like to think that I can influence care in that if I just find the right drugs, help patients understand what their options are, it will help them,” said Ruth Carlos, MD, a radiologist with the University of Michigan Hospital, Ann Arbor. But these things alone are often not enough, because a large proportion of the variation in cancer outcomes is attributable to neighborhood social conditions and the physical environment. “It is incredibly important for us to start to understand just how the neighborhood exerts this effect.”

In a commentary published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Carlos and colleagues highlighted the limitations of previous studies aimed at identifying the causes of racial differences in cancer outcomes. They call upon researchers to turn instead to the long-underexamined biological effects of structural racism and discrimination that contribute to these differences.

In the past, studies on the role of race in health outcomes largely looked at race as a proxy for genetic predisposition. But such an interpretation is flawed, because no genes are specific for a racial or ethnic group, Dr. Carlos and coauthors wrote. Researchers have shown that the vast majority of genetic variation occurs within, rather than between groups.

In an analysis published in Science, researchers reported that within-group differences account for more than 90% of genetic variation.

“Using race in these analyses was not necessarily wrong, but the inferences may have been flawed or incomplete,” Dr. Carlos said. On one hand, looking at genetic predisposition has led to important insights, such as the link between mutations in the BRCA gene and increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer.

However, genetic variation alone is not enough to explain the disparities in cancer outcomes between racial and ethnic groups. The fact that breast cancer can be more aggressive in Black women raises several questions, Dr. Carlos said. Is the cancer worse because Black women have a specific genetic predisposition? Is it worse because Black women exist in a society that marginalizes them and exposes them to increased stress, which in turn produces bad outcomes? Or, could it be both?

Despite progress in the screening, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, Black women are 40% more likely to die from the disease than White women. At the time of diagnosis, Black women are more likely to have high-grade, more aggressive breast cancer molecular subtypes, and to have had their cancer spread to the lymph nodes. They also tend to be diagnosed at more advanced stages of breast cancer while at the same time, experience higher rates of false-positive screening results.

Although researchers have hypothesized that genetic differences related to African or European ancestry might contribute, studies have not turned up any differences in cancer susceptibility genes by race. Other factors, such as racial differences in the stage of presentation, molecular subtypes, and disparities in treatment, have also emerged as potential culprits.

In her commentary, Dr. Carlos and colleagues wrote that disparities in breast cancer outcomes previously attributed to race need to be examined from multiple angles. This means looking at both the complex interactions between social conditions and policies, which encompass racism both at the individual and structural level, and stressors such as the experience of discrimination in addition to potential biological and genetic contributions.

Many studies now provide evidence for the harmful effects of racism on health. For breast cancer, specifically, studies also suggest that factors such as racial segregation can influence the stage at which Black women get diagnosed and their likelihood of dying from the disease.

However, an important question that remains is what biological changes occur in women exposed to the kind of persistent low-level stress that is associated with structural racism and discrimination, Dr. Carlos said. “We don’t know what stress pathways actually manifest in the body and how they eventually produce the disease.” Studies to address this issue are important, “especially if you would like to develop interventions to prevent or mitigate disease.”

To address this issue, Dr. Carlos and colleagues called upon the research community to conduct both studies that delineate the underlying biology as well as those that test potential interventions – particularly those associated with breast cancer screening outcomes – to try to shed light on why Black women receive more false positives and diagnoses of more aggressive cancer.

Interventions that can target these specific biological pathways could potentially reduce the negative effects of structural racism and discrimination as well as the effects of other social factors that contribute to breast cancer outcomes, “to ultimately help enhance clinical outcomes and close persistent disparities gaps,” the authors wrote.

Racial differences in cancer outcomes are widespread. Studies indicate that Black people face higher rates of mortality for most cancers than their White counterparts. To bridge this racial gap, researchers need to investigate the biological effects of structural racism and discrimination on cancer outcomes, experts say.

“As a physician, I always like to think that I can influence care in that if I just find the right drugs, help patients understand what their options are, it will help them,” said Ruth Carlos, MD, a radiologist with the University of Michigan Hospital, Ann Arbor. But these things alone are often not enough, because a large proportion of the variation in cancer outcomes is attributable to neighborhood social conditions and the physical environment. “It is incredibly important for us to start to understand just how the neighborhood exerts this effect.”

In a commentary published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, Dr. Carlos and colleagues highlighted the limitations of previous studies aimed at identifying the causes of racial differences in cancer outcomes. They call upon researchers to turn instead to the long-underexamined biological effects of structural racism and discrimination that contribute to these differences.

In the past, studies on the role of race in health outcomes largely looked at race as a proxy for genetic predisposition. But such an interpretation is flawed, because no genes are specific for a racial or ethnic group, Dr. Carlos and coauthors wrote. Researchers have shown that the vast majority of genetic variation occurs within, rather than between groups.

In an analysis published in Science, researchers reported that within-group differences account for more than 90% of genetic variation.

“Using race in these analyses was not necessarily wrong, but the inferences may have been flawed or incomplete,” Dr. Carlos said. On one hand, looking at genetic predisposition has led to important insights, such as the link between mutations in the BRCA gene and increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer.

However, genetic variation alone is not enough to explain the disparities in cancer outcomes between racial and ethnic groups. The fact that breast cancer can be more aggressive in Black women raises several questions, Dr. Carlos said. Is the cancer worse because Black women have a specific genetic predisposition? Is it worse because Black women exist in a society that marginalizes them and exposes them to increased stress, which in turn produces bad outcomes? Or, could it be both?

Despite progress in the screening, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer, Black women are 40% more likely to die from the disease than White women. At the time of diagnosis, Black women are more likely to have high-grade, more aggressive breast cancer molecular subtypes, and to have had their cancer spread to the lymph nodes. They also tend to be diagnosed at more advanced stages of breast cancer while at the same time, experience higher rates of false-positive screening results.

Although researchers have hypothesized that genetic differences related to African or European ancestry might contribute, studies have not turned up any differences in cancer susceptibility genes by race. Other factors, such as racial differences in the stage of presentation, molecular subtypes, and disparities in treatment, have also emerged as potential culprits.

In her commentary, Dr. Carlos and colleagues wrote that disparities in breast cancer outcomes previously attributed to race need to be examined from multiple angles. This means looking at both the complex interactions between social conditions and policies, which encompass racism both at the individual and structural level, and stressors such as the experience of discrimination in addition to potential biological and genetic contributions.

Many studies now provide evidence for the harmful effects of racism on health. For breast cancer, specifically, studies also suggest that factors such as racial segregation can influence the stage at which Black women get diagnosed and their likelihood of dying from the disease.

However, an important question that remains is what biological changes occur in women exposed to the kind of persistent low-level stress that is associated with structural racism and discrimination, Dr. Carlos said. “We don’t know what stress pathways actually manifest in the body and how they eventually produce the disease.” Studies to address this issue are important, “especially if you would like to develop interventions to prevent or mitigate disease.”

To address this issue, Dr. Carlos and colleagues called upon the research community to conduct both studies that delineate the underlying biology as well as those that test potential interventions – particularly those associated with breast cancer screening outcomes – to try to shed light on why Black women receive more false positives and diagnoses of more aggressive cancer.

Interventions that can target these specific biological pathways could potentially reduce the negative effects of structural racism and discrimination as well as the effects of other social factors that contribute to breast cancer outcomes, “to ultimately help enhance clinical outcomes and close persistent disparities gaps,” the authors wrote.

A mother-of-three was killed at her hospital appointment in the United Kingdom by a doctor who botched a routine procedure, a court has heard. On July 5, Dr. Isyaka Mamman was sentenced at Manchester Crown Court to 3 years imprisonment after pleading guilty to the manslaughter by gross negligence of his patient.

Dr. Mamman, 85, had already been suspended once by medical watchdogs for lying about his age and was sacked but then re-employed by the Royal Oldham Hospital, where he was responsible for a series of critical incidents before the fatal appointment, Manchester Crown Court heard.

The Nigerian-born doctor had also used various dates of birth and left his previous job through “poor performance.”

‘Highly dangerous’ procedure

Shahida Parveen, 48, had gone to the hospital with her husband, Khizar Mahmood, for investigations into possible myeloproliferative disorder.

A bone marrow biopsy had been advised and the routine procedure was allocated to Dr. Mamman, who was working as a specialty doctor in hematology, Andrew Thomas QC, prosecuting, told the hearing.

Normally, bone marrow samples are taken from the hip bone but Dr. Mamman failed to obtain a sample at the first attempt.

Instead, he attempted a rare and “highly dangerous” procedure of getting a sample from Ms. Parveen’s sternum – despite objections from the patient and her husband.

Dr. Mamman, using the wrong biopsy needle, missed the bone and pierced her pericardium, the sac containing the heart, causing massive internal bleeding.

Ms. Parveen lost consciousness as soon as the needle was inserted, with her husband running from the room shouting: “He killed her. I told him to stop three times and he did not listen. He killed her.”

A crash team arrived but Ms. Parveen was confirmed dead later the same day, September 3, 2018.
 

Controversy over his ‘true age’

Dr. Mamman qualified as a doctor in Nigeria in 1965 and had worked in the United Kingdom since 1991. From 2004 until the time of the fatal incident he was employed by the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.

But his “true age” is a matter of “controversy,” the court heard, as his birthplace in rural Nigeria had no system of birth registration.

During his medical training he gave a date of birth of September 16, 1936, which meant that he was 21 years old when he began his medical training and 81 at the time of the fatal hospital incident.

But he knocked years off his age by adopting a birth date in 1941, provided to the NHS, suggesting he began his medical degree at the age of 16.

However, in about 2001 and approaching what was then the compulsory retirement age of 65, Dr. Mamman adopted an even later birth date – October 1947 – which he relied upon in an application for naturalisation as a British citizen – suggesting he started his degree course at the age of 10.

In 2004 he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council and suspended for 12 months for lying about his age.

The Pennine Trust sacked him but then re-employed him in 2006, after he had been restored to the register by the GMC, who accepted his date of birth to be 1943 – which meant he was 14 or 15 when he began his medical degree.

Dr. Mamman had left his previous employment with the Medway Trust because of “poor performance,” and in 2015 a formal complaint was made to the Oldham hospital when a patient complained he used “excessive force” during a bone marrow biopsy.

The patient was told that Dr. Mamman was in his 70s and his colleagues thought he should retire but they could not dismiss him purely because of his age. She was assured he would be put on light duties in future.

However, the same year there was another clinical incident, which resulted in serious injury to another patient, again during a bone marrow biopsy, and again involving a needle being inserted in the wrong place. The patient survived but has been left permanently disabled.

Michael Hayton, mitigating, said it was clear Dr. Mamman was a “failing” doctor and he should not have been allowed to continue treating patients.

He added: “He is not the only person at fault. He should not have been allowed to be in the position he was.

“There’s a grotesque catalogue of failings by the trust from 2015.”



This article contains information from PA Media.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.

A mother-of-three was killed at her hospital appointment in the United Kingdom by a doctor who botched a routine procedure, a court has heard. On July 5, Dr. Isyaka Mamman was sentenced at Manchester Crown Court to 3 years imprisonment after pleading guilty to the manslaughter by gross negligence of his patient.

Dr. Mamman, 85, had already been suspended once by medical watchdogs for lying about his age and was sacked but then re-employed by the Royal Oldham Hospital, where he was responsible for a series of critical incidents before the fatal appointment, Manchester Crown Court heard.

The Nigerian-born doctor had also used various dates of birth and left his previous job through “poor performance.”

‘Highly dangerous’ procedure

Shahida Parveen, 48, had gone to the hospital with her husband, Khizar Mahmood, for investigations into possible myeloproliferative disorder.

A bone marrow biopsy had been advised and the routine procedure was allocated to Dr. Mamman, who was working as a specialty doctor in hematology, Andrew Thomas QC, prosecuting, told the hearing.

Normally, bone marrow samples are taken from the hip bone but Dr. Mamman failed to obtain a sample at the first attempt.

Instead, he attempted a rare and “highly dangerous” procedure of getting a sample from Ms. Parveen’s sternum – despite objections from the patient and her husband.

Dr. Mamman, using the wrong biopsy needle, missed the bone and pierced her pericardium, the sac containing the heart, causing massive internal bleeding.

Ms. Parveen lost consciousness as soon as the needle was inserted, with her husband running from the room shouting: “He killed her. I told him to stop three times and he did not listen. He killed her.”

A crash team arrived but Ms. Parveen was confirmed dead later the same day, September 3, 2018.
 

Controversy over his ‘true age’

Dr. Mamman qualified as a doctor in Nigeria in 1965 and had worked in the United Kingdom since 1991. From 2004 until the time of the fatal incident he was employed by the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.

But his “true age” is a matter of “controversy,” the court heard, as his birthplace in rural Nigeria had no system of birth registration.

During his medical training he gave a date of birth of September 16, 1936, which meant that he was 21 years old when he began his medical training and 81 at the time of the fatal hospital incident.

But he knocked years off his age by adopting a birth date in 1941, provided to the NHS, suggesting he began his medical degree at the age of 16.

However, in about 2001 and approaching what was then the compulsory retirement age of 65, Dr. Mamman adopted an even later birth date – October 1947 – which he relied upon in an application for naturalisation as a British citizen – suggesting he started his degree course at the age of 10.

In 2004 he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council and suspended for 12 months for lying about his age.

The Pennine Trust sacked him but then re-employed him in 2006, after he had been restored to the register by the GMC, who accepted his date of birth to be 1943 – which meant he was 14 or 15 when he began his medical degree.

Dr. Mamman had left his previous employment with the Medway Trust because of “poor performance,” and in 2015 a formal complaint was made to the Oldham hospital when a patient complained he used “excessive force” during a bone marrow biopsy.

The patient was told that Dr. Mamman was in his 70s and his colleagues thought he should retire but they could not dismiss him purely because of his age. She was assured he would be put on light duties in future.

However, the same year there was another clinical incident, which resulted in serious injury to another patient, again during a bone marrow biopsy, and again involving a needle being inserted in the wrong place. The patient survived but has been left permanently disabled.

Michael Hayton, mitigating, said it was clear Dr. Mamman was a “failing” doctor and he should not have been allowed to continue treating patients.

He added: “He is not the only person at fault. He should not have been allowed to be in the position he was.

“There’s a grotesque catalogue of failings by the trust from 2015.”



This article contains information from PA Media.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.

A mother-of-three was killed at her hospital appointment in the United Kingdom by a doctor who botched a routine procedure, a court has heard. On July 5, Dr. Isyaka Mamman was sentenced at Manchester Crown Court to 3 years imprisonment after pleading guilty to the manslaughter by gross negligence of his patient.

Dr. Mamman, 85, had already been suspended once by medical watchdogs for lying about his age and was sacked but then re-employed by the Royal Oldham Hospital, where he was responsible for a series of critical incidents before the fatal appointment, Manchester Crown Court heard.

The Nigerian-born doctor had also used various dates of birth and left his previous job through “poor performance.”

‘Highly dangerous’ procedure

Shahida Parveen, 48, had gone to the hospital with her husband, Khizar Mahmood, for investigations into possible myeloproliferative disorder.

A bone marrow biopsy had been advised and the routine procedure was allocated to Dr. Mamman, who was working as a specialty doctor in hematology, Andrew Thomas QC, prosecuting, told the hearing.

Normally, bone marrow samples are taken from the hip bone but Dr. Mamman failed to obtain a sample at the first attempt.

Instead, he attempted a rare and “highly dangerous” procedure of getting a sample from Ms. Parveen’s sternum – despite objections from the patient and her husband.

Dr. Mamman, using the wrong biopsy needle, missed the bone and pierced her pericardium, the sac containing the heart, causing massive internal bleeding.

Ms. Parveen lost consciousness as soon as the needle was inserted, with her husband running from the room shouting: “He killed her. I told him to stop three times and he did not listen. He killed her.”

A crash team arrived but Ms. Parveen was confirmed dead later the same day, September 3, 2018.
 

Controversy over his ‘true age’

Dr. Mamman qualified as a doctor in Nigeria in 1965 and had worked in the United Kingdom since 1991. From 2004 until the time of the fatal incident he was employed by the Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.

But his “true age” is a matter of “controversy,” the court heard, as his birthplace in rural Nigeria had no system of birth registration.

During his medical training he gave a date of birth of September 16, 1936, which meant that he was 21 years old when he began his medical training and 81 at the time of the fatal hospital incident.

But he knocked years off his age by adopting a birth date in 1941, provided to the NHS, suggesting he began his medical degree at the age of 16.

However, in about 2001 and approaching what was then the compulsory retirement age of 65, Dr. Mamman adopted an even later birth date – October 1947 – which he relied upon in an application for naturalisation as a British citizen – suggesting he started his degree course at the age of 10.

In 2004 he was found guilty of serious professional misconduct by the General Medical Council and suspended for 12 months for lying about his age.

The Pennine Trust sacked him but then re-employed him in 2006, after he had been restored to the register by the GMC, who accepted his date of birth to be 1943 – which meant he was 14 or 15 when he began his medical degree.

Dr. Mamman had left his previous employment with the Medway Trust because of “poor performance,” and in 2015 a formal complaint was made to the Oldham hospital when a patient complained he used “excessive force” during a bone marrow biopsy.

The patient was told that Dr. Mamman was in his 70s and his colleagues thought he should retire but they could not dismiss him purely because of his age. She was assured he would be put on light duties in future.

However, the same year there was another clinical incident, which resulted in serious injury to another patient, again during a bone marrow biopsy, and again involving a needle being inserted in the wrong place. The patient survived but has been left permanently disabled.

Michael Hayton, mitigating, said it was clear Dr. Mamman was a “failing” doctor and he should not have been allowed to continue treating patients.

He added: “He is not the only person at fault. He should not have been allowed to be in the position he was.

“There’s a grotesque catalogue of failings by the trust from 2015.”



This article contains information from PA Media.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.co.uk.

Pharmacists can now prescribe Paxlovid, Pfizer’s COVID-19 antiviral pill, directly to patients.

The Food and Drug Administration revised the drug’s emergency use authorization on July 6, letting state-licensed pharmacists screen patients and determine if they are eligible for Paxlovid, according to The Associated Press.

Previously, only doctors could prescribe the antiviral drug, the AP reported. With some limits, pharmacists can now prescribe the medication for patients who face high risks for severe COVID-19.

“The FDA recognizes the important role pharmacists have played and continue to play in combating this pandemic,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

“Since Paxlovid must be taken within 5 days after symptoms begin, authorizing state-licensed pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid could expand access to timely treatment for some patients who are eligible to receive this drug for the treatment of COVID-19,” she said.

Tom Kraus, the vice president of government relations at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, said in a statement that the organization was “pleased to see the FDA remove this barrier to patients’ access to this critical treatment.”

“Pharmacists have played a vital role in our pandemic response efforts and are well-positioned to help patients, particularly those in rural and underserved communities, benefit from this medication,” he said.

But some doctor’s groups questioned the FDA’s move. Jack Resneck Jr., MD, the president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement that prescribing Paxlovid “requires knowledge of a patient’s medical history, as well as clinical monitoring for side effects and follow-up care to determine whether a patient is improving” – requirements that are “far beyond a pharmacist’s scope and training.”

“In the fight against a virus that has killed more than a million people in the United States and is still extremely present and transmissible, patients will get the best, most comprehensive care from physician-led teams – teams that include pharmacists. But, whenever possible, prescribing decisions should be made by a physician with knowledge of a patient’s medical history and the ability to follow up. To ensure the best possible care for COVID-19 patients, we urge people who test positive to discuss treatment options with their physician, if they have one,” he said.

After testing positive for COVID-19, patients should first consider seeking care from their regular health care provider or locating a Test-to-Treat site in their area, the FDA said. Although the latest update allows pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid, community pharmacies that don’t yet take part in the Test-to-Treat program can decide if they will offer the prescription service to patients.

Paxlovid is authorized to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults and in kids ages 12 and older who weigh at least 88 pounds. Patients who report a positive at-home test are eligible for Paxlovid under the FDA authorization.

If patients want to seek a prescription directly from a pharmacist, they should bring electronic or printed health records from the past year, including their most recent reports of blood work, so the pharmacist can review for kidney or liver problems. Pharmacists can also get this information from the patient’s health care provider.

In addition, patients should bring a list of all medications they are taking, including over-the-counter medications, so the pharmacist can screen for drugs that can have serious interactions with Paxlovid.

Under the limits in the updated FDA authorization, pharmacists should refer patients for more screening if Paxlovid isn’t a good option or if there’s not enough information to find out how well their kidneys or liver works, as well as potential drug interactions.

Paxlovid is intended for people with COVID-19 who face the highest risks for serious disease, the AP reported, including older adults and those with health conditions such as heart disease, obesity, cancer, or diabetes. It isn’t recommended for people with severe kidney or liver problems. A course of treatment requires three pills twice a day for 5 days.

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

Pharmacists can now prescribe Paxlovid, Pfizer’s COVID-19 antiviral pill, directly to patients.

The Food and Drug Administration revised the drug’s emergency use authorization on July 6, letting state-licensed pharmacists screen patients and determine if they are eligible for Paxlovid, according to The Associated Press.

Previously, only doctors could prescribe the antiviral drug, the AP reported. With some limits, pharmacists can now prescribe the medication for patients who face high risks for severe COVID-19.

“The FDA recognizes the important role pharmacists have played and continue to play in combating this pandemic,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

“Since Paxlovid must be taken within 5 days after symptoms begin, authorizing state-licensed pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid could expand access to timely treatment for some patients who are eligible to receive this drug for the treatment of COVID-19,” she said.

Tom Kraus, the vice president of government relations at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, said in a statement that the organization was “pleased to see the FDA remove this barrier to patients’ access to this critical treatment.”

“Pharmacists have played a vital role in our pandemic response efforts and are well-positioned to help patients, particularly those in rural and underserved communities, benefit from this medication,” he said.

But some doctor’s groups questioned the FDA’s move. Jack Resneck Jr., MD, the president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement that prescribing Paxlovid “requires knowledge of a patient’s medical history, as well as clinical monitoring for side effects and follow-up care to determine whether a patient is improving” – requirements that are “far beyond a pharmacist’s scope and training.”

“In the fight against a virus that has killed more than a million people in the United States and is still extremely present and transmissible, patients will get the best, most comprehensive care from physician-led teams – teams that include pharmacists. But, whenever possible, prescribing decisions should be made by a physician with knowledge of a patient’s medical history and the ability to follow up. To ensure the best possible care for COVID-19 patients, we urge people who test positive to discuss treatment options with their physician, if they have one,” he said.

After testing positive for COVID-19, patients should first consider seeking care from their regular health care provider or locating a Test-to-Treat site in their area, the FDA said. Although the latest update allows pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid, community pharmacies that don’t yet take part in the Test-to-Treat program can decide if they will offer the prescription service to patients.

Paxlovid is authorized to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults and in kids ages 12 and older who weigh at least 88 pounds. Patients who report a positive at-home test are eligible for Paxlovid under the FDA authorization.

If patients want to seek a prescription directly from a pharmacist, they should bring electronic or printed health records from the past year, including their most recent reports of blood work, so the pharmacist can review for kidney or liver problems. Pharmacists can also get this information from the patient’s health care provider.

In addition, patients should bring a list of all medications they are taking, including over-the-counter medications, so the pharmacist can screen for drugs that can have serious interactions with Paxlovid.

Under the limits in the updated FDA authorization, pharmacists should refer patients for more screening if Paxlovid isn’t a good option or if there’s not enough information to find out how well their kidneys or liver works, as well as potential drug interactions.

Paxlovid is intended for people with COVID-19 who face the highest risks for serious disease, the AP reported, including older adults and those with health conditions such as heart disease, obesity, cancer, or diabetes. It isn’t recommended for people with severe kidney or liver problems. A course of treatment requires three pills twice a day for 5 days.

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

Pharmacists can now prescribe Paxlovid, Pfizer’s COVID-19 antiviral pill, directly to patients.

The Food and Drug Administration revised the drug’s emergency use authorization on July 6, letting state-licensed pharmacists screen patients and determine if they are eligible for Paxlovid, according to The Associated Press.

Previously, only doctors could prescribe the antiviral drug, the AP reported. With some limits, pharmacists can now prescribe the medication for patients who face high risks for severe COVID-19.

“The FDA recognizes the important role pharmacists have played and continue to play in combating this pandemic,” Patrizia Cavazzoni, MD, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement.

“Since Paxlovid must be taken within 5 days after symptoms begin, authorizing state-licensed pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid could expand access to timely treatment for some patients who are eligible to receive this drug for the treatment of COVID-19,” she said.

Tom Kraus, the vice president of government relations at the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, said in a statement that the organization was “pleased to see the FDA remove this barrier to patients’ access to this critical treatment.”

“Pharmacists have played a vital role in our pandemic response efforts and are well-positioned to help patients, particularly those in rural and underserved communities, benefit from this medication,” he said.

But some doctor’s groups questioned the FDA’s move. Jack Resneck Jr., MD, the president of the American Medical Association, said in a statement that prescribing Paxlovid “requires knowledge of a patient’s medical history, as well as clinical monitoring for side effects and follow-up care to determine whether a patient is improving” – requirements that are “far beyond a pharmacist’s scope and training.”

“In the fight against a virus that has killed more than a million people in the United States and is still extremely present and transmissible, patients will get the best, most comprehensive care from physician-led teams – teams that include pharmacists. But, whenever possible, prescribing decisions should be made by a physician with knowledge of a patient’s medical history and the ability to follow up. To ensure the best possible care for COVID-19 patients, we urge people who test positive to discuss treatment options with their physician, if they have one,” he said.

After testing positive for COVID-19, patients should first consider seeking care from their regular health care provider or locating a Test-to-Treat site in their area, the FDA said. Although the latest update allows pharmacists to prescribe Paxlovid, community pharmacies that don’t yet take part in the Test-to-Treat program can decide if they will offer the prescription service to patients.

Paxlovid is authorized to treat mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults and in kids ages 12 and older who weigh at least 88 pounds. Patients who report a positive at-home test are eligible for Paxlovid under the FDA authorization.

If patients want to seek a prescription directly from a pharmacist, they should bring electronic or printed health records from the past year, including their most recent reports of blood work, so the pharmacist can review for kidney or liver problems. Pharmacists can also get this information from the patient’s health care provider.

In addition, patients should bring a list of all medications they are taking, including over-the-counter medications, so the pharmacist can screen for drugs that can have serious interactions with Paxlovid.

Under the limits in the updated FDA authorization, pharmacists should refer patients for more screening if Paxlovid isn’t a good option or if there’s not enough information to find out how well their kidneys or liver works, as well as potential drug interactions.

Paxlovid is intended for people with COVID-19 who face the highest risks for serious disease, the AP reported, including older adults and those with health conditions such as heart disease, obesity, cancer, or diabetes. It isn’t recommended for people with severe kidney or liver problems. A course of treatment requires three pills twice a day for 5 days.

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

World Health Organization officials announced July 6 that they’re tracking a new subvariant of Omicron, which is becoming more common in India.

The subvariant, a sublineage of BA.2 being called BA.2.75, has been reported in eight countries and hasn’t yet been declared a variant of concern.

“There’s been an emergence of a ‘could be’ subvariant. It’s been not yet officially called, but some people are referring to it as BA.2.75,” Soumya Swaminathan, MD, the WHO’s chief scientist, said in a video posted on Twitter.

The subvariant appears to have mutations similar to other contagious strains, she said, though there are a limited number of sequences available to analyze. How transmissible and severe it is, and how well it can evade our immunity, aren’t yet known.

“We have to wait and see, and of course, we are tracking it,” Dr. Swaminathan said.

The WHO committee responsible for analyzing global coronavirus data will label the subvariant officially and release more information as the situation warrants it, she said.

Public health experts around the world are also talking about the subvariant, which has been nicknamed Centaurus. BA.2.75 was first found in India in May and is now competing with BA.5, which has become dominant in the United States.

BA.2.75 has eight mutations beyond those seen in BA.5, which “could make immune escape worse than what we’re seeing now,” Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief at Medscape, wrote in a Twitter post.

Individually, the extra mutations aren’t too concerning, “but all appearing together at once is another matter,” Tom Peacock, PhD, a virologist at Imperial College London, wrote in a Twitter post.

The “apparent rapid growth and wide geographical spread” are “worth keeping a close eye on,” he said.

BA.2.75 has been found in a handful of cases in the United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. In India, the sequence accounts for about 23% of recent samples.

“It is really too early to know if BA.2.75 will take over relative to BA.2 or even relative to BA.5,” Ulrich Elling, PhD, a researcher at Australia’s Institute of Molecular Biotechnology, wrote in a Twitter post.

“Just to emphasize it again: While the distribution across Indian regions as well as internationally and the very rapid appearance makes it likely we are dealing with a variant spreading fast and spread widely already, the absolute data points are few,” he said.

Globally, coronavirus cases have increased nearly 30% during the past 2 weeks, the WHO said July 6. Four out of six of the WHO subregions reported an increase in the last week, with BA.4 and BA.5 driving waves in the United States and Europe.

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

World Health Organization officials announced July 6 that they’re tracking a new subvariant of Omicron, which is becoming more common in India.

The subvariant, a sublineage of BA.2 being called BA.2.75, has been reported in eight countries and hasn’t yet been declared a variant of concern.

“There’s been an emergence of a ‘could be’ subvariant. It’s been not yet officially called, but some people are referring to it as BA.2.75,” Soumya Swaminathan, MD, the WHO’s chief scientist, said in a video posted on Twitter.

The subvariant appears to have mutations similar to other contagious strains, she said, though there are a limited number of sequences available to analyze. How transmissible and severe it is, and how well it can evade our immunity, aren’t yet known.

“We have to wait and see, and of course, we are tracking it,” Dr. Swaminathan said.

The WHO committee responsible for analyzing global coronavirus data will label the subvariant officially and release more information as the situation warrants it, she said.

Public health experts around the world are also talking about the subvariant, which has been nicknamed Centaurus. BA.2.75 was first found in India in May and is now competing with BA.5, which has become dominant in the United States.

BA.2.75 has eight mutations beyond those seen in BA.5, which “could make immune escape worse than what we’re seeing now,” Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief at Medscape, wrote in a Twitter post.

Individually, the extra mutations aren’t too concerning, “but all appearing together at once is another matter,” Tom Peacock, PhD, a virologist at Imperial College London, wrote in a Twitter post.

The “apparent rapid growth and wide geographical spread” are “worth keeping a close eye on,” he said.

BA.2.75 has been found in a handful of cases in the United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. In India, the sequence accounts for about 23% of recent samples.

“It is really too early to know if BA.2.75 will take over relative to BA.2 or even relative to BA.5,” Ulrich Elling, PhD, a researcher at Australia’s Institute of Molecular Biotechnology, wrote in a Twitter post.

“Just to emphasize it again: While the distribution across Indian regions as well as internationally and the very rapid appearance makes it likely we are dealing with a variant spreading fast and spread widely already, the absolute data points are few,” he said.

Globally, coronavirus cases have increased nearly 30% during the past 2 weeks, the WHO said July 6. Four out of six of the WHO subregions reported an increase in the last week, with BA.4 and BA.5 driving waves in the United States and Europe.

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

World Health Organization officials announced July 6 that they’re tracking a new subvariant of Omicron, which is becoming more common in India.

The subvariant, a sublineage of BA.2 being called BA.2.75, has been reported in eight countries and hasn’t yet been declared a variant of concern.

“There’s been an emergence of a ‘could be’ subvariant. It’s been not yet officially called, but some people are referring to it as BA.2.75,” Soumya Swaminathan, MD, the WHO’s chief scientist, said in a video posted on Twitter.

The subvariant appears to have mutations similar to other contagious strains, she said, though there are a limited number of sequences available to analyze. How transmissible and severe it is, and how well it can evade our immunity, aren’t yet known.

“We have to wait and see, and of course, we are tracking it,” Dr. Swaminathan said.

The WHO committee responsible for analyzing global coronavirus data will label the subvariant officially and release more information as the situation warrants it, she said.

Public health experts around the world are also talking about the subvariant, which has been nicknamed Centaurus. BA.2.75 was first found in India in May and is now competing with BA.5, which has become dominant in the United States.

BA.2.75 has eight mutations beyond those seen in BA.5, which “could make immune escape worse than what we’re seeing now,” Eric Topol, MD, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute and editor-in-chief at Medscape, wrote in a Twitter post.

Individually, the extra mutations aren’t too concerning, “but all appearing together at once is another matter,” Tom Peacock, PhD, a virologist at Imperial College London, wrote in a Twitter post.

The “apparent rapid growth and wide geographical spread” are “worth keeping a close eye on,” he said.

BA.2.75 has been found in a handful of cases in the United States, Australia, Canada, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. In India, the sequence accounts for about 23% of recent samples.

“It is really too early to know if BA.2.75 will take over relative to BA.2 or even relative to BA.5,” Ulrich Elling, PhD, a researcher at Australia’s Institute of Molecular Biotechnology, wrote in a Twitter post.

“Just to emphasize it again: While the distribution across Indian regions as well as internationally and the very rapid appearance makes it likely we are dealing with a variant spreading fast and spread widely already, the absolute data points are few,” he said.

Globally, coronavirus cases have increased nearly 30% during the past 2 weeks, the WHO said July 6. Four out of six of the WHO subregions reported an increase in the last week, with BA.4 and BA.5 driving waves in the United States and Europe.

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

Among 1,065 adults with atopic dermatitis (AD) who were surveyed about their condition, no single element of disease burden, including sleep, stood out as having a strong association with overall disease burden. However, AD severity and spending 11 hours or more per week managing the condition did correlate with higher overall disease burden.

“Research has documented the disease burden of AD, including its visible nature and the effect on itch and sleep, but knowledge gaps remain,” Aaron M. Drucker, MD, of the division of dermatology at the University of Toronto, and colleagues wrote in the study published online in JAMA Dermatology. “Gaps include a poor understanding of symptoms other than itch, patients’ treatment experience, and how different elements of burden of disease interact.”

©aniaostudio/Thinkstock.com

Dr. Drucker and colleagues collected data from an externally led patient-focused drug development survey on AD, a 32-item questionnaire that was administered electronically between Aug. 1, 2019, and Oct. 11, 2019. Respondents were asked to rate the overall impact of their AD in the past months and the specific elements of disease burden on a 1-5 scale, with 1 meaning no impact, and 5 meaning a significant impact. They were also asked to rate current mood changes and mood changes at the worst point of AD on a 4-point scale that ranged from “not present” to “severe.” The researchers used multivariable ordinal regression to examine associations between demographic and clinical variables and patient-reported overall AD impact scores.
 

Survey results

Of the 1,065 respondents, 33% were aged 18-34 years, 50% were aged 35-50 years, 17% were aged 65 years or older, and 83% were female. Nearly half (45%) reported having moderate AD, while 28% had severe AD. When asked about the overall disease burden of AD symptoms in the past month, 30% reported a significant impact on life, 28% reported a moderate impact score, 21% reported a high impact score, 18% reported a low impact score, and 3% of respondents reported no impact.

In the multivariable proportional odds analysis, moderate AD (odds ratio [OR], 4.13) and severe AD (OR, 13.63) were both associated with greater disease burden compared with mild AD. Also, spending 11 or more hours per week managing AD symptoms was associated with greater disease burden compared with 0 to 4 hours (an OR of 2.67 for 11-20 hours per week spent managing AD and OR of 5.34 for 21 or more hours per week spent managing AD).

Correlations between specific impact domains such as sleep, cognitive thinking, and physical activity and overall AD impact scores ranged from weak to moderate, and no individual aspect of disease burden correlated strongly with overall impact scores. The researchers observed similar results after they stratified the analysis by age, current severity, and time spent managing AD.

In other findings, 40% of study participants reported mild changes in mood related to their AD, 30% reported moderate changes, 9% reported severe changes, while the remainder reported no changes in mood. The variable most strongly associated with current mood changes was having severe AD at the time of the survey (OR 5.29).
 

Understanding of disease burden ‘limited’

“Atopic dermatitis is associated with an immense clinical burden,” said Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study. “However, our understanding of disease burden from the patient perspective is limited,” he added.

“Interestingly, no single specific element of disease burden was strongly correlated with overall burden, further supporting the complex, multidimensional nature” of the impact of AD, he said, noting that the study “highlights the need for clinicians to look beyond the skin when it comes to AD and underscores the need for additional research to better understand the patient and caregiver perspective.”

Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was also asked to comment on the study, noted that aside from the well discussed impact and burden of itch and its impact on sleep loss, much remains to be learned about the full impact of AD, particularly among adults.

“For example, it is commonly accepted and expected that patients with more severe AD likely experience higher disease burden, but are there other factors that can influence this risk?” she asked. “Can we explain the high impact of AD disease aside from the level of disease severity, particularly among adults with AD?”

The study, she added, “is important because it provides additional insights into those possible factors, including ‘time spent managing their disease’ and ‘associated depression.’ In particular, understanding the association between ‘time spent managing their disease’ and higher disease burden is critical because, in my opinion, it emphasizes the need to develop better strategies for improving the care of patients with AD including the development of more efficacious and safer treatment strategies.”

Dr. Drucker and colleagues acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its cross-sectional design, the potential for selection bias, and the fact that it did not use the patient-oriented outcome measure or the dermatology life quality index. “Further work to address the complex burden of AD, including strategies to reduce time spent managing AD, and understanding the fullness of the patient experience is needed,” they concluded.

The work was supported in part by a grant from the National Eczema Association (NEA). Dr. Drucker reported that he receives compensation from the British Journal of Dermatology (as reviewer and section editor), American Academy of Dermatology (guidelines writer), and NEA (grant reviewer). Coauthors representing the NEA and other patient organizations including the Allergy & Asthma Network, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Global Parents for Eczema Research, and International Topical Steroid Awareness Network received organizational grants (Pfizer) and sponsorship funding for these analyses from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, LEO Pharma, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he has served as an advisory board member, consultant, speaker, and/or investigator for AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena, Beiersdorf, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly and Company, EPI Health, Incyte, L’Oréal, the NEA, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and UCB.

Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed that she has received research grants from Lilly, LEO Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi, Tioga, and Vanda for work related to AD She has served as consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, NEA, AbbVie, Incyte Corporation, and Pfizer; and received honoraria for CME work in AD sponsored by education grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Pfizer.

Among 1,065 adults with atopic dermatitis (AD) who were surveyed about their condition, no single element of disease burden, including sleep, stood out as having a strong association with overall disease burden. However, AD severity and spending 11 hours or more per week managing the condition did correlate with higher overall disease burden.

“Research has documented the disease burden of AD, including its visible nature and the effect on itch and sleep, but knowledge gaps remain,” Aaron M. Drucker, MD, of the division of dermatology at the University of Toronto, and colleagues wrote in the study published online in JAMA Dermatology. “Gaps include a poor understanding of symptoms other than itch, patients’ treatment experience, and how different elements of burden of disease interact.”

©aniaostudio/Thinkstock.com

Dr. Drucker and colleagues collected data from an externally led patient-focused drug development survey on AD, a 32-item questionnaire that was administered electronically between Aug. 1, 2019, and Oct. 11, 2019. Respondents were asked to rate the overall impact of their AD in the past months and the specific elements of disease burden on a 1-5 scale, with 1 meaning no impact, and 5 meaning a significant impact. They were also asked to rate current mood changes and mood changes at the worst point of AD on a 4-point scale that ranged from “not present” to “severe.” The researchers used multivariable ordinal regression to examine associations between demographic and clinical variables and patient-reported overall AD impact scores.
 

Survey results

Of the 1,065 respondents, 33% were aged 18-34 years, 50% were aged 35-50 years, 17% were aged 65 years or older, and 83% were female. Nearly half (45%) reported having moderate AD, while 28% had severe AD. When asked about the overall disease burden of AD symptoms in the past month, 30% reported a significant impact on life, 28% reported a moderate impact score, 21% reported a high impact score, 18% reported a low impact score, and 3% of respondents reported no impact.

In the multivariable proportional odds analysis, moderate AD (odds ratio [OR], 4.13) and severe AD (OR, 13.63) were both associated with greater disease burden compared with mild AD. Also, spending 11 or more hours per week managing AD symptoms was associated with greater disease burden compared with 0 to 4 hours (an OR of 2.67 for 11-20 hours per week spent managing AD and OR of 5.34 for 21 or more hours per week spent managing AD).

Correlations between specific impact domains such as sleep, cognitive thinking, and physical activity and overall AD impact scores ranged from weak to moderate, and no individual aspect of disease burden correlated strongly with overall impact scores. The researchers observed similar results after they stratified the analysis by age, current severity, and time spent managing AD.

In other findings, 40% of study participants reported mild changes in mood related to their AD, 30% reported moderate changes, 9% reported severe changes, while the remainder reported no changes in mood. The variable most strongly associated with current mood changes was having severe AD at the time of the survey (OR 5.29).
 

Understanding of disease burden ‘limited’

“Atopic dermatitis is associated with an immense clinical burden,” said Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study. “However, our understanding of disease burden from the patient perspective is limited,” he added.

“Interestingly, no single specific element of disease burden was strongly correlated with overall burden, further supporting the complex, multidimensional nature” of the impact of AD, he said, noting that the study “highlights the need for clinicians to look beyond the skin when it comes to AD and underscores the need for additional research to better understand the patient and caregiver perspective.”

Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was also asked to comment on the study, noted that aside from the well discussed impact and burden of itch and its impact on sleep loss, much remains to be learned about the full impact of AD, particularly among adults.

“For example, it is commonly accepted and expected that patients with more severe AD likely experience higher disease burden, but are there other factors that can influence this risk?” she asked. “Can we explain the high impact of AD disease aside from the level of disease severity, particularly among adults with AD?”

The study, she added, “is important because it provides additional insights into those possible factors, including ‘time spent managing their disease’ and ‘associated depression.’ In particular, understanding the association between ‘time spent managing their disease’ and higher disease burden is critical because, in my opinion, it emphasizes the need to develop better strategies for improving the care of patients with AD including the development of more efficacious and safer treatment strategies.”

Dr. Drucker and colleagues acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its cross-sectional design, the potential for selection bias, and the fact that it did not use the patient-oriented outcome measure or the dermatology life quality index. “Further work to address the complex burden of AD, including strategies to reduce time spent managing AD, and understanding the fullness of the patient experience is needed,” they concluded.

The work was supported in part by a grant from the National Eczema Association (NEA). Dr. Drucker reported that he receives compensation from the British Journal of Dermatology (as reviewer and section editor), American Academy of Dermatology (guidelines writer), and NEA (grant reviewer). Coauthors representing the NEA and other patient organizations including the Allergy & Asthma Network, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Global Parents for Eczema Research, and International Topical Steroid Awareness Network received organizational grants (Pfizer) and sponsorship funding for these analyses from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, LEO Pharma, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he has served as an advisory board member, consultant, speaker, and/or investigator for AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena, Beiersdorf, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly and Company, EPI Health, Incyte, L’Oréal, the NEA, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and UCB.

Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed that she has received research grants from Lilly, LEO Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi, Tioga, and Vanda for work related to AD She has served as consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, NEA, AbbVie, Incyte Corporation, and Pfizer; and received honoraria for CME work in AD sponsored by education grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Pfizer.

Among 1,065 adults with atopic dermatitis (AD) who were surveyed about their condition, no single element of disease burden, including sleep, stood out as having a strong association with overall disease burden. However, AD severity and spending 11 hours or more per week managing the condition did correlate with higher overall disease burden.

“Research has documented the disease burden of AD, including its visible nature and the effect on itch and sleep, but knowledge gaps remain,” Aaron M. Drucker, MD, of the division of dermatology at the University of Toronto, and colleagues wrote in the study published online in JAMA Dermatology. “Gaps include a poor understanding of symptoms other than itch, patients’ treatment experience, and how different elements of burden of disease interact.”

©aniaostudio/Thinkstock.com

Dr. Drucker and colleagues collected data from an externally led patient-focused drug development survey on AD, a 32-item questionnaire that was administered electronically between Aug. 1, 2019, and Oct. 11, 2019. Respondents were asked to rate the overall impact of their AD in the past months and the specific elements of disease burden on a 1-5 scale, with 1 meaning no impact, and 5 meaning a significant impact. They were also asked to rate current mood changes and mood changes at the worst point of AD on a 4-point scale that ranged from “not present” to “severe.” The researchers used multivariable ordinal regression to examine associations between demographic and clinical variables and patient-reported overall AD impact scores.
 

Survey results

Of the 1,065 respondents, 33% were aged 18-34 years, 50% were aged 35-50 years, 17% were aged 65 years or older, and 83% were female. Nearly half (45%) reported having moderate AD, while 28% had severe AD. When asked about the overall disease burden of AD symptoms in the past month, 30% reported a significant impact on life, 28% reported a moderate impact score, 21% reported a high impact score, 18% reported a low impact score, and 3% of respondents reported no impact.

In the multivariable proportional odds analysis, moderate AD (odds ratio [OR], 4.13) and severe AD (OR, 13.63) were both associated with greater disease burden compared with mild AD. Also, spending 11 or more hours per week managing AD symptoms was associated with greater disease burden compared with 0 to 4 hours (an OR of 2.67 for 11-20 hours per week spent managing AD and OR of 5.34 for 21 or more hours per week spent managing AD).

Correlations between specific impact domains such as sleep, cognitive thinking, and physical activity and overall AD impact scores ranged from weak to moderate, and no individual aspect of disease burden correlated strongly with overall impact scores. The researchers observed similar results after they stratified the analysis by age, current severity, and time spent managing AD.

In other findings, 40% of study participants reported mild changes in mood related to their AD, 30% reported moderate changes, 9% reported severe changes, while the remainder reported no changes in mood. The variable most strongly associated with current mood changes was having severe AD at the time of the survey (OR 5.29).
 

Understanding of disease burden ‘limited’

“Atopic dermatitis is associated with an immense clinical burden,” said Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor in the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study. “However, our understanding of disease burden from the patient perspective is limited,” he added.

“Interestingly, no single specific element of disease burden was strongly correlated with overall burden, further supporting the complex, multidimensional nature” of the impact of AD, he said, noting that the study “highlights the need for clinicians to look beyond the skin when it comes to AD and underscores the need for additional research to better understand the patient and caregiver perspective.”

Zelma Chiesa Fuxench, MD, MSCE, assistant professor of dermatology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, who was also asked to comment on the study, noted that aside from the well discussed impact and burden of itch and its impact on sleep loss, much remains to be learned about the full impact of AD, particularly among adults.

“For example, it is commonly accepted and expected that patients with more severe AD likely experience higher disease burden, but are there other factors that can influence this risk?” she asked. “Can we explain the high impact of AD disease aside from the level of disease severity, particularly among adults with AD?”

The study, she added, “is important because it provides additional insights into those possible factors, including ‘time spent managing their disease’ and ‘associated depression.’ In particular, understanding the association between ‘time spent managing their disease’ and higher disease burden is critical because, in my opinion, it emphasizes the need to develop better strategies for improving the care of patients with AD including the development of more efficacious and safer treatment strategies.”

Dr. Drucker and colleagues acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including its cross-sectional design, the potential for selection bias, and the fact that it did not use the patient-oriented outcome measure or the dermatology life quality index. “Further work to address the complex burden of AD, including strategies to reduce time spent managing AD, and understanding the fullness of the patient experience is needed,” they concluded.

The work was supported in part by a grant from the National Eczema Association (NEA). Dr. Drucker reported that he receives compensation from the British Journal of Dermatology (as reviewer and section editor), American Academy of Dermatology (guidelines writer), and NEA (grant reviewer). Coauthors representing the NEA and other patient organizations including the Allergy & Asthma Network, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, Global Parents for Eczema Research, and International Topical Steroid Awareness Network received organizational grants (Pfizer) and sponsorship funding for these analyses from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Incyte, LEO Pharma, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he has served as an advisory board member, consultant, speaker, and/or investigator for AbbVie, Arcutis, Arena, Beiersdorf, Bristol Myers Squibb, Dermavant, Eli Lilly and Company, EPI Health, Incyte, L’Oréal, the NEA, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and UCB.

Dr. Chiesa Fuxench disclosed that she has received research grants from Lilly, LEO Pharma, Regeneron, Sanofi, Tioga, and Vanda for work related to AD She has served as consultant for the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, NEA, AbbVie, Incyte Corporation, and Pfizer; and received honoraria for CME work in AD sponsored by education grants from Regeneron/Sanofi and Pfizer.

INDIANAPOLIS – Among children and adolescents diagnosed with melanoma, females had higher rates of superficial spreading disease, while males were more frequently affected by nodular melanoma.

In addition, male gender was independently associated with increased mortality, but age was not.

Those are key findings from a retrospective cohort analysis of nearly 5,000 records from the National Cancer Database.

“There are multiple studies from primarily adult populations showing females with melanoma have a different presentation and better outcomes than males,” co-first author Rebecca M. Thiede, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in an interview with this news organization in advance of the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the abstract was presented during a poster session. “However, because melanoma is so rare in younger patients, little is known about gender differences in presentation and survival in pediatric and adolescent patients. To our knowledge, this is one of the largest studies to date in this population, and the first to explore gender differences in detail in pediatric and adolescent patients with melanoma.”

Working with co-first author Sabrina Dahak, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, Dr. Thiede and colleagues retrospectively analyzed the National Cancer Database to identify biopsy-confirmed invasive primary cutaneous melanoma cases diagnosed in patients 0-21 years of age between 2004 and 2018. The search yielded 4,645 cases, and the researchers used American Academy of Pediatrics definitions to categorize the patients by age, from infancy (birth to 2 years), to childhood (3-10 years), early adolescence (11-14 years), middle adolescence (15-17 years), and late adolescence (18-21 years). They used the Kaplan Meier analysis to determine overall survival and multivariate Cox regression to determine independent survival predictors.

Of the 4,645 pediatric melanoma cases, 63.4% were in females and 36.6% were in males, a difference that was significant (P < .001). Dr. Thiede and colleagues also observed a significant relationship between primary site and gender (P < .001). Primary sites included the trunk (34.3% of females vs. 32.9% of males, respectively), head and neck (16.4% vs. 30.9%), upper extremities (19.5% vs. 16%), lower extremities (27.9% vs. 16.5%), and “unspecified” (1.9% vs. 3.7%).

Females had higher rates of superficial spreading melanoma while males were affected by nodular melanoma more often. For example, the median Breslow depth was higher for males (1.05 mm; interquartile range [IQR] 0.50-2.31) than for females (0.80 mm; IQR, 0.40-1.67; P < .001).

Although females accounted for a higher percentage of cases than males overall, from birth to 17 years, a higher percentage of males than females were found to have later stage of melanoma at time of diagnosis: Females were more likely to be diagnosed with stage I disease (67.8%) than were males (53.6%), and males were more likely than were females to be diagnosed with stages II (15.9% vs. 12.3%), III (27.1% vs. 18.3%), and IV disease (3.3% vs. 1.6%; P < .001 for all).

In other findings, the 5- and 10-year overall survival rates were higher for females (95.9% and 93.9%, respectively) than for males (92.0% vs. 86.7%, respectively; P < .001). However, by age group, overall survival rates were similar between females and males among infants, children, and those in early adolescence – but not for those in middle adolescence (96.7% vs. 91.9%; P < .001) or late adolescence (95.7% vs. 90.4%; P < .001).

When the researchers adjusted for confounding variables, male gender was independently associated with an increased risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio 1.37; P < .001), but age was not.

“It was particularly surprising to see that even at such a young age, there is a significant difference in overall survival between males and females, where females have better outcomes than males,” Dr. Thiede said. “When examining pediatric and adolescent patients, it is essential to maintain cutaneous melanoma on the differential,” she advised. “It is important for clinicians to perform a thorough exam at annual visits particularly for those at high risk for melanoma to catch this rare but potentially devastating diagnosis.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its reliance on one database, “as comparing multiple databases would strengthen the conclusions,” she said. “There was some missing data present in our dataset, and a large percentage of the histologic subtypes were unspecified, both of which are common issues with cancer registries. An additional limitation is related to the low death rates in adolescent and pediatric patients, which may impact the analysis related to survival and independent predictors of survival.”

Asked to comment on the study results, Carrie C. Coughlin, MD, who directs the section of pediatric dermatology Washington University/St. Louis Children’s Hospital, said that the finding that males were more likely to present with stage II or higher disease compared with females “could be related to their finding that females had more superficial spreading melanomas, whereas males had more nodular melanoma.” Those differences “could influence how providers evaluate melanocytic lesions in children,” she added.

Dr. Coughlin, who directs the pediatric dermatology fellowship at Washington University/St. Louis Children’s Hospital, said it was “interesting” that the authors found no association between older age and an increased risk of death. “It would be helpful to have more data about melanoma subtype, including information about Spitz or Spitzoid melanomas,” she said. “Also, knowing the distribution of melanoma across the age categories could provide more insight into their data.”

Ms. Dahak received an award from the National Cancer Institute to fund travel for presentation of this study at the SPD meeting. No other financial conflicts were reported by the researchers. Dr. Coughlin is on the board of the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA) and the International Immunosuppression and Transplant Skin Cancer Collaborative.

INDIANAPOLIS – Among children and adolescents diagnosed with melanoma, females had higher rates of superficial spreading disease, while males were more frequently affected by nodular melanoma.

In addition, male gender was independently associated with increased mortality, but age was not.

Those are key findings from a retrospective cohort analysis of nearly 5,000 records from the National Cancer Database.

“There are multiple studies from primarily adult populations showing females with melanoma have a different presentation and better outcomes than males,” co-first author Rebecca M. Thiede, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in an interview with this news organization in advance of the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the abstract was presented during a poster session. “However, because melanoma is so rare in younger patients, little is known about gender differences in presentation and survival in pediatric and adolescent patients. To our knowledge, this is one of the largest studies to date in this population, and the first to explore gender differences in detail in pediatric and adolescent patients with melanoma.”

Working with co-first author Sabrina Dahak, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, Dr. Thiede and colleagues retrospectively analyzed the National Cancer Database to identify biopsy-confirmed invasive primary cutaneous melanoma cases diagnosed in patients 0-21 years of age between 2004 and 2018. The search yielded 4,645 cases, and the researchers used American Academy of Pediatrics definitions to categorize the patients by age, from infancy (birth to 2 years), to childhood (3-10 years), early adolescence (11-14 years), middle adolescence (15-17 years), and late adolescence (18-21 years). They used the Kaplan Meier analysis to determine overall survival and multivariate Cox regression to determine independent survival predictors.

Of the 4,645 pediatric melanoma cases, 63.4% were in females and 36.6% were in males, a difference that was significant (P < .001). Dr. Thiede and colleagues also observed a significant relationship between primary site and gender (P < .001). Primary sites included the trunk (34.3% of females vs. 32.9% of males, respectively), head and neck (16.4% vs. 30.9%), upper extremities (19.5% vs. 16%), lower extremities (27.9% vs. 16.5%), and “unspecified” (1.9% vs. 3.7%).

Females had higher rates of superficial spreading melanoma while males were affected by nodular melanoma more often. For example, the median Breslow depth was higher for males (1.05 mm; interquartile range [IQR] 0.50-2.31) than for females (0.80 mm; IQR, 0.40-1.67; P < .001).

Although females accounted for a higher percentage of cases than males overall, from birth to 17 years, a higher percentage of males than females were found to have later stage of melanoma at time of diagnosis: Females were more likely to be diagnosed with stage I disease (67.8%) than were males (53.6%), and males were more likely than were females to be diagnosed with stages II (15.9% vs. 12.3%), III (27.1% vs. 18.3%), and IV disease (3.3% vs. 1.6%; P < .001 for all).

In other findings, the 5- and 10-year overall survival rates were higher for females (95.9% and 93.9%, respectively) than for males (92.0% vs. 86.7%, respectively; P < .001). However, by age group, overall survival rates were similar between females and males among infants, children, and those in early adolescence – but not for those in middle adolescence (96.7% vs. 91.9%; P < .001) or late adolescence (95.7% vs. 90.4%; P < .001).

When the researchers adjusted for confounding variables, male gender was independently associated with an increased risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio 1.37; P < .001), but age was not.

“It was particularly surprising to see that even at such a young age, there is a significant difference in overall survival between males and females, where females have better outcomes than males,” Dr. Thiede said. “When examining pediatric and adolescent patients, it is essential to maintain cutaneous melanoma on the differential,” she advised. “It is important for clinicians to perform a thorough exam at annual visits particularly for those at high risk for melanoma to catch this rare but potentially devastating diagnosis.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its reliance on one database, “as comparing multiple databases would strengthen the conclusions,” she said. “There was some missing data present in our dataset, and a large percentage of the histologic subtypes were unspecified, both of which are common issues with cancer registries. An additional limitation is related to the low death rates in adolescent and pediatric patients, which may impact the analysis related to survival and independent predictors of survival.”

Asked to comment on the study results, Carrie C. Coughlin, MD, who directs the section of pediatric dermatology Washington University/St. Louis Children’s Hospital, said that the finding that males were more likely to present with stage II or higher disease compared with females “could be related to their finding that females had more superficial spreading melanomas, whereas males had more nodular melanoma.” Those differences “could influence how providers evaluate melanocytic lesions in children,” she added.

Dr. Coughlin, who directs the pediatric dermatology fellowship at Washington University/St. Louis Children’s Hospital, said it was “interesting” that the authors found no association between older age and an increased risk of death. “It would be helpful to have more data about melanoma subtype, including information about Spitz or Spitzoid melanomas,” she said. “Also, knowing the distribution of melanoma across the age categories could provide more insight into their data.”

Ms. Dahak received an award from the National Cancer Institute to fund travel for presentation of this study at the SPD meeting. No other financial conflicts were reported by the researchers. Dr. Coughlin is on the board of the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA) and the International Immunosuppression and Transplant Skin Cancer Collaborative.

INDIANAPOLIS – Among children and adolescents diagnosed with melanoma, females had higher rates of superficial spreading disease, while males were more frequently affected by nodular melanoma.

In addition, male gender was independently associated with increased mortality, but age was not.

Those are key findings from a retrospective cohort analysis of nearly 5,000 records from the National Cancer Database.

“There are multiple studies from primarily adult populations showing females with melanoma have a different presentation and better outcomes than males,” co-first author Rebecca M. Thiede, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Arizona, Tucson, said in an interview with this news organization in advance of the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, where the abstract was presented during a poster session. “However, because melanoma is so rare in younger patients, little is known about gender differences in presentation and survival in pediatric and adolescent patients. To our knowledge, this is one of the largest studies to date in this population, and the first to explore gender differences in detail in pediatric and adolescent patients with melanoma.”

Working with co-first author Sabrina Dahak, a fourth-year medical student at the University of Arizona, Phoenix, Dr. Thiede and colleagues retrospectively analyzed the National Cancer Database to identify biopsy-confirmed invasive primary cutaneous melanoma cases diagnosed in patients 0-21 years of age between 2004 and 2018. The search yielded 4,645 cases, and the researchers used American Academy of Pediatrics definitions to categorize the patients by age, from infancy (birth to 2 years), to childhood (3-10 years), early adolescence (11-14 years), middle adolescence (15-17 years), and late adolescence (18-21 years). They used the Kaplan Meier analysis to determine overall survival and multivariate Cox regression to determine independent survival predictors.

Of the 4,645 pediatric melanoma cases, 63.4% were in females and 36.6% were in males, a difference that was significant (P < .001). Dr. Thiede and colleagues also observed a significant relationship between primary site and gender (P < .001). Primary sites included the trunk (34.3% of females vs. 32.9% of males, respectively), head and neck (16.4% vs. 30.9%), upper extremities (19.5% vs. 16%), lower extremities (27.9% vs. 16.5%), and “unspecified” (1.9% vs. 3.7%).

Females had higher rates of superficial spreading melanoma while males were affected by nodular melanoma more often. For example, the median Breslow depth was higher for males (1.05 mm; interquartile range [IQR] 0.50-2.31) than for females (0.80 mm; IQR, 0.40-1.67; P < .001).

Although females accounted for a higher percentage of cases than males overall, from birth to 17 years, a higher percentage of males than females were found to have later stage of melanoma at time of diagnosis: Females were more likely to be diagnosed with stage I disease (67.8%) than were males (53.6%), and males were more likely than were females to be diagnosed with stages II (15.9% vs. 12.3%), III (27.1% vs. 18.3%), and IV disease (3.3% vs. 1.6%; P < .001 for all).

In other findings, the 5- and 10-year overall survival rates were higher for females (95.9% and 93.9%, respectively) than for males (92.0% vs. 86.7%, respectively; P < .001). However, by age group, overall survival rates were similar between females and males among infants, children, and those in early adolescence – but not for those in middle adolescence (96.7% vs. 91.9%; P < .001) or late adolescence (95.7% vs. 90.4%; P < .001).

When the researchers adjusted for confounding variables, male gender was independently associated with an increased risk of death (adjusted hazard ratio 1.37; P < .001), but age was not.

“It was particularly surprising to see that even at such a young age, there is a significant difference in overall survival between males and females, where females have better outcomes than males,” Dr. Thiede said. “When examining pediatric and adolescent patients, it is essential to maintain cutaneous melanoma on the differential,” she advised. “It is important for clinicians to perform a thorough exam at annual visits particularly for those at high risk for melanoma to catch this rare but potentially devastating diagnosis.”

She acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including its reliance on one database, “as comparing multiple databases would strengthen the conclusions,” she said. “There was some missing data present in our dataset, and a large percentage of the histologic subtypes were unspecified, both of which are common issues with cancer registries. An additional limitation is related to the low death rates in adolescent and pediatric patients, which may impact the analysis related to survival and independent predictors of survival.”

Asked to comment on the study results, Carrie C. Coughlin, MD, who directs the section of pediatric dermatology Washington University/St. Louis Children’s Hospital, said that the finding that males were more likely to present with stage II or higher disease compared with females “could be related to their finding that females had more superficial spreading melanomas, whereas males had more nodular melanoma.” Those differences “could influence how providers evaluate melanocytic lesions in children,” she added.

Dr. Coughlin, who directs the pediatric dermatology fellowship at Washington University/St. Louis Children’s Hospital, said it was “interesting” that the authors found no association between older age and an increased risk of death. “It would be helpful to have more data about melanoma subtype, including information about Spitz or Spitzoid melanomas,” she said. “Also, knowing the distribution of melanoma across the age categories could provide more insight into their data.”

Ms. Dahak received an award from the National Cancer Institute to fund travel for presentation of this study at the SPD meeting. No other financial conflicts were reported by the researchers. Dr. Coughlin is on the board of the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA) and the International Immunosuppression and Transplant Skin Cancer Collaborative.