Dermatology

SAN DIEGO — New guidelines for cutaneous melanoma have been issued by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), creating some new standards of practice that extend a slow divergence from the last set of detailed recommendations released by the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) in 2019.

Based on the constantly evolving science that drives guidelines, the new set of NCCN recommendations reflects the latest iteration of a consensus effort to define best practice, according to Susan M. Swetter, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program at Stanford University in California.

Dr. Swetter chaired the committee that developed the most recent NCCN guidelines, released February 12. She also chaired the work group that developed the AAD recommendations, released in 2019. Differences between the two primarily reflect evolving evidence and expert opinion over time. 
 

Next AAD Guidelines More Than 1 Year Away

The AAD guidelines are developed infrequently and in a process that can take years. The next AAD cutaneous melanoma guidelines are not likely to be released until the end of 2025 or in 2026, Dr. Swetter said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology on March 8. In contrast, the NCCN guidelines for cutaneous melanoma are revisited frequently. The last iteration was published only 1 year ago. 

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

More Than 50% Consensus Generally Required

The NCCN committee that issues periodic guidelines on cutaneous melanoma is formed by a rotating group of interdisciplinary melanoma specialists. More than 30 academic institutions nationwide are generally represented, and the group includes patient advocates. Typically, no comment or recommendation is provided if the committee cannot generate at least a majority endorsement (≥ 50%) on a given topic.

Overall, the majority of guidelines, including those issued by the NCCN and the AAD, are aligned, except to the degree of the time lag that provides different sets of evidence to consider. The rationale for keeping abreast of the NCCN recommendations is that updates are more frequent, according to Dr. Swetter, who noted that these are available for free once a user has registered on the NCCN website. 

Importantly, guidelines not only identify what further steps can be taken to improve diagnostic accuracy or outcomes but what practices can be abandoned to improve the benefit-to-risk ratio. As an example, surgical margins for primary melanomas have been becoming progressively smaller on the basis of evidence that larger margins increase morbidity without improving outcomes.

Although Dr. Swetter acknowledged that “we still haven’t identified the narrowest, most efficacious margins for cutaneous melanoma,” she cited studies now suggesting that margins of 2 cm appear to be sufficient even for advanced T3 and T4 tumors. Prior to the 1970s, margins of 5 cm or greater were common.

There are still many unanswered questions about optimal margins, but the 2023 NCCN guidelines already called for surgical margins of at least 1 cm and no more than 2 cm for large invasive melanomas when clinically measured around the primary tumor. Dr. Swetter said that even smaller margins can be considered “to accommodate function and/or the anatomic location.”
 

Best Margins for MIS Undefined

So far, there are no randomized trials yet to guide surgical margins or depth for many melanoma subtypes, including melanoma in situ (MIS). These are the types of data, when they become available, that change guidelines.

The list of procedures often performed, but for which there is no specific guidance from NCCN or other organizations, is long. Numerous examples were provided during the AAD symposium on guidelines, during which Dr. Swetter spoke. The bedside diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma with noninvasive testing was one.

Describing the 2-gene molecular assay for the evaluation of a suspected melanoma, Caroline C. Kim, MD, director of the Melanoma and Pigmented Lesion Program at Tufts University in Boston, explained that this tool, which is based on the presence of the LINC00158 gene and the preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME), has limited utility as a tool for establishing a diagnosis of melanoma. But, she said, it has reasonably good reliability for ruling out melanoma, thereby providing a basis to avoid or delay further diagnostic steps, such as biopsy.

Skin biopsy, as established in the guidelines, “is still the gold standard,” but there are numerous studies indicating that patients negative for both LINC00158 and PRAME have a low risk for melanoma, she said.

“A double negative result is not 100% effective, but it is high,” said Dr. Kim, who provided several examples whereby she employed the test to follow the patient rather than do invasive testing.

This test is gaining popularity, according to Dr. Kim, who cited several surveys suggesting growing use among clinicians, but she characterized it as an adjunctive approach that should be considered in the context of guidelines. It is an example of an approach that is not yet standard practice but can be helpful if used appropriately, she noted.

Dr. Swetter and Dr. Kim report no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — New guidelines for cutaneous melanoma have been issued by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), creating some new standards of practice that extend a slow divergence from the last set of detailed recommendations released by the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) in 2019.

Based on the constantly evolving science that drives guidelines, the new set of NCCN recommendations reflects the latest iteration of a consensus effort to define best practice, according to Susan M. Swetter, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program at Stanford University in California.

Dr. Swetter chaired the committee that developed the most recent NCCN guidelines, released February 12. She also chaired the work group that developed the AAD recommendations, released in 2019. Differences between the two primarily reflect evolving evidence and expert opinion over time. 
 

Next AAD Guidelines More Than 1 Year Away

The AAD guidelines are developed infrequently and in a process that can take years. The next AAD cutaneous melanoma guidelines are not likely to be released until the end of 2025 or in 2026, Dr. Swetter said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology on March 8. In contrast, the NCCN guidelines for cutaneous melanoma are revisited frequently. The last iteration was published only 1 year ago. 

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

More Than 50% Consensus Generally Required

The NCCN committee that issues periodic guidelines on cutaneous melanoma is formed by a rotating group of interdisciplinary melanoma specialists. More than 30 academic institutions nationwide are generally represented, and the group includes patient advocates. Typically, no comment or recommendation is provided if the committee cannot generate at least a majority endorsement (≥ 50%) on a given topic.

Overall, the majority of guidelines, including those issued by the NCCN and the AAD, are aligned, except to the degree of the time lag that provides different sets of evidence to consider. The rationale for keeping abreast of the NCCN recommendations is that updates are more frequent, according to Dr. Swetter, who noted that these are available for free once a user has registered on the NCCN website. 

Importantly, guidelines not only identify what further steps can be taken to improve diagnostic accuracy or outcomes but what practices can be abandoned to improve the benefit-to-risk ratio. As an example, surgical margins for primary melanomas have been becoming progressively smaller on the basis of evidence that larger margins increase morbidity without improving outcomes.

Although Dr. Swetter acknowledged that “we still haven’t identified the narrowest, most efficacious margins for cutaneous melanoma,” she cited studies now suggesting that margins of 2 cm appear to be sufficient even for advanced T3 and T4 tumors. Prior to the 1970s, margins of 5 cm or greater were common.

There are still many unanswered questions about optimal margins, but the 2023 NCCN guidelines already called for surgical margins of at least 1 cm and no more than 2 cm for large invasive melanomas when clinically measured around the primary tumor. Dr. Swetter said that even smaller margins can be considered “to accommodate function and/or the anatomic location.”
 

Best Margins for MIS Undefined

So far, there are no randomized trials yet to guide surgical margins or depth for many melanoma subtypes, including melanoma in situ (MIS). These are the types of data, when they become available, that change guidelines.

The list of procedures often performed, but for which there is no specific guidance from NCCN or other organizations, is long. Numerous examples were provided during the AAD symposium on guidelines, during which Dr. Swetter spoke. The bedside diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma with noninvasive testing was one.

Describing the 2-gene molecular assay for the evaluation of a suspected melanoma, Caroline C. Kim, MD, director of the Melanoma and Pigmented Lesion Program at Tufts University in Boston, explained that this tool, which is based on the presence of the LINC00158 gene and the preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME), has limited utility as a tool for establishing a diagnosis of melanoma. But, she said, it has reasonably good reliability for ruling out melanoma, thereby providing a basis to avoid or delay further diagnostic steps, such as biopsy.

Skin biopsy, as established in the guidelines, “is still the gold standard,” but there are numerous studies indicating that patients negative for both LINC00158 and PRAME have a low risk for melanoma, she said.

“A double negative result is not 100% effective, but it is high,” said Dr. Kim, who provided several examples whereby she employed the test to follow the patient rather than do invasive testing.

This test is gaining popularity, according to Dr. Kim, who cited several surveys suggesting growing use among clinicians, but she characterized it as an adjunctive approach that should be considered in the context of guidelines. It is an example of an approach that is not yet standard practice but can be helpful if used appropriately, she noted.

Dr. Swetter and Dr. Kim report no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — New guidelines for cutaneous melanoma have been issued by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), creating some new standards of practice that extend a slow divergence from the last set of detailed recommendations released by the American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) in 2019.

Based on the constantly evolving science that drives guidelines, the new set of NCCN recommendations reflects the latest iteration of a consensus effort to define best practice, according to Susan M. Swetter, MD, professor of dermatology and director of the Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program at Stanford University in California.

Dr. Swetter chaired the committee that developed the most recent NCCN guidelines, released February 12. She also chaired the work group that developed the AAD recommendations, released in 2019. Differences between the two primarily reflect evolving evidence and expert opinion over time. 
 

Next AAD Guidelines More Than 1 Year Away

The AAD guidelines are developed infrequently and in a process that can take years. The next AAD cutaneous melanoma guidelines are not likely to be released until the end of 2025 or in 2026, Dr. Swetter said at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology on March 8. In contrast, the NCCN guidelines for cutaneous melanoma are revisited frequently. The last iteration was published only 1 year ago. 

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

More Than 50% Consensus Generally Required

The NCCN committee that issues periodic guidelines on cutaneous melanoma is formed by a rotating group of interdisciplinary melanoma specialists. More than 30 academic institutions nationwide are generally represented, and the group includes patient advocates. Typically, no comment or recommendation is provided if the committee cannot generate at least a majority endorsement (≥ 50%) on a given topic.

Overall, the majority of guidelines, including those issued by the NCCN and the AAD, are aligned, except to the degree of the time lag that provides different sets of evidence to consider. The rationale for keeping abreast of the NCCN recommendations is that updates are more frequent, according to Dr. Swetter, who noted that these are available for free once a user has registered on the NCCN website. 

Importantly, guidelines not only identify what further steps can be taken to improve diagnostic accuracy or outcomes but what practices can be abandoned to improve the benefit-to-risk ratio. As an example, surgical margins for primary melanomas have been becoming progressively smaller on the basis of evidence that larger margins increase morbidity without improving outcomes.

Although Dr. Swetter acknowledged that “we still haven’t identified the narrowest, most efficacious margins for cutaneous melanoma,” she cited studies now suggesting that margins of 2 cm appear to be sufficient even for advanced T3 and T4 tumors. Prior to the 1970s, margins of 5 cm or greater were common.

There are still many unanswered questions about optimal margins, but the 2023 NCCN guidelines already called for surgical margins of at least 1 cm and no more than 2 cm for large invasive melanomas when clinically measured around the primary tumor. Dr. Swetter said that even smaller margins can be considered “to accommodate function and/or the anatomic location.”
 

Best Margins for MIS Undefined

So far, there are no randomized trials yet to guide surgical margins or depth for many melanoma subtypes, including melanoma in situ (MIS). These are the types of data, when they become available, that change guidelines.

The list of procedures often performed, but for which there is no specific guidance from NCCN or other organizations, is long. Numerous examples were provided during the AAD symposium on guidelines, during which Dr. Swetter spoke. The bedside diagnosis of cutaneous melanoma with noninvasive testing was one.

Describing the 2-gene molecular assay for the evaluation of a suspected melanoma, Caroline C. Kim, MD, director of the Melanoma and Pigmented Lesion Program at Tufts University in Boston, explained that this tool, which is based on the presence of the LINC00158 gene and the preferentially expressed antigen in melanoma (PRAME), has limited utility as a tool for establishing a diagnosis of melanoma. But, she said, it has reasonably good reliability for ruling out melanoma, thereby providing a basis to avoid or delay further diagnostic steps, such as biopsy.

Skin biopsy, as established in the guidelines, “is still the gold standard,” but there are numerous studies indicating that patients negative for both LINC00158 and PRAME have a low risk for melanoma, she said.

“A double negative result is not 100% effective, but it is high,” said Dr. Kim, who provided several examples whereby she employed the test to follow the patient rather than do invasive testing.

This test is gaining popularity, according to Dr. Kim, who cited several surveys suggesting growing use among clinicians, but she characterized it as an adjunctive approach that should be considered in the context of guidelines. It is an example of an approach that is not yet standard practice but can be helpful if used appropriately, she noted.

Dr. Swetter and Dr. Kim report no relevant financial relationships. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sulfites, present in foods, drinks, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products, have been named the “Allergen of the Year” for 2024 by the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS).

Sulfites are currently not found in most screening patch test series, so may be missed as a relevant contact allergen, Donald V. Belsito, MD, emeritus professor in the Department of Dermatology at Columbia University, New York City, said in his presentation on the Allergen of the Year on March 7 at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society in San Diego. Sulfites, he noted, are distinct from sulfates, and the groups do not cross-react with each other.

FabrikaCr/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Sodium disulfite, an inorganic compound, belongs to a group of sulfiting agents, which contain the sulfite ion SO₃²⁻ and include ammonium sulfite, potassium sulfite, and sodium sulfite, Dr. Belsito said. Sulfites function as antioxidants and preservatives in a range of products including food and beverages, personal care products, and pharmaceuticals.

The type of sulfite allergy diagnosed by patch testing is type IV hypersensitivity or delayed-type hypersensitivity, where patients present with pruritic, red, scaling macules, papulovesicles, and patches, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “It is not the type I, immediate hypersensitivity that causes hives and, in some cases, anaphylaxis,” he said. Sulfites also can cause these side effects, so correct labeling of food and beverages is important, he noted.

Some common nonoccupational sulfite sources include hair coloring and bleach products, hairspray, tanning lotions, makeup, sunscreens, and deodorants, Dr. Belsito said in his presentation. Medications including topical antifungals, topical corticosteroids, and nasal solutions can be culprits, as can water in swimming pools, he noted.

In occupational settings, sulfites may be present not only in food and drink products but also can be used in production of products, such as those used for sterilization during beer and wine fermentation, Dr. Belsito said. Other potential occupational sources of sulfite exposure include healthcare settings and textile, chemical, rubber, and pharmaceutical manufacturing.

High-sulfite food products (> 100 ppm) to be aware of include dried fruit (raisins and prunes are exceptions), bottled lemon or lime juice (but not frozen products), wine, molasses, grape juice (white, or white, pink, and red sparkling), and pickled cocktail onions, Dr. Belsito said.

“Like other contact allergens, the clinical presentation correlates with exposure,” he added. A study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) found that 28.8% of patients positive for sulfite allergy on patch testing presented with facial dermatitis, which was not only related to cosmetics and medications used on the face but also from products, such as shampoo, used on the scalp that dripped onto the face. “The scalp is relatively resistant to the expression of contact allergy and may not be involved at all,” he said.

According to the NACDG study, the hands were the second most common site of dermatitis associated with sulfites (20.5%) followed by generalized distribution (13.6%). These sites are to be expected, given the sources of food and beverage, personal care products, and occupational materials, Dr. Belsito said.

“Eczematous dermatitis of the lips is also common in patients with ingested food sources of sulfites,” he said.

Systemic contact dermatitis to sulfites has been documented following oral, rectal, and parental exposure, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “Systemic dermatitis may present as a scattered/generalized dermatitis, symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (also referred to as baboon syndrome), or erythroderma,” he said.
 

How to Spot Sulfite Allergies

The exclusion of sulfites from most patch test series means that sulfite allergy diagnoses are often missed, despite the wide range of potential exposures, Dr. Belsito said.

“Most cases of allergic contact dermatitis occur at the site of application of the allergen,” he noted. Depending on the location of the dermatitis, a detailed history of exposures that includes cosmetics and topical medications, work-related materials, and foods and beverages might suggest a sulfite allergy, he said.

Given the range of potential clinical presentations and the many and varied exposures to sulfites, Dr. Belsito’s best tip for clinicians is to routinely screen for them and evaluate the many avenues of exposure if a patch test is positive, he said.

For now, he said he does not think additional research is needed on sulfites as allergens; instead, sulfites, such as sodium metabisulfite/sodium disulfite, should be included in all clinicians’ baseline screening series, he said.

The Allergen of the Year was also recently announced in the journal Dermatitis. Authors Samuel F. Ekstein, MS, and Erin M. Warshaw, MD, from the Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, noted that the ACDS hoped to raise awareness of sulfites as a “significant allergen” and called for their increased inclusion in screening patch test series.

Patients identified with sulfite allergies can find alternative products on the ACDS CAMP (Contact Allergen Management Program) website, Dr. Warshaw said in an interview.

She also highlighted some examples of sulfites as allergens in healthcare settings in particular. She described one patient who presented with dermatitis at the site of three previous hand orthopedic procedures.

“Although surgical cleansers were suspected, the patient reacted to sodium metabisulfite. Review of the operating room contactants confirmed sulfites as preservatives in an injectable anesthetic and antibiotic used for wound irrigation,” she said. Another patient who had been treated for recurrent otitis externa and seborrheic dermatitis was found to be allergic to sulfites in an otic antibiotic suspension as well as in a ketoconazole cream product, she added.

In the paper, Dr. Warshaw and Mr. Ekstein called for the addition of sulfites to the test series. Although the NACDG added sodium metabisulfite to the series in 2017, sulfites are not part of the American Contact Dermatitis Core Series, they wrote. Sodium metabisulfite, they said, was added to the European baseline standard series after review of the 2019-2020 patch test reactivity and clinical relevance data.

The ACDS meeting is held every year the day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. Belsito and Dr. Warshaw had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sulfites, present in foods, drinks, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products, have been named the “Allergen of the Year” for 2024 by the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS).

Sulfites are currently not found in most screening patch test series, so may be missed as a relevant contact allergen, Donald V. Belsito, MD, emeritus professor in the Department of Dermatology at Columbia University, New York City, said in his presentation on the Allergen of the Year on March 7 at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society in San Diego. Sulfites, he noted, are distinct from sulfates, and the groups do not cross-react with each other.

FabrikaCr/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Sodium disulfite, an inorganic compound, belongs to a group of sulfiting agents, which contain the sulfite ion SO₃²⁻ and include ammonium sulfite, potassium sulfite, and sodium sulfite, Dr. Belsito said. Sulfites function as antioxidants and preservatives in a range of products including food and beverages, personal care products, and pharmaceuticals.

The type of sulfite allergy diagnosed by patch testing is type IV hypersensitivity or delayed-type hypersensitivity, where patients present with pruritic, red, scaling macules, papulovesicles, and patches, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “It is not the type I, immediate hypersensitivity that causes hives and, in some cases, anaphylaxis,” he said. Sulfites also can cause these side effects, so correct labeling of food and beverages is important, he noted.

Some common nonoccupational sulfite sources include hair coloring and bleach products, hairspray, tanning lotions, makeup, sunscreens, and deodorants, Dr. Belsito said in his presentation. Medications including topical antifungals, topical corticosteroids, and nasal solutions can be culprits, as can water in swimming pools, he noted.

In occupational settings, sulfites may be present not only in food and drink products but also can be used in production of products, such as those used for sterilization during beer and wine fermentation, Dr. Belsito said. Other potential occupational sources of sulfite exposure include healthcare settings and textile, chemical, rubber, and pharmaceutical manufacturing.

High-sulfite food products (> 100 ppm) to be aware of include dried fruit (raisins and prunes are exceptions), bottled lemon or lime juice (but not frozen products), wine, molasses, grape juice (white, or white, pink, and red sparkling), and pickled cocktail onions, Dr. Belsito said.

“Like other contact allergens, the clinical presentation correlates with exposure,” he added. A study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) found that 28.8% of patients positive for sulfite allergy on patch testing presented with facial dermatitis, which was not only related to cosmetics and medications used on the face but also from products, such as shampoo, used on the scalp that dripped onto the face. “The scalp is relatively resistant to the expression of contact allergy and may not be involved at all,” he said.

According to the NACDG study, the hands were the second most common site of dermatitis associated with sulfites (20.5%) followed by generalized distribution (13.6%). These sites are to be expected, given the sources of food and beverage, personal care products, and occupational materials, Dr. Belsito said.

“Eczematous dermatitis of the lips is also common in patients with ingested food sources of sulfites,” he said.

Systemic contact dermatitis to sulfites has been documented following oral, rectal, and parental exposure, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “Systemic dermatitis may present as a scattered/generalized dermatitis, symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (also referred to as baboon syndrome), or erythroderma,” he said.
 

How to Spot Sulfite Allergies

The exclusion of sulfites from most patch test series means that sulfite allergy diagnoses are often missed, despite the wide range of potential exposures, Dr. Belsito said.

“Most cases of allergic contact dermatitis occur at the site of application of the allergen,” he noted. Depending on the location of the dermatitis, a detailed history of exposures that includes cosmetics and topical medications, work-related materials, and foods and beverages might suggest a sulfite allergy, he said.

Given the range of potential clinical presentations and the many and varied exposures to sulfites, Dr. Belsito’s best tip for clinicians is to routinely screen for them and evaluate the many avenues of exposure if a patch test is positive, he said.

For now, he said he does not think additional research is needed on sulfites as allergens; instead, sulfites, such as sodium metabisulfite/sodium disulfite, should be included in all clinicians’ baseline screening series, he said.

The Allergen of the Year was also recently announced in the journal Dermatitis. Authors Samuel F. Ekstein, MS, and Erin M. Warshaw, MD, from the Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, noted that the ACDS hoped to raise awareness of sulfites as a “significant allergen” and called for their increased inclusion in screening patch test series.

Patients identified with sulfite allergies can find alternative products on the ACDS CAMP (Contact Allergen Management Program) website, Dr. Warshaw said in an interview.

She also highlighted some examples of sulfites as allergens in healthcare settings in particular. She described one patient who presented with dermatitis at the site of three previous hand orthopedic procedures.

“Although surgical cleansers were suspected, the patient reacted to sodium metabisulfite. Review of the operating room contactants confirmed sulfites as preservatives in an injectable anesthetic and antibiotic used for wound irrigation,” she said. Another patient who had been treated for recurrent otitis externa and seborrheic dermatitis was found to be allergic to sulfites in an otic antibiotic suspension as well as in a ketoconazole cream product, she added.

In the paper, Dr. Warshaw and Mr. Ekstein called for the addition of sulfites to the test series. Although the NACDG added sodium metabisulfite to the series in 2017, sulfites are not part of the American Contact Dermatitis Core Series, they wrote. Sodium metabisulfite, they said, was added to the European baseline standard series after review of the 2019-2020 patch test reactivity and clinical relevance data.

The ACDS meeting is held every year the day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. Belsito and Dr. Warshaw had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Sulfites, present in foods, drinks, pharmaceuticals, and personal care products, have been named the “Allergen of the Year” for 2024 by the American Contact Dermatitis Society (ACDS).

Sulfites are currently not found in most screening patch test series, so may be missed as a relevant contact allergen, Donald V. Belsito, MD, emeritus professor in the Department of Dermatology at Columbia University, New York City, said in his presentation on the Allergen of the Year on March 7 at the annual meeting of the American Contact Dermatitis Society in San Diego. Sulfites, he noted, are distinct from sulfates, and the groups do not cross-react with each other.

FabrikaCr/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Sodium disulfite, an inorganic compound, belongs to a group of sulfiting agents, which contain the sulfite ion SO₃²⁻ and include ammonium sulfite, potassium sulfite, and sodium sulfite, Dr. Belsito said. Sulfites function as antioxidants and preservatives in a range of products including food and beverages, personal care products, and pharmaceuticals.

The type of sulfite allergy diagnosed by patch testing is type IV hypersensitivity or delayed-type hypersensitivity, where patients present with pruritic, red, scaling macules, papulovesicles, and patches, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “It is not the type I, immediate hypersensitivity that causes hives and, in some cases, anaphylaxis,” he said. Sulfites also can cause these side effects, so correct labeling of food and beverages is important, he noted.

Some common nonoccupational sulfite sources include hair coloring and bleach products, hairspray, tanning lotions, makeup, sunscreens, and deodorants, Dr. Belsito said in his presentation. Medications including topical antifungals, topical corticosteroids, and nasal solutions can be culprits, as can water in swimming pools, he noted.

In occupational settings, sulfites may be present not only in food and drink products but also can be used in production of products, such as those used for sterilization during beer and wine fermentation, Dr. Belsito said. Other potential occupational sources of sulfite exposure include healthcare settings and textile, chemical, rubber, and pharmaceutical manufacturing.

High-sulfite food products (> 100 ppm) to be aware of include dried fruit (raisins and prunes are exceptions), bottled lemon or lime juice (but not frozen products), wine, molasses, grape juice (white, or white, pink, and red sparkling), and pickled cocktail onions, Dr. Belsito said.

“Like other contact allergens, the clinical presentation correlates with exposure,” he added. A study by the North American Contact Dermatitis Group (NACDG) found that 28.8% of patients positive for sulfite allergy on patch testing presented with facial dermatitis, which was not only related to cosmetics and medications used on the face but also from products, such as shampoo, used on the scalp that dripped onto the face. “The scalp is relatively resistant to the expression of contact allergy and may not be involved at all,” he said.

According to the NACDG study, the hands were the second most common site of dermatitis associated with sulfites (20.5%) followed by generalized distribution (13.6%). These sites are to be expected, given the sources of food and beverage, personal care products, and occupational materials, Dr. Belsito said.

“Eczematous dermatitis of the lips is also common in patients with ingested food sources of sulfites,” he said.

Systemic contact dermatitis to sulfites has been documented following oral, rectal, and parental exposure, Dr. Belsito told this news organization. “Systemic dermatitis may present as a scattered/generalized dermatitis, symmetrical drug-related intertriginous and flexural exanthema (also referred to as baboon syndrome), or erythroderma,” he said.
 

How to Spot Sulfite Allergies

The exclusion of sulfites from most patch test series means that sulfite allergy diagnoses are often missed, despite the wide range of potential exposures, Dr. Belsito said.

“Most cases of allergic contact dermatitis occur at the site of application of the allergen,” he noted. Depending on the location of the dermatitis, a detailed history of exposures that includes cosmetics and topical medications, work-related materials, and foods and beverages might suggest a sulfite allergy, he said.

Given the range of potential clinical presentations and the many and varied exposures to sulfites, Dr. Belsito’s best tip for clinicians is to routinely screen for them and evaluate the many avenues of exposure if a patch test is positive, he said.

For now, he said he does not think additional research is needed on sulfites as allergens; instead, sulfites, such as sodium metabisulfite/sodium disulfite, should be included in all clinicians’ baseline screening series, he said.

The Allergen of the Year was also recently announced in the journal Dermatitis. Authors Samuel F. Ekstein, MS, and Erin M. Warshaw, MD, from the Department of Dermatology, Park Nicollet Health Services, Minneapolis, Minnesota, noted that the ACDS hoped to raise awareness of sulfites as a “significant allergen” and called for their increased inclusion in screening patch test series.

Patients identified with sulfite allergies can find alternative products on the ACDS CAMP (Contact Allergen Management Program) website, Dr. Warshaw said in an interview.

She also highlighted some examples of sulfites as allergens in healthcare settings in particular. She described one patient who presented with dermatitis at the site of three previous hand orthopedic procedures.

“Although surgical cleansers were suspected, the patient reacted to sodium metabisulfite. Review of the operating room contactants confirmed sulfites as preservatives in an injectable anesthetic and antibiotic used for wound irrigation,” she said. Another patient who had been treated for recurrent otitis externa and seborrheic dermatitis was found to be allergic to sulfites in an otic antibiotic suspension as well as in a ketoconazole cream product, she added.

In the paper, Dr. Warshaw and Mr. Ekstein called for the addition of sulfites to the test series. Although the NACDG added sodium metabisulfite to the series in 2017, sulfites are not part of the American Contact Dermatitis Core Series, they wrote. Sodium metabisulfite, they said, was added to the European baseline standard series after review of the 2019-2020 patch test reactivity and clinical relevance data.

The ACDS meeting is held every year the day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

Dr. Belsito and Dr. Warshaw had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Clinicians are navigating how to begin treating their patients with lifileucel (Amtagvi, Iovance Biotherapeutics Inc.), a new treatment for melanoma with a hefty price tag.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy (TIL) for use in certain adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. This marks the first time the FDA has allowed a cellular therapy to be marketed for a solid tumor cancer.

Lifileucel is made from a patient’s surgically removed tumor. Tissue from that tumor is then sent to a manufacturing center. Turnaround time to when the drug is ready to be sent back to the cancer center for use is approximately 34 days, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Iovance.
 

Insurance Adjustments

The cost of the one-time lifileucel treatment is $515,000, according to the manufacturer.

Two investigators in the clinical trials of lifileucel, Allison Betof Warner, MD, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, and Igor Puzanov, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, shared their expectations regarding factors that would contribute to how much a patient paid for the drug.

Given the drug’s recent approval, the logistical details are still being worked out between cancer centers and insurers regarding how much patients will pay out of pocket for lifileucel, said Dr. Betof Warner, who is assistant professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology at Stanford University.

The associated costs, including the surgery that is needed to procure the TIL cells for expansion into the final drug product, will be different for each patient, she told this publication.

Patients’ costs for lifileucel will vary based on their insurance, explained Dr. Puzanov, chief of melanoma and professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.

At Roswell Park, “we will work with our regionally-based payers on a case-by-case basis to seek approval for those patients we believe can most benefit from lifileucel,” he said in an interview. Preauthorization will be required, as is standard for many cancer treatments, he added.

Once payer approval is in place, Dr. Puzanov said, he did not anticipate significant delays in access for patients.

Certified centers such as the multidisciplinary team at Roswell Park are ready to treat patients now. Other centers are similarly prepared, especially those involved in the clinical trials of lifileucel, he said.

 

Logistics and Infrastructure

A position article and guidelines on the management of and best practices for TIL was published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer on February 29. The paper, of which both Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as authors, noted that one of the barriers to the use of TIL cell therapy in clinical practice is the need for state-of-the art infrastructure at centers that want to offer the treatment. Scheduling, patient referrals, and surgery, as well as the production and infusion of TIL, must be organized and streamlined for successful treatment, the authors wrote.

The two supply chains involved in TIL — the transportation of the tumor tissue from the treatment center to the manufacturer and transport of the TIL infusion product back to the treatment center — must be timely and precise, they emphasized.
 

Docs Hope TIL Improves in Several Ways

Although the TIL technology is a breakthrough, “we hope to see even better efficacy and lower toxicity as further research looks at ways to improve on the current TIL standard,” Dr. Puzanov said.

More research and dose adjustments may impact patient costs and side effects, he noted. “I am looking to see TILs used in the front line, with or without checkpoint inhibitors.”

Research is needed to explore how to lower the chemotherapy doses and possibly the associated toxicity, he added. Finally, researchers must consider whether high-dose IL-2 therapy — given as part of the TIL cell therapy — could be replaced with other cytokines, or whether the number of doses could be lowered. Another avenue of exploration is engineering genes for cytokines into TILs, he said.

“The key is to think about TIL therapy before you need it — ideally, when the patient is still doing well on their frontline checkpoint inhibition immunotherapy,” Dr. Puzanov said in an interview. That is the time for evaluation, and specialty centers can provide an expert assessment, he said.

“We are constantly working to improve TIL therapy,” Dr. Betof Warner told this publication. More research is needed optimize the regimen to reduce side effects, which would not only make treatment easier for currently eligible patients, but might allow treatment for patients not currently eligible.

“For example, we are looking for ways to reduce the dose of preparative chemotherapy, which prepares the body for the cells to maximize their longevity and efficacy, and to reduce or eliminate the need to give IL-2 after the cell administration,” continued Dr. Betof Warner, who is also Director of Melanoma Medical Oncology, Director of Solid Tumor Cellular Therapy, and Codirector of the Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program at Stanford University. “We are also actively studying next-generation TIL therapies to try to increase the efficacy.”

“Lifileucel has about a 30% success rate for melanoma that has progressed after standard therapy; we are working hard to do better than that,” she noted.  

In a press release, Iovance summarized the results of the trial that supported the FDA’s accelerated approval of lifileucel. In an open-label single-arm study, including multiple sites worldwide, 73 adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma who had received at least one previous systemic therapy underwent a lymphodepleting regimen followed by treatments with fludarabine and aldesleukin. Patients then received lifileucel at a median dose of 21.1 x 109 viable cells; the recommended dose ranges from 7.5 x 109 to 72 x 109 cells.

The primary efficacy outcome was objective response rate (ORR). The ORR in the study was 31.5%, and the median time to initial lifileucel response was 1.5 months.

The clinical trials of lifileucel for which Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as investigators were sponsored by Iovance.

Clinicians are navigating how to begin treating their patients with lifileucel (Amtagvi, Iovance Biotherapeutics Inc.), a new treatment for melanoma with a hefty price tag.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy (TIL) for use in certain adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. This marks the first time the FDA has allowed a cellular therapy to be marketed for a solid tumor cancer.

Lifileucel is made from a patient’s surgically removed tumor. Tissue from that tumor is then sent to a manufacturing center. Turnaround time to when the drug is ready to be sent back to the cancer center for use is approximately 34 days, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Iovance.
 

Insurance Adjustments

The cost of the one-time lifileucel treatment is $515,000, according to the manufacturer.

Two investigators in the clinical trials of lifileucel, Allison Betof Warner, MD, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, and Igor Puzanov, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, shared their expectations regarding factors that would contribute to how much a patient paid for the drug.

Given the drug’s recent approval, the logistical details are still being worked out between cancer centers and insurers regarding how much patients will pay out of pocket for lifileucel, said Dr. Betof Warner, who is assistant professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology at Stanford University.

The associated costs, including the surgery that is needed to procure the TIL cells for expansion into the final drug product, will be different for each patient, she told this publication.

Patients’ costs for lifileucel will vary based on their insurance, explained Dr. Puzanov, chief of melanoma and professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.

At Roswell Park, “we will work with our regionally-based payers on a case-by-case basis to seek approval for those patients we believe can most benefit from lifileucel,” he said in an interview. Preauthorization will be required, as is standard for many cancer treatments, he added.

Once payer approval is in place, Dr. Puzanov said, he did not anticipate significant delays in access for patients.

Certified centers such as the multidisciplinary team at Roswell Park are ready to treat patients now. Other centers are similarly prepared, especially those involved in the clinical trials of lifileucel, he said.

 

Logistics and Infrastructure

A position article and guidelines on the management of and best practices for TIL was published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer on February 29. The paper, of which both Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as authors, noted that one of the barriers to the use of TIL cell therapy in clinical practice is the need for state-of-the art infrastructure at centers that want to offer the treatment. Scheduling, patient referrals, and surgery, as well as the production and infusion of TIL, must be organized and streamlined for successful treatment, the authors wrote.

The two supply chains involved in TIL — the transportation of the tumor tissue from the treatment center to the manufacturer and transport of the TIL infusion product back to the treatment center — must be timely and precise, they emphasized.
 

Docs Hope TIL Improves in Several Ways

Although the TIL technology is a breakthrough, “we hope to see even better efficacy and lower toxicity as further research looks at ways to improve on the current TIL standard,” Dr. Puzanov said.

More research and dose adjustments may impact patient costs and side effects, he noted. “I am looking to see TILs used in the front line, with or without checkpoint inhibitors.”

Research is needed to explore how to lower the chemotherapy doses and possibly the associated toxicity, he added. Finally, researchers must consider whether high-dose IL-2 therapy — given as part of the TIL cell therapy — could be replaced with other cytokines, or whether the number of doses could be lowered. Another avenue of exploration is engineering genes for cytokines into TILs, he said.

“The key is to think about TIL therapy before you need it — ideally, when the patient is still doing well on their frontline checkpoint inhibition immunotherapy,” Dr. Puzanov said in an interview. That is the time for evaluation, and specialty centers can provide an expert assessment, he said.

“We are constantly working to improve TIL therapy,” Dr. Betof Warner told this publication. More research is needed optimize the regimen to reduce side effects, which would not only make treatment easier for currently eligible patients, but might allow treatment for patients not currently eligible.

“For example, we are looking for ways to reduce the dose of preparative chemotherapy, which prepares the body for the cells to maximize their longevity and efficacy, and to reduce or eliminate the need to give IL-2 after the cell administration,” continued Dr. Betof Warner, who is also Director of Melanoma Medical Oncology, Director of Solid Tumor Cellular Therapy, and Codirector of the Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program at Stanford University. “We are also actively studying next-generation TIL therapies to try to increase the efficacy.”

“Lifileucel has about a 30% success rate for melanoma that has progressed after standard therapy; we are working hard to do better than that,” she noted.  

In a press release, Iovance summarized the results of the trial that supported the FDA’s accelerated approval of lifileucel. In an open-label single-arm study, including multiple sites worldwide, 73 adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma who had received at least one previous systemic therapy underwent a lymphodepleting regimen followed by treatments with fludarabine and aldesleukin. Patients then received lifileucel at a median dose of 21.1 x 109 viable cells; the recommended dose ranges from 7.5 x 109 to 72 x 109 cells.

The primary efficacy outcome was objective response rate (ORR). The ORR in the study was 31.5%, and the median time to initial lifileucel response was 1.5 months.

The clinical trials of lifileucel for which Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as investigators were sponsored by Iovance.

Clinicians are navigating how to begin treating their patients with lifileucel (Amtagvi, Iovance Biotherapeutics Inc.), a new treatment for melanoma with a hefty price tag.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently approved the tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte cell therapy (TIL) for use in certain adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma. This marks the first time the FDA has allowed a cellular therapy to be marketed for a solid tumor cancer.

Lifileucel is made from a patient’s surgically removed tumor. Tissue from that tumor is then sent to a manufacturing center. Turnaround time to when the drug is ready to be sent back to the cancer center for use is approximately 34 days, according to the drug’s manufacturer, Iovance.
 

Insurance Adjustments

The cost of the one-time lifileucel treatment is $515,000, according to the manufacturer.

Two investigators in the clinical trials of lifileucel, Allison Betof Warner, MD, of Stanford University, Stanford, California, and Igor Puzanov, MD, of Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center, Buffalo, New York, shared their expectations regarding factors that would contribute to how much a patient paid for the drug.

Given the drug’s recent approval, the logistical details are still being worked out between cancer centers and insurers regarding how much patients will pay out of pocket for lifileucel, said Dr. Betof Warner, who is assistant professor in the Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology at Stanford University.

The associated costs, including the surgery that is needed to procure the TIL cells for expansion into the final drug product, will be different for each patient, she told this publication.

Patients’ costs for lifileucel will vary based on their insurance, explained Dr. Puzanov, chief of melanoma and professor of oncology at Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center.

At Roswell Park, “we will work with our regionally-based payers on a case-by-case basis to seek approval for those patients we believe can most benefit from lifileucel,” he said in an interview. Preauthorization will be required, as is standard for many cancer treatments, he added.

Once payer approval is in place, Dr. Puzanov said, he did not anticipate significant delays in access for patients.

Certified centers such as the multidisciplinary team at Roswell Park are ready to treat patients now. Other centers are similarly prepared, especially those involved in the clinical trials of lifileucel, he said.

 

Logistics and Infrastructure

A position article and guidelines on the management of and best practices for TIL was published in the Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer on February 29. The paper, of which both Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as authors, noted that one of the barriers to the use of TIL cell therapy in clinical practice is the need for state-of-the art infrastructure at centers that want to offer the treatment. Scheduling, patient referrals, and surgery, as well as the production and infusion of TIL, must be organized and streamlined for successful treatment, the authors wrote.

The two supply chains involved in TIL — the transportation of the tumor tissue from the treatment center to the manufacturer and transport of the TIL infusion product back to the treatment center — must be timely and precise, they emphasized.
 

Docs Hope TIL Improves in Several Ways

Although the TIL technology is a breakthrough, “we hope to see even better efficacy and lower toxicity as further research looks at ways to improve on the current TIL standard,” Dr. Puzanov said.

More research and dose adjustments may impact patient costs and side effects, he noted. “I am looking to see TILs used in the front line, with or without checkpoint inhibitors.”

Research is needed to explore how to lower the chemotherapy doses and possibly the associated toxicity, he added. Finally, researchers must consider whether high-dose IL-2 therapy — given as part of the TIL cell therapy — could be replaced with other cytokines, or whether the number of doses could be lowered. Another avenue of exploration is engineering genes for cytokines into TILs, he said.

“The key is to think about TIL therapy before you need it — ideally, when the patient is still doing well on their frontline checkpoint inhibition immunotherapy,” Dr. Puzanov said in an interview. That is the time for evaluation, and specialty centers can provide an expert assessment, he said.

“We are constantly working to improve TIL therapy,” Dr. Betof Warner told this publication. More research is needed optimize the regimen to reduce side effects, which would not only make treatment easier for currently eligible patients, but might allow treatment for patients not currently eligible.

“For example, we are looking for ways to reduce the dose of preparative chemotherapy, which prepares the body for the cells to maximize their longevity and efficacy, and to reduce or eliminate the need to give IL-2 after the cell administration,” continued Dr. Betof Warner, who is also Director of Melanoma Medical Oncology, Director of Solid Tumor Cellular Therapy, and Codirector of the Pigmented Lesion and Melanoma Program at Stanford University. “We are also actively studying next-generation TIL therapies to try to increase the efficacy.”

“Lifileucel has about a 30% success rate for melanoma that has progressed after standard therapy; we are working hard to do better than that,” she noted.  

In a press release, Iovance summarized the results of the trial that supported the FDA’s accelerated approval of lifileucel. In an open-label single-arm study, including multiple sites worldwide, 73 adults with unresectable or metastatic melanoma who had received at least one previous systemic therapy underwent a lymphodepleting regimen followed by treatments with fludarabine and aldesleukin. Patients then received lifileucel at a median dose of 21.1 x 109 viable cells; the recommended dose ranges from 7.5 x 109 to 72 x 109 cells.

The primary efficacy outcome was objective response rate (ORR). The ORR in the study was 31.5%, and the median time to initial lifileucel response was 1.5 months.

The clinical trials of lifileucel for which Dr. Betof Warner and Dr. Puzanov served as investigators were sponsored by Iovance.

TOPLINE:

The odds of having cognitive impairment may be increased among children with atopic dermatitis, primarily among those with neurodevelopmental disorders, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or a learning disability.

METHODOLOGY:

It remains unknown whether subpopulations of children with atopic dermatitis face a greater risk for cognitive impairment or not.

To determine the association, researchers drew from a weighted sample of 69,732,807 children with atopic dermatitis in the 2021 US National Health Interview Survey.

Main outcomes of interest were difficulty in learning or memory (cognitive impairment symptoms) as reported by the child’s caregiver.

The researchers performed logistic regression to compare the odds of learning or memory difficulties between 60,509,794 children without atopic dermatitis and 9,223,013 children with atopic dermatitis.

TAKEAWAY:

Children with versus without atopic dermatitis were more likely to experience difficulties with learning (10.8% [95% CI, 7.8%-15.8%] vs 5.9% [95% CI, 5.1%-6.9%]; P < .001) and difficulties with memory (11.1% [95% CI, 8.0%-15.9%] vs 5.8% [95% CI, 4.9%-6.9%]; P < .001).

On multivariable logistic regression adjusted for sociodemographic factors, asthma, food allergies, and seasonal allergies or hay fever, researchers found that having atopic dermatitis was associated with increased odds of difficulties in learning (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.77; 95% CI, 1.28-2.45) and memory (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.19-2.41). 

When stratified by neurodevelopmental comorbidities, having atopic dermatitis was associated with a 2- to 3-fold greater odds of memory difficulties among children with any neurodevelopmental disorder (aOR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.43-3.57), which included ADHD (aOR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.60-5.24) or learning disabilities (aOR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.04-4.00).

Having atopic dermatitis was not associated with learning or memory difficulties among children without neurodevelopmental conditions. 

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings may improve the risk stratification of children with atopic dermatitis for cognitive impairment and suggest that evaluation for cognitive impairment should be prioritized among children with atopic dermatitis and comorbid ADHD or learning disability,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Joy Wan, MD, of the department of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues conducted the research, which was published on March 6, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations were its cross-sectional design, reliance on caregiver reports, and the fact that National Health Interview Survey data do not include information on factors such as atopic dermatitis severity, age at atopic dermatitis diagnosis, and sleep. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wan reported receiving a grant from Pfizer and personal fees from Sun Pharmaceutical Industries and Janssen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. No other study authors had disclosures to report. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The odds of having cognitive impairment may be increased among children with atopic dermatitis, primarily among those with neurodevelopmental disorders, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or a learning disability.

METHODOLOGY:

It remains unknown whether subpopulations of children with atopic dermatitis face a greater risk for cognitive impairment or not.

To determine the association, researchers drew from a weighted sample of 69,732,807 children with atopic dermatitis in the 2021 US National Health Interview Survey.

Main outcomes of interest were difficulty in learning or memory (cognitive impairment symptoms) as reported by the child’s caregiver.

The researchers performed logistic regression to compare the odds of learning or memory difficulties between 60,509,794 children without atopic dermatitis and 9,223,013 children with atopic dermatitis.

TAKEAWAY:

Children with versus without atopic dermatitis were more likely to experience difficulties with learning (10.8% [95% CI, 7.8%-15.8%] vs 5.9% [95% CI, 5.1%-6.9%]; P < .001) and difficulties with memory (11.1% [95% CI, 8.0%-15.9%] vs 5.8% [95% CI, 4.9%-6.9%]; P < .001).

On multivariable logistic regression adjusted for sociodemographic factors, asthma, food allergies, and seasonal allergies or hay fever, researchers found that having atopic dermatitis was associated with increased odds of difficulties in learning (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.77; 95% CI, 1.28-2.45) and memory (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.19-2.41). 

When stratified by neurodevelopmental comorbidities, having atopic dermatitis was associated with a 2- to 3-fold greater odds of memory difficulties among children with any neurodevelopmental disorder (aOR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.43-3.57), which included ADHD (aOR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.60-5.24) or learning disabilities (aOR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.04-4.00).

Having atopic dermatitis was not associated with learning or memory difficulties among children without neurodevelopmental conditions. 

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings may improve the risk stratification of children with atopic dermatitis for cognitive impairment and suggest that evaluation for cognitive impairment should be prioritized among children with atopic dermatitis and comorbid ADHD or learning disability,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Joy Wan, MD, of the department of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues conducted the research, which was published on March 6, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations were its cross-sectional design, reliance on caregiver reports, and the fact that National Health Interview Survey data do not include information on factors such as atopic dermatitis severity, age at atopic dermatitis diagnosis, and sleep. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wan reported receiving a grant from Pfizer and personal fees from Sun Pharmaceutical Industries and Janssen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. No other study authors had disclosures to report. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The odds of having cognitive impairment may be increased among children with atopic dermatitis, primarily among those with neurodevelopmental disorders, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) or a learning disability.

METHODOLOGY:

It remains unknown whether subpopulations of children with atopic dermatitis face a greater risk for cognitive impairment or not.

To determine the association, researchers drew from a weighted sample of 69,732,807 children with atopic dermatitis in the 2021 US National Health Interview Survey.

Main outcomes of interest were difficulty in learning or memory (cognitive impairment symptoms) as reported by the child’s caregiver.

The researchers performed logistic regression to compare the odds of learning or memory difficulties between 60,509,794 children without atopic dermatitis and 9,223,013 children with atopic dermatitis.

TAKEAWAY:

Children with versus without atopic dermatitis were more likely to experience difficulties with learning (10.8% [95% CI, 7.8%-15.8%] vs 5.9% [95% CI, 5.1%-6.9%]; P < .001) and difficulties with memory (11.1% [95% CI, 8.0%-15.9%] vs 5.8% [95% CI, 4.9%-6.9%]; P < .001).

On multivariable logistic regression adjusted for sociodemographic factors, asthma, food allergies, and seasonal allergies or hay fever, researchers found that having atopic dermatitis was associated with increased odds of difficulties in learning (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.77; 95% CI, 1.28-2.45) and memory (aOR, 1.69; 95% CI, 1.19-2.41). 

When stratified by neurodevelopmental comorbidities, having atopic dermatitis was associated with a 2- to 3-fold greater odds of memory difficulties among children with any neurodevelopmental disorder (aOR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.43-3.57), which included ADHD (aOR, 2.90; 95% CI, 1.60-5.24) or learning disabilities (aOR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.04-4.00).

Having atopic dermatitis was not associated with learning or memory difficulties among children without neurodevelopmental conditions. 

IN PRACTICE:

“These findings may improve the risk stratification of children with atopic dermatitis for cognitive impairment and suggest that evaluation for cognitive impairment should be prioritized among children with atopic dermatitis and comorbid ADHD or learning disability,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Joy Wan, MD, of the department of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, and colleagues conducted the research, which was published on March 6, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study’s limitations were its cross-sectional design, reliance on caregiver reports, and the fact that National Health Interview Survey data do not include information on factors such as atopic dermatitis severity, age at atopic dermatitis diagnosis, and sleep. 

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Wan reported receiving a grant from Pfizer and personal fees from Sun Pharmaceutical Industries and Janssen Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. No other study authors had disclosures to report. 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with daily exposure to spironolactone for dermatologic conditions showed no higher risk of developing breast or gynecologic cancer than that of unexposed women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Spironolactone, used off-label for several skin conditions in women, carries a warning about an increased tumor risk associated with high doses in rat models, and its antiandrogen properties have prompted hypotheses about a possible increased risk for breast or gynecologic cancers.
• The researchers reviewed data on 420 women with a history of spironolactone use for acne, hair loss, and hirsutism and 3272 women with no spironolactone use at the authors› institution. Their mean age ranged from 42 to 63 years; the majority were White, and 38% were non-White.
• Median spironolactone doses ranged from 25 mg to 225 mg; chart reviews included 5-year follow-up data from the first spironolactone exposure to allow time for tumor development.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 37 of the 420 women exposed to spironolactone developed any tumors, as did 546 of the 3272 with no spironolactone exposure.
• After the researchers controlled for age and race, women exposed to spironolactone were no more likely to develop a malignant tumor than a benign tumor, compared with unexposed women (odds ratio [OR], 0.48, P = .2).
• The risk for breast or uterine cancer was not significantly different in the spironolactone and non-spironolactone groups (OR, 0.95, P > .9).

IN PRACTICE:

“Women taking spironolactone for acne, hair loss, and hirsutism and who are at low risk of breast or gynecologic cancers may be counseled to have regular gynecology follow-up, but no more frequently than the general population,” but more studies are needed to evaluate risk over longer periods of time, the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Rachel C. Hill, BS, a student at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical College, was the corresponding author. The study was published online in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings were limited by the retrospective design, as well as the small number of spironolactone patients analyzed, the short follow-up period, the lack of information about spironolactone courses, and the inability to control for family history of malignancy.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and a grant from the Clinical and Translational Science Center at Weill Cornell Medical College awarded to Ms. Hill. None of the authors had relevant disclosures; Dr. Lipner disclosed serving as a consultant for Ortho-Dermatologics, Eli Lilly, Moberg Pharmaceuticals, and BelleTorus Corporation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with daily exposure to spironolactone for dermatologic conditions showed no higher risk of developing breast or gynecologic cancer than that of unexposed women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Spironolactone, used off-label for several skin conditions in women, carries a warning about an increased tumor risk associated with high doses in rat models, and its antiandrogen properties have prompted hypotheses about a possible increased risk for breast or gynecologic cancers.
• The researchers reviewed data on 420 women with a history of spironolactone use for acne, hair loss, and hirsutism and 3272 women with no spironolactone use at the authors› institution. Their mean age ranged from 42 to 63 years; the majority were White, and 38% were non-White.
• Median spironolactone doses ranged from 25 mg to 225 mg; chart reviews included 5-year follow-up data from the first spironolactone exposure to allow time for tumor development.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 37 of the 420 women exposed to spironolactone developed any tumors, as did 546 of the 3272 with no spironolactone exposure.
• After the researchers controlled for age and race, women exposed to spironolactone were no more likely to develop a malignant tumor than a benign tumor, compared with unexposed women (odds ratio [OR], 0.48, P = .2).
• The risk for breast or uterine cancer was not significantly different in the spironolactone and non-spironolactone groups (OR, 0.95, P > .9).

IN PRACTICE:

“Women taking spironolactone for acne, hair loss, and hirsutism and who are at low risk of breast or gynecologic cancers may be counseled to have regular gynecology follow-up, but no more frequently than the general population,” but more studies are needed to evaluate risk over longer periods of time, the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Rachel C. Hill, BS, a student at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical College, was the corresponding author. The study was published online in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings were limited by the retrospective design, as well as the small number of spironolactone patients analyzed, the short follow-up period, the lack of information about spironolactone courses, and the inability to control for family history of malignancy.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and a grant from the Clinical and Translational Science Center at Weill Cornell Medical College awarded to Ms. Hill. None of the authors had relevant disclosures; Dr. Lipner disclosed serving as a consultant for Ortho-Dermatologics, Eli Lilly, Moberg Pharmaceuticals, and BelleTorus Corporation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Women with daily exposure to spironolactone for dermatologic conditions showed no higher risk of developing breast or gynecologic cancer than that of unexposed women.

METHODOLOGY:

• Spironolactone, used off-label for several skin conditions in women, carries a warning about an increased tumor risk associated with high doses in rat models, and its antiandrogen properties have prompted hypotheses about a possible increased risk for breast or gynecologic cancers.
• The researchers reviewed data on 420 women with a history of spironolactone use for acne, hair loss, and hirsutism and 3272 women with no spironolactone use at the authors› institution. Their mean age ranged from 42 to 63 years; the majority were White, and 38% were non-White.
• Median spironolactone doses ranged from 25 mg to 225 mg; chart reviews included 5-year follow-up data from the first spironolactone exposure to allow time for tumor development.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 37 of the 420 women exposed to spironolactone developed any tumors, as did 546 of the 3272 with no spironolactone exposure.
• After the researchers controlled for age and race, women exposed to spironolactone were no more likely to develop a malignant tumor than a benign tumor, compared with unexposed women (odds ratio [OR], 0.48, P = .2).
• The risk for breast or uterine cancer was not significantly different in the spironolactone and non-spironolactone groups (OR, 0.95, P > .9).

IN PRACTICE:

“Women taking spironolactone for acne, hair loss, and hirsutism and who are at low risk of breast or gynecologic cancers may be counseled to have regular gynecology follow-up, but no more frequently than the general population,” but more studies are needed to evaluate risk over longer periods of time, the researchers wrote.

SOURCE:

The lead author of the study was Rachel C. Hill, BS, a student at Weill Cornell Medical College, New York City, and Shari R. Lipner, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Weill Cornell Medical College, was the corresponding author. The study was published online in The Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings were limited by the retrospective design, as well as the small number of spironolactone patients analyzed, the short follow-up period, the lack of information about spironolactone courses, and the inability to control for family history of malignancy.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences and a grant from the Clinical and Translational Science Center at Weill Cornell Medical College awarded to Ms. Hill. None of the authors had relevant disclosures; Dr. Lipner disclosed serving as a consultant for Ortho-Dermatologics, Eli Lilly, Moberg Pharmaceuticals, and BelleTorus Corporation.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg, an injectable neurotoxin long used in South Korea for the treatment of moderate to severe glabellar (frown) lines in adults. Developed by Hugel, the product is being marketed under the brand name Letybo.

The FDA’s approval was based on positive results from three phase 3 trials of letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg that enrolled more than 1000 individuals in the United States and Europe. According to information in the package insert, the most common adverse reaction reported in the trials was headache, which occurred in 2% of trial participants. Other adverse events reported by fewer than 1% of trial participants included brow ptosis, eyelid ptosis, and blepharospasm, while the most frequently reported injection site reactions included administrative site swelling, facial pain, folliculitis, and periorbital hematoma.

According to a press release from the company, letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg has been the leading neurotoxin brand in South Korea for 7 consecutive years, and the product has been sold in more than 50 different countries. Hugel plans to launch Letybo for US-based aesthetic clinicians in the latter half of 2024.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg, an injectable neurotoxin long used in South Korea for the treatment of moderate to severe glabellar (frown) lines in adults. Developed by Hugel, the product is being marketed under the brand name Letybo.

The FDA’s approval was based on positive results from three phase 3 trials of letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg that enrolled more than 1000 individuals in the United States and Europe. According to information in the package insert, the most common adverse reaction reported in the trials was headache, which occurred in 2% of trial participants. Other adverse events reported by fewer than 1% of trial participants included brow ptosis, eyelid ptosis, and blepharospasm, while the most frequently reported injection site reactions included administrative site swelling, facial pain, folliculitis, and periorbital hematoma.

According to a press release from the company, letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg has been the leading neurotoxin brand in South Korea for 7 consecutive years, and the product has been sold in more than 50 different countries. Hugel plans to launch Letybo for US-based aesthetic clinicians in the latter half of 2024.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg, an injectable neurotoxin long used in South Korea for the treatment of moderate to severe glabellar (frown) lines in adults. Developed by Hugel, the product is being marketed under the brand name Letybo.

The FDA’s approval was based on positive results from three phase 3 trials of letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg that enrolled more than 1000 individuals in the United States and Europe. According to information in the package insert, the most common adverse reaction reported in the trials was headache, which occurred in 2% of trial participants. Other adverse events reported by fewer than 1% of trial participants included brow ptosis, eyelid ptosis, and blepharospasm, while the most frequently reported injection site reactions included administrative site swelling, facial pain, folliculitis, and periorbital hematoma.

According to a press release from the company, letibotulinumtoxinA-wlbg has been the leading neurotoxin brand in South Korea for 7 consecutive years, and the product has been sold in more than 50 different countries. Hugel plans to launch Letybo for US-based aesthetic clinicians in the latter half of 2024.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Tools to screen for spondyloarthritis (SpA) among people with the extra-musculoskeletal conditions that commonly co-occur with SpA — psoriasis, uveitis, and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) — show potential for their use in target populations but have limited generalizability for patients at risk for SpA, according to findings from a scoping review of 18 tools.

Prior to the review comparing available tools, first author Vartika Kesarwani, MBBS, of the University of Connecticut, Farmington, and colleagues wrote that the performance of SpA screening tools in dermatology, ophthalmology, and gastroenterology contexts had not been evaluated.

“Given the evolving landscape of therapeutics for spondyloarthritis, recognizing the full spectrum of disease manifestations in individual patients becomes increasingly important. This knowledge can inform treatment decisions, potentially altering the course of the disease,” corresponding author Joerg Ermann, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

In the study, published on February 1 in Arthritis Care & Research, the investigators identified 13 SpA screening tools for psoriasis (screening specifically for psoriatic arthritis), two for uveitis, and three for IBD. All tools with the exception of one for uveitis were patient-oriented questionnaires with an average completion time of less than 5 minutes.

Overall, the researchers found significant variability in the nature of the questions used to identify clinical features of SpA; 15 tools included at least one question on back pain or stiffness; 16 tools had at least one question on joint pain, swelling, or inflammation; 10 included questions about heel or elbow pain; and 10 included questions about swelling of digits.

All 13 of the psoriasis tools were screened for peripheral arthritis, while 10 screened for axial involvement, eight screened for enthesitis, and eight screened for dactylitis.

All three of the IBD tools were screened for axial involvement and peripheral arthritis, and two were screened for enthesitis and dactylitis.

Both of the uveitis tools were screened for axial involvement, but neither was screened for peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, or dactylitis.

Sensitivities in the primary validation groups were similar for the 16 tools for which sensitivities were reported, ranging mainly from 82% to 92% for 11 psoriasis tools, 91% to 96% for uveitis tools, and 83% to 93% for IBD tools.

Specificities for psoriasis tools ranged from 69% to 83% for all but two of the tools, which was 46% for one and 35%-89% for another across three geographical cohorts. For uveitis tools, specificities were 91%-97% for uveitis tools, and for IBD tools, 77%-90%. Most of the secondary validations involved psoriasis tools, and these were generally lower and also more variable.
 

The Case for a Generic Tool

The relatively few SpA tools for patients with uveitis and IBD, compared with psoriasis, may be attributable to a lack of awareness of the association between these conditions on the part of ophthalmologists and gastroenterologists, the researchers wrote in their discussion. Therefore, a generic SpA screening tool that could apply to any extra-articular manifestation might increase screening across clinical settings and streamline rheumatology referrals, they noted.

The review’s findings were limited by several factors, including the inclusion of only articles in English and the relatively few tools for uveitis and IBD patients, the researchers noted.

The findings suggested that although the performances of the tools are similar, their degree of variability supports the value of a generic tool, they concluded.
 

Streamlining to Increase Screening

“Compared to the large amount of research in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, relatively little has been done with regard to screening for spondyloarthritis in patients with uveitis or IBD,” Dr. Ermann told this news organization. “Despite the numerous screening tools developed for psoriatic arthritis, no ideal screening tool has emerged, and the implementation of effective screening strategies in clinical practice is challenging,” he said. In the current study, the compartmentalization of research into individual conditions like psoriasis, uveitis, and IBD was notable despite the interconnected nature of these conditions with SpA, he added.

In practice, Dr. Ermann advised clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion for SpA in patients presenting with psoriasis, uveitis, or IBD and proactively ask patients about symptoms outside their primary specialty.

“Future research should focus on developing a universal spondyloarthritis screening tool that is comprehensive, easily understandable, and can be used across various clinical settings,” he said.
 

Need for Early Identification and Closer Collaboration

A delay in SpA diagnosis of as little as 6 months can lead to worse outcomes, Rebecca Haberman, MD, a rheumatologist at NYU Langone Health, New York City, said in an interview. “Patients with these conditions may first present to dermatologists, gastroenterologists, and/or ophthalmologists before rheumatologic evaluation. If we can identify these patients early at this stage, we might be able to improve outcomes, but the question remains of how we get these patients to the proper care,” she said.

The review examined the currently available screening tools for use in patients with psoriasis, IBD, and uveitis and highlights the heterogeneity of these tools in terms of use and disease characteristics, as well as the lack of tools for use in gastroenterology and ophthalmology offices, Dr. Haberman said.

The review “proposes several important ideas, such as creating a unified screening tool that can be used across diseases and fields, to reduce confusion by providers and help provide standardization of the referral process to rheumatologists,” she said.

“Even though SpA is prevalent in many patients with psoriasis, IBD, and uveitis, it remains very underdiagnosed, and often referrals to rheumatologists are not made,” Dr. Haberman told this news organization. Diagnostic challenges likely include SpA’s heterogeneous presentation, the specialists’ lack of knowledge regarding the connection between these conditions and joint disease, and time pressures in clinical settings, she said.

“Other practitioners are not always trained to ask about joint pain and often have limited time in their exams to ask additional questions. To overcome this, more collaboration is needed between dermatologists, gastroenterologists, ophthalmologists, and rheumatologists, as many of our diseases live in the same family,” Dr. Haberman said.

Improving clinician education and creating relationships can help facilitate questions and referrals, she said. Short, effective screening tools that can be filled out by the patient may also help overcome specialists’ discomfort about asking musculoskeletal-related questions and would save time in the clinical visit, she said.

More research is needed to identify the best screening tools and questions and which are the most highly sensitive and specific, Dr. Haberman said. “This will allow for rheumatologists to see patients who may have SpA earlier in their course without overwhelming the system with new referrals.” In addition, more work is needed on how and whether screening tools are being used in clinical practice, not just in research studies, she said.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The researchers and Dr. Haberman had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Tools to screen for spondyloarthritis (SpA) among people with the extra-musculoskeletal conditions that commonly co-occur with SpA — psoriasis, uveitis, and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) — show potential for their use in target populations but have limited generalizability for patients at risk for SpA, according to findings from a scoping review of 18 tools.

Prior to the review comparing available tools, first author Vartika Kesarwani, MBBS, of the University of Connecticut, Farmington, and colleagues wrote that the performance of SpA screening tools in dermatology, ophthalmology, and gastroenterology contexts had not been evaluated.

“Given the evolving landscape of therapeutics for spondyloarthritis, recognizing the full spectrum of disease manifestations in individual patients becomes increasingly important. This knowledge can inform treatment decisions, potentially altering the course of the disease,” corresponding author Joerg Ermann, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

In the study, published on February 1 in Arthritis Care & Research, the investigators identified 13 SpA screening tools for psoriasis (screening specifically for psoriatic arthritis), two for uveitis, and three for IBD. All tools with the exception of one for uveitis were patient-oriented questionnaires with an average completion time of less than 5 minutes.

Overall, the researchers found significant variability in the nature of the questions used to identify clinical features of SpA; 15 tools included at least one question on back pain or stiffness; 16 tools had at least one question on joint pain, swelling, or inflammation; 10 included questions about heel or elbow pain; and 10 included questions about swelling of digits.

All 13 of the psoriasis tools were screened for peripheral arthritis, while 10 screened for axial involvement, eight screened for enthesitis, and eight screened for dactylitis.

All three of the IBD tools were screened for axial involvement and peripheral arthritis, and two were screened for enthesitis and dactylitis.

Both of the uveitis tools were screened for axial involvement, but neither was screened for peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, or dactylitis.

Sensitivities in the primary validation groups were similar for the 16 tools for which sensitivities were reported, ranging mainly from 82% to 92% for 11 psoriasis tools, 91% to 96% for uveitis tools, and 83% to 93% for IBD tools.

Specificities for psoriasis tools ranged from 69% to 83% for all but two of the tools, which was 46% for one and 35%-89% for another across three geographical cohorts. For uveitis tools, specificities were 91%-97% for uveitis tools, and for IBD tools, 77%-90%. Most of the secondary validations involved psoriasis tools, and these were generally lower and also more variable.
 

The Case for a Generic Tool

The relatively few SpA tools for patients with uveitis and IBD, compared with psoriasis, may be attributable to a lack of awareness of the association between these conditions on the part of ophthalmologists and gastroenterologists, the researchers wrote in their discussion. Therefore, a generic SpA screening tool that could apply to any extra-articular manifestation might increase screening across clinical settings and streamline rheumatology referrals, they noted.

The review’s findings were limited by several factors, including the inclusion of only articles in English and the relatively few tools for uveitis and IBD patients, the researchers noted.

The findings suggested that although the performances of the tools are similar, their degree of variability supports the value of a generic tool, they concluded.
 

Streamlining to Increase Screening

“Compared to the large amount of research in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, relatively little has been done with regard to screening for spondyloarthritis in patients with uveitis or IBD,” Dr. Ermann told this news organization. “Despite the numerous screening tools developed for psoriatic arthritis, no ideal screening tool has emerged, and the implementation of effective screening strategies in clinical practice is challenging,” he said. In the current study, the compartmentalization of research into individual conditions like psoriasis, uveitis, and IBD was notable despite the interconnected nature of these conditions with SpA, he added.

In practice, Dr. Ermann advised clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion for SpA in patients presenting with psoriasis, uveitis, or IBD and proactively ask patients about symptoms outside their primary specialty.

“Future research should focus on developing a universal spondyloarthritis screening tool that is comprehensive, easily understandable, and can be used across various clinical settings,” he said.
 

Need for Early Identification and Closer Collaboration

A delay in SpA diagnosis of as little as 6 months can lead to worse outcomes, Rebecca Haberman, MD, a rheumatologist at NYU Langone Health, New York City, said in an interview. “Patients with these conditions may first present to dermatologists, gastroenterologists, and/or ophthalmologists before rheumatologic evaluation. If we can identify these patients early at this stage, we might be able to improve outcomes, but the question remains of how we get these patients to the proper care,” she said.

The review examined the currently available screening tools for use in patients with psoriasis, IBD, and uveitis and highlights the heterogeneity of these tools in terms of use and disease characteristics, as well as the lack of tools for use in gastroenterology and ophthalmology offices, Dr. Haberman said.

The review “proposes several important ideas, such as creating a unified screening tool that can be used across diseases and fields, to reduce confusion by providers and help provide standardization of the referral process to rheumatologists,” she said.

“Even though SpA is prevalent in many patients with psoriasis, IBD, and uveitis, it remains very underdiagnosed, and often referrals to rheumatologists are not made,” Dr. Haberman told this news organization. Diagnostic challenges likely include SpA’s heterogeneous presentation, the specialists’ lack of knowledge regarding the connection between these conditions and joint disease, and time pressures in clinical settings, she said.

“Other practitioners are not always trained to ask about joint pain and often have limited time in their exams to ask additional questions. To overcome this, more collaboration is needed between dermatologists, gastroenterologists, ophthalmologists, and rheumatologists, as many of our diseases live in the same family,” Dr. Haberman said.

Improving clinician education and creating relationships can help facilitate questions and referrals, she said. Short, effective screening tools that can be filled out by the patient may also help overcome specialists’ discomfort about asking musculoskeletal-related questions and would save time in the clinical visit, she said.

More research is needed to identify the best screening tools and questions and which are the most highly sensitive and specific, Dr. Haberman said. “This will allow for rheumatologists to see patients who may have SpA earlier in their course without overwhelming the system with new referrals.” In addition, more work is needed on how and whether screening tools are being used in clinical practice, not just in research studies, she said.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The researchers and Dr. Haberman had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Tools to screen for spondyloarthritis (SpA) among people with the extra-musculoskeletal conditions that commonly co-occur with SpA — psoriasis, uveitis, and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) — show potential for their use in target populations but have limited generalizability for patients at risk for SpA, according to findings from a scoping review of 18 tools.

Prior to the review comparing available tools, first author Vartika Kesarwani, MBBS, of the University of Connecticut, Farmington, and colleagues wrote that the performance of SpA screening tools in dermatology, ophthalmology, and gastroenterology contexts had not been evaluated.

“Given the evolving landscape of therapeutics for spondyloarthritis, recognizing the full spectrum of disease manifestations in individual patients becomes increasingly important. This knowledge can inform treatment decisions, potentially altering the course of the disease,” corresponding author Joerg Ermann, MD, of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, said in an interview.

In the study, published on February 1 in Arthritis Care & Research, the investigators identified 13 SpA screening tools for psoriasis (screening specifically for psoriatic arthritis), two for uveitis, and three for IBD. All tools with the exception of one for uveitis were patient-oriented questionnaires with an average completion time of less than 5 minutes.

Overall, the researchers found significant variability in the nature of the questions used to identify clinical features of SpA; 15 tools included at least one question on back pain or stiffness; 16 tools had at least one question on joint pain, swelling, or inflammation; 10 included questions about heel or elbow pain; and 10 included questions about swelling of digits.

All 13 of the psoriasis tools were screened for peripheral arthritis, while 10 screened for axial involvement, eight screened for enthesitis, and eight screened for dactylitis.

All three of the IBD tools were screened for axial involvement and peripheral arthritis, and two were screened for enthesitis and dactylitis.

Both of the uveitis tools were screened for axial involvement, but neither was screened for peripheral arthritis, enthesitis, or dactylitis.

Sensitivities in the primary validation groups were similar for the 16 tools for which sensitivities were reported, ranging mainly from 82% to 92% for 11 psoriasis tools, 91% to 96% for uveitis tools, and 83% to 93% for IBD tools.

Specificities for psoriasis tools ranged from 69% to 83% for all but two of the tools, which was 46% for one and 35%-89% for another across three geographical cohorts. For uveitis tools, specificities were 91%-97% for uveitis tools, and for IBD tools, 77%-90%. Most of the secondary validations involved psoriasis tools, and these were generally lower and also more variable.
 

The Case for a Generic Tool

The relatively few SpA tools for patients with uveitis and IBD, compared with psoriasis, may be attributable to a lack of awareness of the association between these conditions on the part of ophthalmologists and gastroenterologists, the researchers wrote in their discussion. Therefore, a generic SpA screening tool that could apply to any extra-articular manifestation might increase screening across clinical settings and streamline rheumatology referrals, they noted.

The review’s findings were limited by several factors, including the inclusion of only articles in English and the relatively few tools for uveitis and IBD patients, the researchers noted.

The findings suggested that although the performances of the tools are similar, their degree of variability supports the value of a generic tool, they concluded.
 

Streamlining to Increase Screening

“Compared to the large amount of research in psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, relatively little has been done with regard to screening for spondyloarthritis in patients with uveitis or IBD,” Dr. Ermann told this news organization. “Despite the numerous screening tools developed for psoriatic arthritis, no ideal screening tool has emerged, and the implementation of effective screening strategies in clinical practice is challenging,” he said. In the current study, the compartmentalization of research into individual conditions like psoriasis, uveitis, and IBD was notable despite the interconnected nature of these conditions with SpA, he added.

In practice, Dr. Ermann advised clinicians to maintain a high index of suspicion for SpA in patients presenting with psoriasis, uveitis, or IBD and proactively ask patients about symptoms outside their primary specialty.

“Future research should focus on developing a universal spondyloarthritis screening tool that is comprehensive, easily understandable, and can be used across various clinical settings,” he said.
 

Need for Early Identification and Closer Collaboration

A delay in SpA diagnosis of as little as 6 months can lead to worse outcomes, Rebecca Haberman, MD, a rheumatologist at NYU Langone Health, New York City, said in an interview. “Patients with these conditions may first present to dermatologists, gastroenterologists, and/or ophthalmologists before rheumatologic evaluation. If we can identify these patients early at this stage, we might be able to improve outcomes, but the question remains of how we get these patients to the proper care,” she said.

The review examined the currently available screening tools for use in patients with psoriasis, IBD, and uveitis and highlights the heterogeneity of these tools in terms of use and disease characteristics, as well as the lack of tools for use in gastroenterology and ophthalmology offices, Dr. Haberman said.

The review “proposes several important ideas, such as creating a unified screening tool that can be used across diseases and fields, to reduce confusion by providers and help provide standardization of the referral process to rheumatologists,” she said.

“Even though SpA is prevalent in many patients with psoriasis, IBD, and uveitis, it remains very underdiagnosed, and often referrals to rheumatologists are not made,” Dr. Haberman told this news organization. Diagnostic challenges likely include SpA’s heterogeneous presentation, the specialists’ lack of knowledge regarding the connection between these conditions and joint disease, and time pressures in clinical settings, she said.

“Other practitioners are not always trained to ask about joint pain and often have limited time in their exams to ask additional questions. To overcome this, more collaboration is needed between dermatologists, gastroenterologists, ophthalmologists, and rheumatologists, as many of our diseases live in the same family,” Dr. Haberman said.

Improving clinician education and creating relationships can help facilitate questions and referrals, she said. Short, effective screening tools that can be filled out by the patient may also help overcome specialists’ discomfort about asking musculoskeletal-related questions and would save time in the clinical visit, she said.

More research is needed to identify the best screening tools and questions and which are the most highly sensitive and specific, Dr. Haberman said. “This will allow for rheumatologists to see patients who may have SpA earlier in their course without overwhelming the system with new referrals.” In addition, more work is needed on how and whether screening tools are being used in clinical practice, not just in research studies, she said.

The study was supported by a grant from the National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. The researchers and Dr. Haberman had no financial conflicts to disclose.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In a long-term nationwide cohort study from Norway, older age and male sex were associated with an increased risk for a second primary invasive melanoma.

METHODOLOGY:

• Knowledge about one’s risk for a second primary invasive melanoma over time remains incomplete.
• Using data from the Cancer Registry of Norway, researchers performed a cohort study of 19,196 individuals diagnosed with invasive melanomas during 2008-2020; 51% were women. The mean age at the first primary melanoma diagnosis was 62 years.
• The main outcome of interest was the incidence rate of second primary invasive melanoma after the first diagnosis.
• The researchers used accelerated failure time models to examine potential associations with patient and tumor characteristics. They also calculated the median time between first and second melanomas and the likelihood of second primary melanomas on the same or different site as the first primary melanoma.

TAKEAWAY: 

• The incidence rate of a second primary melanoma in the year following a first primary melanoma was 16.8 (95% CI, 14.9-18.7) per 1000 person-years. This decreased to 7.3 (95% CI, 6.0-8.6) per 1000 person-years during the second year and remained stable after that.
• Patient age influenced the median time between first and second primaries. The median interval was 37 months (95% CI, 8-49) in patients aged < 40 years, 18 months (95% CI, 13-24) in patients aged 50-59 years, and 11 months (95% CI, 7-18) in patients aged ≥ 80 years.
• The body site of the second primary melanoma was the same as the first primary in 47% of patients but was located on a different body site in the remaining 53% of patients.
• Among patients who developed a second primary melanoma on the same site as the first, the median interval was shorter for men compared with women: A median of 12 (95% CI, 7-19) months vs 22 (95% CI, 11-35) months, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that increased surveillance may be considered for older patients, especially men, for at least the first 3 years after their initial diagnosis, regardless of the characteristics of their first melanoma,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Reza Ghiasvand, PhD, of the Oslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway, and colleagues conducted the research, published online on February 28, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Information was lacking on phenotypic characteristics, personal ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure, genetic factors, and the number of follow-up skin examinations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. The authors reported having no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In a long-term nationwide cohort study from Norway, older age and male sex were associated with an increased risk for a second primary invasive melanoma.

METHODOLOGY:

• Knowledge about one’s risk for a second primary invasive melanoma over time remains incomplete.
• Using data from the Cancer Registry of Norway, researchers performed a cohort study of 19,196 individuals diagnosed with invasive melanomas during 2008-2020; 51% were women. The mean age at the first primary melanoma diagnosis was 62 years.
• The main outcome of interest was the incidence rate of second primary invasive melanoma after the first diagnosis.
• The researchers used accelerated failure time models to examine potential associations with patient and tumor characteristics. They also calculated the median time between first and second melanomas and the likelihood of second primary melanomas on the same or different site as the first primary melanoma.

TAKEAWAY: 

• The incidence rate of a second primary melanoma in the year following a first primary melanoma was 16.8 (95% CI, 14.9-18.7) per 1000 person-years. This decreased to 7.3 (95% CI, 6.0-8.6) per 1000 person-years during the second year and remained stable after that.
• Patient age influenced the median time between first and second primaries. The median interval was 37 months (95% CI, 8-49) in patients aged < 40 years, 18 months (95% CI, 13-24) in patients aged 50-59 years, and 11 months (95% CI, 7-18) in patients aged ≥ 80 years.
• The body site of the second primary melanoma was the same as the first primary in 47% of patients but was located on a different body site in the remaining 53% of patients.
• Among patients who developed a second primary melanoma on the same site as the first, the median interval was shorter for men compared with women: A median of 12 (95% CI, 7-19) months vs 22 (95% CI, 11-35) months, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that increased surveillance may be considered for older patients, especially men, for at least the first 3 years after their initial diagnosis, regardless of the characteristics of their first melanoma,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Reza Ghiasvand, PhD, of the Oslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway, and colleagues conducted the research, published online on February 28, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Information was lacking on phenotypic characteristics, personal ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure, genetic factors, and the number of follow-up skin examinations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. The authors reported having no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

In a long-term nationwide cohort study from Norway, older age and male sex were associated with an increased risk for a second primary invasive melanoma.

METHODOLOGY:

• Knowledge about one’s risk for a second primary invasive melanoma over time remains incomplete.
• Using data from the Cancer Registry of Norway, researchers performed a cohort study of 19,196 individuals diagnosed with invasive melanomas during 2008-2020; 51% were women. The mean age at the first primary melanoma diagnosis was 62 years.
• The main outcome of interest was the incidence rate of second primary invasive melanoma after the first diagnosis.
• The researchers used accelerated failure time models to examine potential associations with patient and tumor characteristics. They also calculated the median time between first and second melanomas and the likelihood of second primary melanomas on the same or different site as the first primary melanoma.

TAKEAWAY: 

• The incidence rate of a second primary melanoma in the year following a first primary melanoma was 16.8 (95% CI, 14.9-18.7) per 1000 person-years. This decreased to 7.3 (95% CI, 6.0-8.6) per 1000 person-years during the second year and remained stable after that.
• Patient age influenced the median time between first and second primaries. The median interval was 37 months (95% CI, 8-49) in patients aged < 40 years, 18 months (95% CI, 13-24) in patients aged 50-59 years, and 11 months (95% CI, 7-18) in patients aged ≥ 80 years.
• The body site of the second primary melanoma was the same as the first primary in 47% of patients but was located on a different body site in the remaining 53% of patients.
• Among patients who developed a second primary melanoma on the same site as the first, the median interval was shorter for men compared with women: A median of 12 (95% CI, 7-19) months vs 22 (95% CI, 11-35) months, respectively.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our findings suggest that increased surveillance may be considered for older patients, especially men, for at least the first 3 years after their initial diagnosis, regardless of the characteristics of their first melanoma,” the authors wrote. 

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Reza Ghiasvand, PhD, of the Oslo Centre for Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway, and colleagues conducted the research, published online on February 28, 2024, in JAMA Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

Information was lacking on phenotypic characteristics, personal ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure, genetic factors, and the number of follow-up skin examinations.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was supported by the South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority. The authors reported having no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Many factors may influence fatigue in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), researchers report.

METHODOLOGY:

• The individual components of fatigue in psoriasis and PsA have not been examined thoroughly.
• Researchers drew from the nationwide prospective Danish Skin Cohort to identify 2741 adults with dermatologist-diagnosed psoriasis (of which 593 also had PsA) and 3788 controls in the general population.
• All adults in the analysis completed the multidimensional fatigue inventory (MIF-20), a validated 20-item tool that measures five dimensions of fatigue: General fatigue, physical fatigue, reduced activity, reduced motivation, and mental fatigue. A higher score indicates more severe fatigue.
• All adults were also asked about their current intensity of joint pain over the previous 7 days, severity of pruritus and skin pain over the previous 24 hours, and sleep problems over the previous 72 hours on a numerical rating scale (NRS). The researchers applied linear regression models to continuous outcomes and adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic status, psoriasis severity, and joint pain intensity, and beta coefficients (β) for the slopes were estimated with 95% CIs.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with the general population, higher total MFI-20 scores were observed for psoriasis and PsA, respectively. However, on the adjusted analysis, the impact on total fatigue was greatest for those with PsA (β = 5.23; 95% CI, 3.55-6.90), followed by psoriasis (β = 2.10; 95% CI, 0.96-3.25) compared with the general population (P trend < .0001).
• Increasing age was associated with a lower impact on total fatigue in psoriasis (β = −0.13; 95% CI, −0.18 to −0.08) and in PsA (β = −0.10; 95% CI, −0.19 to −0.01).
• Among patients with psoriasis with or without PsA, increasing joint pain intensity was associated with overall fatigue (β = 2.23; 95% CI, 2.03-2.44) for each one-point increase in joint pain on the NRS.
• In other findings, greater intensity of itch was associated with higher fatigue scores for both psoriasis and PsA, while skin pain was significantly associated with fatigue in PsA (β = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.08-1.22) but not in psoriasis without PsA (P = .2043).

IN PRACTICE:

“The observation that joint pain and itch, rather than psoriasis severity, appear to be major drivers of fatigue in psoriasis and PsA highlights the importance of a symptom-based approach when treating psoriasis, rather than focusing on objective severity measures alone,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Alexander Egeberg, MD, of the Department of Dermatology at Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, and colleagues conducted the research, which was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers were unable to assess whether the pain was inflammatory or noninflammatory or the number of affected joints. They also lacked information about the use of methotrexate, which commonly causes fatigue.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Egeberg is now an employee at LEO Pharma. He has received research funding from Pfizer, Eli Lilly, the Danish National Psoriasis Foundation, and the Royal Hofbundtmager Aage Bang Foundation, and honoraria as a consultant and/or speaker from AbbVie, Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Leo Pharma, Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd., Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Union Therapeutics, Horizon Therapeutics, Galderma, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Three of the coauthors reported being a consultant to, an adviser for, and/or having received research support from many pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Many factors may influence fatigue in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), researchers report.

METHODOLOGY:

• The individual components of fatigue in psoriasis and PsA have not been examined thoroughly.
• Researchers drew from the nationwide prospective Danish Skin Cohort to identify 2741 adults with dermatologist-diagnosed psoriasis (of which 593 also had PsA) and 3788 controls in the general population.
• All adults in the analysis completed the multidimensional fatigue inventory (MIF-20), a validated 20-item tool that measures five dimensions of fatigue: General fatigue, physical fatigue, reduced activity, reduced motivation, and mental fatigue. A higher score indicates more severe fatigue.
• All adults were also asked about their current intensity of joint pain over the previous 7 days, severity of pruritus and skin pain over the previous 24 hours, and sleep problems over the previous 72 hours on a numerical rating scale (NRS). The researchers applied linear regression models to continuous outcomes and adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic status, psoriasis severity, and joint pain intensity, and beta coefficients (β) for the slopes were estimated with 95% CIs.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with the general population, higher total MFI-20 scores were observed for psoriasis and PsA, respectively. However, on the adjusted analysis, the impact on total fatigue was greatest for those with PsA (β = 5.23; 95% CI, 3.55-6.90), followed by psoriasis (β = 2.10; 95% CI, 0.96-3.25) compared with the general population (P trend < .0001).
• Increasing age was associated with a lower impact on total fatigue in psoriasis (β = −0.13; 95% CI, −0.18 to −0.08) and in PsA (β = −0.10; 95% CI, −0.19 to −0.01).
• Among patients with psoriasis with or without PsA, increasing joint pain intensity was associated with overall fatigue (β = 2.23; 95% CI, 2.03-2.44) for each one-point increase in joint pain on the NRS.
• In other findings, greater intensity of itch was associated with higher fatigue scores for both psoriasis and PsA, while skin pain was significantly associated with fatigue in PsA (β = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.08-1.22) but not in psoriasis without PsA (P = .2043).

IN PRACTICE:

“The observation that joint pain and itch, rather than psoriasis severity, appear to be major drivers of fatigue in psoriasis and PsA highlights the importance of a symptom-based approach when treating psoriasis, rather than focusing on objective severity measures alone,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Alexander Egeberg, MD, of the Department of Dermatology at Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, and colleagues conducted the research, which was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers were unable to assess whether the pain was inflammatory or noninflammatory or the number of affected joints. They also lacked information about the use of methotrexate, which commonly causes fatigue.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Egeberg is now an employee at LEO Pharma. He has received research funding from Pfizer, Eli Lilly, the Danish National Psoriasis Foundation, and the Royal Hofbundtmager Aage Bang Foundation, and honoraria as a consultant and/or speaker from AbbVie, Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Leo Pharma, Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd., Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Union Therapeutics, Horizon Therapeutics, Galderma, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Three of the coauthors reported being a consultant to, an adviser for, and/or having received research support from many pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Many factors may influence fatigue in patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA), researchers report.

METHODOLOGY:

• The individual components of fatigue in psoriasis and PsA have not been examined thoroughly.
• Researchers drew from the nationwide prospective Danish Skin Cohort to identify 2741 adults with dermatologist-diagnosed psoriasis (of which 593 also had PsA) and 3788 controls in the general population.
• All adults in the analysis completed the multidimensional fatigue inventory (MIF-20), a validated 20-item tool that measures five dimensions of fatigue: General fatigue, physical fatigue, reduced activity, reduced motivation, and mental fatigue. A higher score indicates more severe fatigue.
• All adults were also asked about their current intensity of joint pain over the previous 7 days, severity of pruritus and skin pain over the previous 24 hours, and sleep problems over the previous 72 hours on a numerical rating scale (NRS). The researchers applied linear regression models to continuous outcomes and adjusted for age, sex, socioeconomic status, psoriasis severity, and joint pain intensity, and beta coefficients (β) for the slopes were estimated with 95% CIs.

TAKEAWAY:

• Compared with the general population, higher total MFI-20 scores were observed for psoriasis and PsA, respectively. However, on the adjusted analysis, the impact on total fatigue was greatest for those with PsA (β = 5.23; 95% CI, 3.55-6.90), followed by psoriasis (β = 2.10; 95% CI, 0.96-3.25) compared with the general population (P trend < .0001).
• Increasing age was associated with a lower impact on total fatigue in psoriasis (β = −0.13; 95% CI, −0.18 to −0.08) and in PsA (β = −0.10; 95% CI, −0.19 to −0.01).
• Among patients with psoriasis with or without PsA, increasing joint pain intensity was associated with overall fatigue (β = 2.23; 95% CI, 2.03-2.44) for each one-point increase in joint pain on the NRS.
• In other findings, greater intensity of itch was associated with higher fatigue scores for both psoriasis and PsA, while skin pain was significantly associated with fatigue in PsA (β = 0.65; 95% CI, 0.08-1.22) but not in psoriasis without PsA (P = .2043).

IN PRACTICE:

“The observation that joint pain and itch, rather than psoriasis severity, appear to be major drivers of fatigue in psoriasis and PsA highlights the importance of a symptom-based approach when treating psoriasis, rather than focusing on objective severity measures alone,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Corresponding author Alexander Egeberg, MD, of the Department of Dermatology at Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark, and colleagues conducted the research, which was published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The researchers were unable to assess whether the pain was inflammatory or noninflammatory or the number of affected joints. They also lacked information about the use of methotrexate, which commonly causes fatigue.

DISCLOSURES:

Dr. Egeberg is now an employee at LEO Pharma. He has received research funding from Pfizer, Eli Lilly, the Danish National Psoriasis Foundation, and the Royal Hofbundtmager Aage Bang Foundation, and honoraria as a consultant and/or speaker from AbbVie, Almirall, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Leo Pharma, Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd., Pfizer, Eli Lilly, Novartis, UCB, Union Therapeutics, Horizon Therapeutics, Galderma, and Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Three of the coauthors reported being a consultant to, an adviser for, and/or having received research support from many pharmaceutical companies.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The accuracy of information on TikTok videos about infantile hemangiomas (IHs) varies widely, researchers found.

METHODOLOGY:

• New parents may turn to TikTok for information about IHs, but little is known about the quality of videos on the social media platform related to the topic.
• Using the search term “hemangioma,” researchers reviewed the top 50 English-language TikTok videos that resulted from the query in November 2022.
• The researchers analyzed the videos for their content source, accuracy, and purpose and used Infantile Hemangioma Referral Score criteria to determine if the lesions pictured on the videos met criteria for referral to a specialist or not.

TAKEAWAY:

• Combined, the 50 videos were viewed 25.1 million times, had 2.6 million likes, and received 17,600 comments.
• Only 36 were considered likely to be IH. Of those 36 videos, the researchers deemed 33 (92%) to be potentially problematic, meriting referral to a specialist. The remaining three lesions could not be classified because of insufficient information.
• Of the 50 videos, 45 were created by individuals personally affected by IH (parents of a child with IH or young adults living with residual impacts), and only three were created by physicians (two by plastic surgeons and one by a neonatologist).
• In terms of content, 2 of the 45 videos created by someone personally affected by IH contained inaccurate information, while all three of videos created by physicians contained inaccurate information, such as oversimplification of the prognosis or incorrect nomenclature.

IN PRACTICE:

“Providers should be aware that TikTok may be useful for promoting birthmark awareness, but that it should not be relied on for accurate information about IHs,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

First author Sonora Yun, a medical student at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York City, conducted the research with Maria C. Garzon, MD, and Kimberly D. Morel, MD, who are board-certified pediatric dermatologists at Columbia. The study was published in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors noted no specific limitations to the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers reported having no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The accuracy of information on TikTok videos about infantile hemangiomas (IHs) varies widely, researchers found.

METHODOLOGY:

• New parents may turn to TikTok for information about IHs, but little is known about the quality of videos on the social media platform related to the topic.
• Using the search term “hemangioma,” researchers reviewed the top 50 English-language TikTok videos that resulted from the query in November 2022.
• The researchers analyzed the videos for their content source, accuracy, and purpose and used Infantile Hemangioma Referral Score criteria to determine if the lesions pictured on the videos met criteria for referral to a specialist or not.

TAKEAWAY:

• Combined, the 50 videos were viewed 25.1 million times, had 2.6 million likes, and received 17,600 comments.
• Only 36 were considered likely to be IH. Of those 36 videos, the researchers deemed 33 (92%) to be potentially problematic, meriting referral to a specialist. The remaining three lesions could not be classified because of insufficient information.
• Of the 50 videos, 45 were created by individuals personally affected by IH (parents of a child with IH or young adults living with residual impacts), and only three were created by physicians (two by plastic surgeons and one by a neonatologist).
• In terms of content, 2 of the 45 videos created by someone personally affected by IH contained inaccurate information, while all three of videos created by physicians contained inaccurate information, such as oversimplification of the prognosis or incorrect nomenclature.

IN PRACTICE:

“Providers should be aware that TikTok may be useful for promoting birthmark awareness, but that it should not be relied on for accurate information about IHs,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

First author Sonora Yun, a medical student at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York City, conducted the research with Maria C. Garzon, MD, and Kimberly D. Morel, MD, who are board-certified pediatric dermatologists at Columbia. The study was published in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors noted no specific limitations to the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers reported having no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

The accuracy of information on TikTok videos about infantile hemangiomas (IHs) varies widely, researchers found.

METHODOLOGY:

• New parents may turn to TikTok for information about IHs, but little is known about the quality of videos on the social media platform related to the topic.
• Using the search term “hemangioma,” researchers reviewed the top 50 English-language TikTok videos that resulted from the query in November 2022.
• The researchers analyzed the videos for their content source, accuracy, and purpose and used Infantile Hemangioma Referral Score criteria to determine if the lesions pictured on the videos met criteria for referral to a specialist or not.

TAKEAWAY:

• Combined, the 50 videos were viewed 25.1 million times, had 2.6 million likes, and received 17,600 comments.
• Only 36 were considered likely to be IH. Of those 36 videos, the researchers deemed 33 (92%) to be potentially problematic, meriting referral to a specialist. The remaining three lesions could not be classified because of insufficient information.
• Of the 50 videos, 45 were created by individuals personally affected by IH (parents of a child with IH or young adults living with residual impacts), and only three were created by physicians (two by plastic surgeons and one by a neonatologist).
• In terms of content, 2 of the 45 videos created by someone personally affected by IH contained inaccurate information, while all three of videos created by physicians contained inaccurate information, such as oversimplification of the prognosis or incorrect nomenclature.

IN PRACTICE:

“Providers should be aware that TikTok may be useful for promoting birthmark awareness, but that it should not be relied on for accurate information about IHs,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

First author Sonora Yun, a medical student at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York City, conducted the research with Maria C. Garzon, MD, and Kimberly D. Morel, MD, who are board-certified pediatric dermatologists at Columbia. The study was published in Pediatric Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The authors noted no specific limitations to the study.

DISCLOSURES:

The researchers reported having no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.