Pediatrics

Many infants have experienced an episode of apnea, defined as a pause in respiration of 20 seconds or more. Most episodes remain unexplained, and no underlying cause can be found. Historically, these were referred to as “near-miss SIDS,” episodes, but that label suggested that all of these events would have ended in death had someone not intervened. New descriptive terminology was needed.

In the mid-1980s, the term “apparent life-threatening event” (ALTE) was adopted. But that term, too, was an overstatement, because although scary for parents, these brief apnea episodes were not, in most cases, truly life-threatening.

In 2013, authors of a systematic review coined the term “brief resolved unexplained event” (BRUE). This review also addressed the history and physical exam features associated with risk for a subsequent episode. It was felt that hospitalization and testing might be warranted if certain infants could be identified as high risk for recurrence.

What Is Considered a BRUE?

In the current working definition of BRUE, the child must be < 1 year old. The episode must be a sudden, brief, and resolved, with one or more of these characteristics:

• Cyanosis or pallor (but not turning red)
• A change in breathing (absent, decreased, or irregular)
• A change in tone (hypertonia or hypotonia)
• A change in responsiveness.

Furthermore, to qualify as a BRUE, no explanation can be found for the event based on the history and physical examination but before any laboratory testing is done. The definition also excludes children with known potential explanatory diagnoses (such as gastroesophageal reflux or bronchiolitis) and those who are otherwise symptomatically ill at the time of the event.
 

Decision to Admit and Recurrence Risk

An apnea event in an otherwise healthy infant, regardless of what it’s called, puts providers and parents in a difficult position. Should the infant be hospitalized for further monitoring and potentially more invasive testing to determine the cause of the episode? And what are the chances that the episode will be repeated?

A clinical practice guideline (CPG) for BRUE, widely adopted in 2016, resulted in significant reductions in healthcare utilization. The CPG attempted to identify low-risk infants who could safely be discharged from the emergency department. Although the CPG improved outcomes, experts acknowledged that an underlying problem was not likely to be identified even among infants deemed high risk, and these infants would be hospitalized unnecessarily.

Available data were simply insufficient to support this decision. So, with the goal of identifying factors that could help predict recurrent BRUE risk, a 15-hospital collaborative study was undertaken, followed by the development and validation of a clinical decision rule for predicting the risk for a serious underlying diagnosis or event recurrence among infants presenting with BRUE.

Here’s what we learned from more than 3000 cases of BRUE.

First, it turns out that it’s not easy to determine whether an infant is at low or high risk for recurrence of BRUE. Initially, 91.5% of patients enrolled in the study would have been labeled high risk.

Furthermore, a BRUE recurred in 14.3% of the cohort, and 4.8% of high-risk infants were found to have a serious undiagnosed condition. Seizures, airway anomalies, and gastroesophageal reflux were the top three causes of BRUE, but the spectrum of underlying pathology was quite considerable.

The problem was that 4.6% of the entire cohort were found to have a serious underlying condition, nearly identical to the proportion of high-risk infants with these conditions. This prompted the question of whether simply labeling infants “high risk” was really appropriate any longer. 
 

Revised BRUE Management

Although it hasn’t been possible to group infants neatly in low and high-risk categories, the data from that large cohort led to the development of the BRUE 2.0 criteria, which enabled more focused risk assessment of an infant who experienced a BRUE. With an app on MDCalc, these criteria allow providers to ascertain, and show families, a visual representation of their infant’s individualized risk for a subsequent BRUE and of having a serious underlying condition.

The cohort study also identified red flags from the history or physical exam of infants who experienced a BRUE: weight loss, failure to thrive, or a history of feeding problems. Exam findings such as a bulging fontanelle, forceful or bilious emesis, and evidence of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding suggest a medical diagnosis rather than a BRUE. If GI-related causes are high on the differential, a feeding evaluation can be helpful. A feeding evaluation can be done in the outpatient setting and does not require hospitalization.

For suspicion of an underlying neurological condition (such as seizures), experts recommend obtaining a short EEG, which is highly sensitive for detecting infantile spasms and encephalopathy. They recommend reserving MRI for infants with abnormalities on EEG or physical exam. Metabolic or genetic testing should be done only if the infant looks ill, because most patients with genetic or inborn errors of metabolism will continue to have symptoms as they become older.

The approach to BRUE has moved into the realm of shared decision-making with families. The likelihood of identifying a serious diagnosis is low for most of these children. And unfortunately, no single test can diagnose the full spectrum of potential explanatory diagnoses. For example, data from 2023 demonstrate that only 1.1% of lab tests following a BRUE contributed to a diagnosis, and most of the time that was a positive viral test. Similarly, imaging was helpful in only 1.5% of cases. So, explaining the evidence and deciding along with parents what is reasonable to do (or not do) is the current state of affairs.
 

My Take

As I reflect back on two and a half decades of caring for these patients, I believe that recent data have helped us a great deal. We do less testing and admit fewer infants to the hospital than we did 20 years ago, and that’s a good thing. Nevertheless, looking for a few red flags, having a high index of suspicion when the clinical exam is abnormal, and engaging in shared decision-making with families can help make the caring for these challenging patients more bearable and lead to better outcomes for all involved.

Dr. Basco is Professor, Department of Pediatrics, Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC); Director, Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, MUSC Children’s Hospital, Charleston, South Carolina. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Many infants have experienced an episode of apnea, defined as a pause in respiration of 20 seconds or more. Most episodes remain unexplained, and no underlying cause can be found. Historically, these were referred to as “near-miss SIDS,” episodes, but that label suggested that all of these events would have ended in death had someone not intervened. New descriptive terminology was needed.

In the mid-1980s, the term “apparent life-threatening event” (ALTE) was adopted. But that term, too, was an overstatement, because although scary for parents, these brief apnea episodes were not, in most cases, truly life-threatening.

In 2013, authors of a systematic review coined the term “brief resolved unexplained event” (BRUE). This review also addressed the history and physical exam features associated with risk for a subsequent episode. It was felt that hospitalization and testing might be warranted if certain infants could be identified as high risk for recurrence.

What Is Considered a BRUE?

In the current working definition of BRUE, the child must be < 1 year old. The episode must be a sudden, brief, and resolved, with one or more of these characteristics:

• Cyanosis or pallor (but not turning red)
• A change in breathing (absent, decreased, or irregular)
• A change in tone (hypertonia or hypotonia)
• A change in responsiveness.

Furthermore, to qualify as a BRUE, no explanation can be found for the event based on the history and physical examination but before any laboratory testing is done. The definition also excludes children with known potential explanatory diagnoses (such as gastroesophageal reflux or bronchiolitis) and those who are otherwise symptomatically ill at the time of the event.
 

Decision to Admit and Recurrence Risk

An apnea event in an otherwise healthy infant, regardless of what it’s called, puts providers and parents in a difficult position. Should the infant be hospitalized for further monitoring and potentially more invasive testing to determine the cause of the episode? And what are the chances that the episode will be repeated?

A clinical practice guideline (CPG) for BRUE, widely adopted in 2016, resulted in significant reductions in healthcare utilization. The CPG attempted to identify low-risk infants who could safely be discharged from the emergency department. Although the CPG improved outcomes, experts acknowledged that an underlying problem was not likely to be identified even among infants deemed high risk, and these infants would be hospitalized unnecessarily.

Available data were simply insufficient to support this decision. So, with the goal of identifying factors that could help predict recurrent BRUE risk, a 15-hospital collaborative study was undertaken, followed by the development and validation of a clinical decision rule for predicting the risk for a serious underlying diagnosis or event recurrence among infants presenting with BRUE.

Here’s what we learned from more than 3000 cases of BRUE.

First, it turns out that it’s not easy to determine whether an infant is at low or high risk for recurrence of BRUE. Initially, 91.5% of patients enrolled in the study would have been labeled high risk.

Furthermore, a BRUE recurred in 14.3% of the cohort, and 4.8% of high-risk infants were found to have a serious undiagnosed condition. Seizures, airway anomalies, and gastroesophageal reflux were the top three causes of BRUE, but the spectrum of underlying pathology was quite considerable.

The problem was that 4.6% of the entire cohort were found to have a serious underlying condition, nearly identical to the proportion of high-risk infants with these conditions. This prompted the question of whether simply labeling infants “high risk” was really appropriate any longer. 
 

Revised BRUE Management

Although it hasn’t been possible to group infants neatly in low and high-risk categories, the data from that large cohort led to the development of the BRUE 2.0 criteria, which enabled more focused risk assessment of an infant who experienced a BRUE. With an app on MDCalc, these criteria allow providers to ascertain, and show families, a visual representation of their infant’s individualized risk for a subsequent BRUE and of having a serious underlying condition.

The cohort study also identified red flags from the history or physical exam of infants who experienced a BRUE: weight loss, failure to thrive, or a history of feeding problems. Exam findings such as a bulging fontanelle, forceful or bilious emesis, and evidence of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding suggest a medical diagnosis rather than a BRUE. If GI-related causes are high on the differential, a feeding evaluation can be helpful. A feeding evaluation can be done in the outpatient setting and does not require hospitalization.

For suspicion of an underlying neurological condition (such as seizures), experts recommend obtaining a short EEG, which is highly sensitive for detecting infantile spasms and encephalopathy. They recommend reserving MRI for infants with abnormalities on EEG or physical exam. Metabolic or genetic testing should be done only if the infant looks ill, because most patients with genetic or inborn errors of metabolism will continue to have symptoms as they become older.

The approach to BRUE has moved into the realm of shared decision-making with families. The likelihood of identifying a serious diagnosis is low for most of these children. And unfortunately, no single test can diagnose the full spectrum of potential explanatory diagnoses. For example, data from 2023 demonstrate that only 1.1% of lab tests following a BRUE contributed to a diagnosis, and most of the time that was a positive viral test. Similarly, imaging was helpful in only 1.5% of cases. So, explaining the evidence and deciding along with parents what is reasonable to do (or not do) is the current state of affairs.
 

My Take

As I reflect back on two and a half decades of caring for these patients, I believe that recent data have helped us a great deal. We do less testing and admit fewer infants to the hospital than we did 20 years ago, and that’s a good thing. Nevertheless, looking for a few red flags, having a high index of suspicion when the clinical exam is abnormal, and engaging in shared decision-making with families can help make the caring for these challenging patients more bearable and lead to better outcomes for all involved.

Dr. Basco is Professor, Department of Pediatrics, Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC); Director, Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, MUSC Children’s Hospital, Charleston, South Carolina. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Many infants have experienced an episode of apnea, defined as a pause in respiration of 20 seconds or more. Most episodes remain unexplained, and no underlying cause can be found. Historically, these were referred to as “near-miss SIDS,” episodes, but that label suggested that all of these events would have ended in death had someone not intervened. New descriptive terminology was needed.

In the mid-1980s, the term “apparent life-threatening event” (ALTE) was adopted. But that term, too, was an overstatement, because although scary for parents, these brief apnea episodes were not, in most cases, truly life-threatening.

In 2013, authors of a systematic review coined the term “brief resolved unexplained event” (BRUE). This review also addressed the history and physical exam features associated with risk for a subsequent episode. It was felt that hospitalization and testing might be warranted if certain infants could be identified as high risk for recurrence.

What Is Considered a BRUE?

In the current working definition of BRUE, the child must be < 1 year old. The episode must be a sudden, brief, and resolved, with one or more of these characteristics:

• Cyanosis or pallor (but not turning red)
• A change in breathing (absent, decreased, or irregular)
• A change in tone (hypertonia or hypotonia)
• A change in responsiveness.

Furthermore, to qualify as a BRUE, no explanation can be found for the event based on the history and physical examination but before any laboratory testing is done. The definition also excludes children with known potential explanatory diagnoses (such as gastroesophageal reflux or bronchiolitis) and those who are otherwise symptomatically ill at the time of the event.
 

Decision to Admit and Recurrence Risk

An apnea event in an otherwise healthy infant, regardless of what it’s called, puts providers and parents in a difficult position. Should the infant be hospitalized for further monitoring and potentially more invasive testing to determine the cause of the episode? And what are the chances that the episode will be repeated?

A clinical practice guideline (CPG) for BRUE, widely adopted in 2016, resulted in significant reductions in healthcare utilization. The CPG attempted to identify low-risk infants who could safely be discharged from the emergency department. Although the CPG improved outcomes, experts acknowledged that an underlying problem was not likely to be identified even among infants deemed high risk, and these infants would be hospitalized unnecessarily.

Available data were simply insufficient to support this decision. So, with the goal of identifying factors that could help predict recurrent BRUE risk, a 15-hospital collaborative study was undertaken, followed by the development and validation of a clinical decision rule for predicting the risk for a serious underlying diagnosis or event recurrence among infants presenting with BRUE.

Here’s what we learned from more than 3000 cases of BRUE.

First, it turns out that it’s not easy to determine whether an infant is at low or high risk for recurrence of BRUE. Initially, 91.5% of patients enrolled in the study would have been labeled high risk.

Furthermore, a BRUE recurred in 14.3% of the cohort, and 4.8% of high-risk infants were found to have a serious undiagnosed condition. Seizures, airway anomalies, and gastroesophageal reflux were the top three causes of BRUE, but the spectrum of underlying pathology was quite considerable.

The problem was that 4.6% of the entire cohort were found to have a serious underlying condition, nearly identical to the proportion of high-risk infants with these conditions. This prompted the question of whether simply labeling infants “high risk” was really appropriate any longer. 
 

Revised BRUE Management

Although it hasn’t been possible to group infants neatly in low and high-risk categories, the data from that large cohort led to the development of the BRUE 2.0 criteria, which enabled more focused risk assessment of an infant who experienced a BRUE. With an app on MDCalc, these criteria allow providers to ascertain, and show families, a visual representation of their infant’s individualized risk for a subsequent BRUE and of having a serious underlying condition.

The cohort study also identified red flags from the history or physical exam of infants who experienced a BRUE: weight loss, failure to thrive, or a history of feeding problems. Exam findings such as a bulging fontanelle, forceful or bilious emesis, and evidence of gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding suggest a medical diagnosis rather than a BRUE. If GI-related causes are high on the differential, a feeding evaluation can be helpful. A feeding evaluation can be done in the outpatient setting and does not require hospitalization.

For suspicion of an underlying neurological condition (such as seizures), experts recommend obtaining a short EEG, which is highly sensitive for detecting infantile spasms and encephalopathy. They recommend reserving MRI for infants with abnormalities on EEG or physical exam. Metabolic or genetic testing should be done only if the infant looks ill, because most patients with genetic or inborn errors of metabolism will continue to have symptoms as they become older.

The approach to BRUE has moved into the realm of shared decision-making with families. The likelihood of identifying a serious diagnosis is low for most of these children. And unfortunately, no single test can diagnose the full spectrum of potential explanatory diagnoses. For example, data from 2023 demonstrate that only 1.1% of lab tests following a BRUE contributed to a diagnosis, and most of the time that was a positive viral test. Similarly, imaging was helpful in only 1.5% of cases. So, explaining the evidence and deciding along with parents what is reasonable to do (or not do) is the current state of affairs.
 

My Take

As I reflect back on two and a half decades of caring for these patients, I believe that recent data have helped us a great deal. We do less testing and admit fewer infants to the hospital than we did 20 years ago, and that’s a good thing. Nevertheless, looking for a few red flags, having a high index of suspicion when the clinical exam is abnormal, and engaging in shared decision-making with families can help make the caring for these challenging patients more bearable and lead to better outcomes for all involved.

Dr. Basco is Professor, Department of Pediatrics, Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC); Director, Division of General Pediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, MUSC Children’s Hospital, Charleston, South Carolina. He has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The lifetime cost of the new topical gene therapy Vyjuvek (beremagene geperpavec, formerly known as B-VEC) could be as much as $15-$22 million per patient, a figure that may give payers, especially federal programs like Medicaid, pause, according to the authors of a new study.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Vyjuvek (Krystal Biotech) in May 2023 for the treatment of wounds in patients ages 6 months and older with dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB), which includes two types, the most severe form (autosomal recessive, or RDEB) and the autosomal dominant form of DEB (DDEB), which tends to be milder.

CMS Launching Gene Therapy Program

The Biden administration recently announced that it was launching a program aimed at increasing access, curbing costs, and ensuring value of gene therapies, starting with sickle cell disease. The program will begin in early 2025. Among other aspects, the federal government will negotiate the price of the product with the manufacturer.

“The goal of the Cell and Gene Therapy Access Model is to increase access to innovative cell and gene therapies for people with Medicaid by making it easier for states to pay for these therapies,” said Liz Fowler, CMS Deputy Administrator and Director of the CMS Innovation Center, in a statement announcing the program.

Whether the new program takes a look at Vyjuvek – and when – is not clear.

But the authors of the study noted that the lifetime costs of treating a patient with Vyjuvek “exceed the costs of all other one-time gene therapies for other diseases.” And they wrote, even at the most conservative estimates, Vyjuvek “will be the most expensive gene therapy currently marketed in the US.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures, grants from the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, the Commonwealth Fund, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Raymakers and co-authors reported no financial relationships relevant to the work.

The lifetime cost of the new topical gene therapy Vyjuvek (beremagene geperpavec, formerly known as B-VEC) could be as much as $15-$22 million per patient, a figure that may give payers, especially federal programs like Medicaid, pause, according to the authors of a new study.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Vyjuvek (Krystal Biotech) in May 2023 for the treatment of wounds in patients ages 6 months and older with dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB), which includes two types, the most severe form (autosomal recessive, or RDEB) and the autosomal dominant form of DEB (DDEB), which tends to be milder.

CMS Launching Gene Therapy Program

The Biden administration recently announced that it was launching a program aimed at increasing access, curbing costs, and ensuring value of gene therapies, starting with sickle cell disease. The program will begin in early 2025. Among other aspects, the federal government will negotiate the price of the product with the manufacturer.

“The goal of the Cell and Gene Therapy Access Model is to increase access to innovative cell and gene therapies for people with Medicaid by making it easier for states to pay for these therapies,” said Liz Fowler, CMS Deputy Administrator and Director of the CMS Innovation Center, in a statement announcing the program.

Whether the new program takes a look at Vyjuvek – and when – is not clear.

But the authors of the study noted that the lifetime costs of treating a patient with Vyjuvek “exceed the costs of all other one-time gene therapies for other diseases.” And they wrote, even at the most conservative estimates, Vyjuvek “will be the most expensive gene therapy currently marketed in the US.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures, grants from the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, the Commonwealth Fund, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Raymakers and co-authors reported no financial relationships relevant to the work.

The lifetime cost of the new topical gene therapy Vyjuvek (beremagene geperpavec, formerly known as B-VEC) could be as much as $15-$22 million per patient, a figure that may give payers, especially federal programs like Medicaid, pause, according to the authors of a new study.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved Vyjuvek (Krystal Biotech) in May 2023 for the treatment of wounds in patients ages 6 months and older with dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (DEB), which includes two types, the most severe form (autosomal recessive, or RDEB) and the autosomal dominant form of DEB (DDEB), which tends to be milder.

CMS Launching Gene Therapy Program

The Biden administration recently announced that it was launching a program aimed at increasing access, curbing costs, and ensuring value of gene therapies, starting with sickle cell disease. The program will begin in early 2025. Among other aspects, the federal government will negotiate the price of the product with the manufacturer.

“The goal of the Cell and Gene Therapy Access Model is to increase access to innovative cell and gene therapies for people with Medicaid by making it easier for states to pay for these therapies,” said Liz Fowler, CMS Deputy Administrator and Director of the CMS Innovation Center, in a statement announcing the program.

Whether the new program takes a look at Vyjuvek – and when – is not clear.

But the authors of the study noted that the lifetime costs of treating a patient with Vyjuvek “exceed the costs of all other one-time gene therapies for other diseases.” And they wrote, even at the most conservative estimates, Vyjuvek “will be the most expensive gene therapy currently marketed in the US.”

The study was funded by a grant from Arnold Ventures, grants from the Kaiser Permanente Institute for Health Policy, the Commonwealth Fund, and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Raymakers and co-authors reported no financial relationships relevant to the work.

More than 1 in 10 individuals between 5 and 24 years of age live with at least one diagnosable mental disorder, suggests a new report that shines a light on the global mental health crisis among young people.

The burden is high in this population, with around one-fifth of all disease-related disability attributable to mental disorders. The data, drawn from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study, examines mental health in the 293 million people worldwide in this age group.

“This concentration of disability burden at an early age raises concern about the potential lifetime impact of these conditions,” wrote the authors, led by Christian Kieling, MD, PhD, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

State of Emergency

Soaring rates of mental health disorders among young people, intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic, have led the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics to declare a state of emergency. 

Using the GBD study, Dr. Kieling and colleagues estimated the global prevalence and years lived with disability associated with mental disorders and substance use disorders in people aged 5-24 years. 

In 2019, individuals in this age range had at least one mental disorder and 31 million had a substance use disorder — an average prevalence of 11.6% and 1.2%, respectively. 

The prevalence of mental disorders doubled from the age range of 5-9 years (6.8%) to 20-24 years (13.6%). 

Among mental disorders analyzed, anxiety disorders were most common in the overall population (84 million; 3.35%) and schizophrenia the least common (2 million; 0.08%). 

Notably, the researchers said, there was a steep increase in mood disorders, particularly anxiety and substance use disorders, across early to late adolescence and from late adolescence to young adulthood.

Mental disorders and substance use disorders were the leading cause of nonfatal disability in children and youths in 2019, accounting for 31 million and 4.3 million years lived with disability (YLDs), respectively. That represents roughly 20% and 3% of YLDs, respectively, from all causes. 
 

Youth Mental Health Is Not a Monolith

“That youth mental health is in such dire straits is particularly striking given that many measures of global physical health in young people are improving,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial. 

In their editorial, Jeremy Veenstra-VanderWeele, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, and co-authors noted that these and other age- and gender-related findings “represent a meaningful contribution to the literature.” 

The granular data underscore that youth mental health is “not a monolith” but rather involves considerable variation in prevalence and morbidity across both age and gender, they wrote. 

Therefore, mental health screening, promotion, and prevention efforts may benefit from an age-based approach that targets specific disorders during “high prevalence developmental intervals, with keen attention also paid to gender,” they suggested. 

On the basis of the findings in this analysis, healthcare and education resource allocation may need to be adjusted for specific disorders, they added. 

“One might propose a community- or school-based mental health initiative that screens for and educates parents and teachers on ADHD and anxiety disorders from kindergarten through third grade (ages 5-9 years, when prevalence and resulting disability grow markedly),” Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele and colleagues wrote. “Later initiatives could then focus on mood and substance use disorders during high school and college (ages 15-19 years and 20-24 years).” 

The study was partially funded by a research grant from the Cundill Centre for Child and Youth Depression. Dr. Kieling is the founder of Wida. Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Simon’s Foundation and research support/advisory board/editorial fees from Autism Speaks, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Health Resources and Services Administration Maternal and Child Health Bureau, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Forest, Janssen, Yamo, MapLight, Acadia, Roche, Novartis, Seaside Therapeutics, Springer, SynapDx, and Wiley.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 1 in 10 individuals between 5 and 24 years of age live with at least one diagnosable mental disorder, suggests a new report that shines a light on the global mental health crisis among young people.

The burden is high in this population, with around one-fifth of all disease-related disability attributable to mental disorders. The data, drawn from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study, examines mental health in the 293 million people worldwide in this age group.

“This concentration of disability burden at an early age raises concern about the potential lifetime impact of these conditions,” wrote the authors, led by Christian Kieling, MD, PhD, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

State of Emergency

Soaring rates of mental health disorders among young people, intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic, have led the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics to declare a state of emergency. 

Using the GBD study, Dr. Kieling and colleagues estimated the global prevalence and years lived with disability associated with mental disorders and substance use disorders in people aged 5-24 years. 

In 2019, individuals in this age range had at least one mental disorder and 31 million had a substance use disorder — an average prevalence of 11.6% and 1.2%, respectively. 

The prevalence of mental disorders doubled from the age range of 5-9 years (6.8%) to 20-24 years (13.6%). 

Among mental disorders analyzed, anxiety disorders were most common in the overall population (84 million; 3.35%) and schizophrenia the least common (2 million; 0.08%). 

Notably, the researchers said, there was a steep increase in mood disorders, particularly anxiety and substance use disorders, across early to late adolescence and from late adolescence to young adulthood.

Mental disorders and substance use disorders were the leading cause of nonfatal disability in children and youths in 2019, accounting for 31 million and 4.3 million years lived with disability (YLDs), respectively. That represents roughly 20% and 3% of YLDs, respectively, from all causes. 
 

Youth Mental Health Is Not a Monolith

“That youth mental health is in such dire straits is particularly striking given that many measures of global physical health in young people are improving,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial. 

In their editorial, Jeremy Veenstra-VanderWeele, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, and co-authors noted that these and other age- and gender-related findings “represent a meaningful contribution to the literature.” 

The granular data underscore that youth mental health is “not a monolith” but rather involves considerable variation in prevalence and morbidity across both age and gender, they wrote. 

Therefore, mental health screening, promotion, and prevention efforts may benefit from an age-based approach that targets specific disorders during “high prevalence developmental intervals, with keen attention also paid to gender,” they suggested. 

On the basis of the findings in this analysis, healthcare and education resource allocation may need to be adjusted for specific disorders, they added. 

“One might propose a community- or school-based mental health initiative that screens for and educates parents and teachers on ADHD and anxiety disorders from kindergarten through third grade (ages 5-9 years, when prevalence and resulting disability grow markedly),” Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele and colleagues wrote. “Later initiatives could then focus on mood and substance use disorders during high school and college (ages 15-19 years and 20-24 years).” 

The study was partially funded by a research grant from the Cundill Centre for Child and Youth Depression. Dr. Kieling is the founder of Wida. Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Simon’s Foundation and research support/advisory board/editorial fees from Autism Speaks, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Health Resources and Services Administration Maternal and Child Health Bureau, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Forest, Janssen, Yamo, MapLight, Acadia, Roche, Novartis, Seaside Therapeutics, Springer, SynapDx, and Wiley.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

More than 1 in 10 individuals between 5 and 24 years of age live with at least one diagnosable mental disorder, suggests a new report that shines a light on the global mental health crisis among young people.

The burden is high in this population, with around one-fifth of all disease-related disability attributable to mental disorders. The data, drawn from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease (GBD) study, examines mental health in the 293 million people worldwide in this age group.

“This concentration of disability burden at an early age raises concern about the potential lifetime impact of these conditions,” wrote the authors, led by Christian Kieling, MD, PhD, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.

The study was published online in JAMA Psychiatry.
 

State of Emergency

Soaring rates of mental health disorders among young people, intensified by the COVID-19 pandemic, have led the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and the American Academy of Pediatrics to declare a state of emergency. 

Using the GBD study, Dr. Kieling and colleagues estimated the global prevalence and years lived with disability associated with mental disorders and substance use disorders in people aged 5-24 years. 

In 2019, individuals in this age range had at least one mental disorder and 31 million had a substance use disorder — an average prevalence of 11.6% and 1.2%, respectively. 

The prevalence of mental disorders doubled from the age range of 5-9 years (6.8%) to 20-24 years (13.6%). 

Among mental disorders analyzed, anxiety disorders were most common in the overall population (84 million; 3.35%) and schizophrenia the least common (2 million; 0.08%). 

Notably, the researchers said, there was a steep increase in mood disorders, particularly anxiety and substance use disorders, across early to late adolescence and from late adolescence to young adulthood.

Mental disorders and substance use disorders were the leading cause of nonfatal disability in children and youths in 2019, accounting for 31 million and 4.3 million years lived with disability (YLDs), respectively. That represents roughly 20% and 3% of YLDs, respectively, from all causes. 
 

Youth Mental Health Is Not a Monolith

“That youth mental health is in such dire straits is particularly striking given that many measures of global physical health in young people are improving,” wrote the authors of an accompanying editorial. 

In their editorial, Jeremy Veenstra-VanderWeele, MD, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, and co-authors noted that these and other age- and gender-related findings “represent a meaningful contribution to the literature.” 

The granular data underscore that youth mental health is “not a monolith” but rather involves considerable variation in prevalence and morbidity across both age and gender, they wrote. 

Therefore, mental health screening, promotion, and prevention efforts may benefit from an age-based approach that targets specific disorders during “high prevalence developmental intervals, with keen attention also paid to gender,” they suggested. 

On the basis of the findings in this analysis, healthcare and education resource allocation may need to be adjusted for specific disorders, they added. 

“One might propose a community- or school-based mental health initiative that screens for and educates parents and teachers on ADHD and anxiety disorders from kindergarten through third grade (ages 5-9 years, when prevalence and resulting disability grow markedly),” Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele and colleagues wrote. “Later initiatives could then focus on mood and substance use disorders during high school and college (ages 15-19 years and 20-24 years).” 

The study was partially funded by a research grant from the Cundill Centre for Child and Youth Depression. Dr. Kieling is the founder of Wida. Dr. Veenstra-VanderWeele reported receiving grants from the National Institutes of Health and Simon’s Foundation and research support/advisory board/editorial fees from Autism Speaks, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Health Resources and Services Administration Maternal and Child Health Bureau, American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Forest, Janssen, Yamo, MapLight, Acadia, Roche, Novartis, Seaside Therapeutics, Springer, SynapDx, and Wiley.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Dupilumab improved the signs and symptoms and quality of life in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe atopic hand and foot dermatitis compared with placebo.

METHODOLOGY:

• The multinational phase 3 LIBERTY-AD-HAFT trial of adults and adolescents with moderate to severe chronic atopic dermatitis (AD) of the hands, feet, or both included 67 participants at 48 sites randomized to dupilumab monotherapy and 66 to placebo.
• The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients scoring 0 or 1 on Hand and Foot Investigator’s Global Assessment (HF-IGA) at week 16.
• Secondary endpoints were severity and extent of signs, symptom intensity (itch and pain), sleep, and quality of life.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 16, 27 patients receiving dupilumab vs 11 receiving placebo achieved an HF-IGA score of 0 or 1 (40.3% vs 16.7%; P = .003).
• At week 16, 35 participants receiving dupilumab vs nine receiving placebo improved at least four points in the weekly average of daily HF-Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (52.2% vs 13.6%; P < .0001).
• At week 16, Quality of Life Hand Eczema Questionnaire results improved in the dupilumab group compared with controls (P < .0001), and weekly average of daily Sleep Numeric Rating Scale results improved in the dupilumab group compared with controls (P < .05).
• The safety profile was similar to the known profile in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe AD.

IN PRACTICE:

The results of the study “support dupilumab” as an “efficacious systemic therapy for moderate to severe H/F AD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Eric L. Simpson, MD, MCR, professor of dermatology at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, was published on January 29, 2024, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The short duration of the study and the large proportion of patients with positive patch tests (31 of 133) suggested that some participants may have had concurrent AD and allergic contact dermatitis, so the effect of dupilumab on those patients needs further evaluation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron. All but one author had financial relationships with Sanofi, Regeneron, or both. Several authors were employees of, and may hold stocks or stock options in, Sanofi or Regeneron.

TOPLINE:

Dupilumab improved the signs and symptoms and quality of life in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe atopic hand and foot dermatitis compared with placebo.

METHODOLOGY:

• The multinational phase 3 LIBERTY-AD-HAFT trial of adults and adolescents with moderate to severe chronic atopic dermatitis (AD) of the hands, feet, or both included 67 participants at 48 sites randomized to dupilumab monotherapy and 66 to placebo.
• The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients scoring 0 or 1 on Hand and Foot Investigator’s Global Assessment (HF-IGA) at week 16.
• Secondary endpoints were severity and extent of signs, symptom intensity (itch and pain), sleep, and quality of life.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 16, 27 patients receiving dupilumab vs 11 receiving placebo achieved an HF-IGA score of 0 or 1 (40.3% vs 16.7%; P = .003).
• At week 16, 35 participants receiving dupilumab vs nine receiving placebo improved at least four points in the weekly average of daily HF-Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (52.2% vs 13.6%; P < .0001).
• At week 16, Quality of Life Hand Eczema Questionnaire results improved in the dupilumab group compared with controls (P < .0001), and weekly average of daily Sleep Numeric Rating Scale results improved in the dupilumab group compared with controls (P < .05).
• The safety profile was similar to the known profile in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe AD.

IN PRACTICE:

The results of the study “support dupilumab” as an “efficacious systemic therapy for moderate to severe H/F AD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Eric L. Simpson, MD, MCR, professor of dermatology at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, was published on January 29, 2024, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The short duration of the study and the large proportion of patients with positive patch tests (31 of 133) suggested that some participants may have had concurrent AD and allergic contact dermatitis, so the effect of dupilumab on those patients needs further evaluation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron. All but one author had financial relationships with Sanofi, Regeneron, or both. Several authors were employees of, and may hold stocks or stock options in, Sanofi or Regeneron.

TOPLINE:

Dupilumab improved the signs and symptoms and quality of life in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe atopic hand and foot dermatitis compared with placebo.

METHODOLOGY:

• The multinational phase 3 LIBERTY-AD-HAFT trial of adults and adolescents with moderate to severe chronic atopic dermatitis (AD) of the hands, feet, or both included 67 participants at 48 sites randomized to dupilumab monotherapy and 66 to placebo.
• The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients scoring 0 or 1 on Hand and Foot Investigator’s Global Assessment (HF-IGA) at week 16.
• Secondary endpoints were severity and extent of signs, symptom intensity (itch and pain), sleep, and quality of life.

TAKEAWAY:

• At week 16, 27 patients receiving dupilumab vs 11 receiving placebo achieved an HF-IGA score of 0 or 1 (40.3% vs 16.7%; P = .003).
• At week 16, 35 participants receiving dupilumab vs nine receiving placebo improved at least four points in the weekly average of daily HF-Peak Pruritus Numeric Rating Scale (52.2% vs 13.6%; P < .0001).
• At week 16, Quality of Life Hand Eczema Questionnaire results improved in the dupilumab group compared with controls (P < .0001), and weekly average of daily Sleep Numeric Rating Scale results improved in the dupilumab group compared with controls (P < .05).
• The safety profile was similar to the known profile in adults and adolescents with moderate to severe AD.

IN PRACTICE:

The results of the study “support dupilumab” as an “efficacious systemic therapy for moderate to severe H/F AD,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study, led by Eric L. Simpson, MD, MCR, professor of dermatology at the Oregon Health & Science University in Portland, was published on January 29, 2024, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The short duration of the study and the large proportion of patients with positive patch tests (31 of 133) suggested that some participants may have had concurrent AD and allergic contact dermatitis, so the effect of dupilumab on those patients needs further evaluation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was sponsored by Sanofi and Regeneron. All but one author had financial relationships with Sanofi, Regeneron, or both. Several authors were employees of, and may hold stocks or stock options in, Sanofi or Regeneron.

Blue Hill is a small idyllic town a little less than two and a half hours Down East the coast from where I am sitting here in Harpswell. Thanks to gentrification it tends to lean left politically, but like the rest of Maine most folks in the surrounding communities often don’t know or care much about their neighbor’s party affiliation. Its library, founded in 1796, is well funded and a source of civic pride.

One day a couple of years ago, the library director received a donated book from a patron. Although he personally didn’t agree with the book’s message, he felt it deserved a space in their collection dealing with the subject. What happened in the wake of this donation is an ugly tale. Some community members objected to the book and asked that it be removed from the shelves, or at least kept under the desk and loaned out only on request.

The objectors, many of whom knew the director, were confrontational. The collections committee unanimously supported his decision. Some committee members also received similar responses from community members. Remember, this is a small town.

A request for support sent to the American Library Association was basically ignored. Over the next 2 years things have quieted, but fractured friendships and relationships in this quiet coastal Maine town have not been repaired. However, as the librarian has observed, “intellectual freedom or the freedom of speech isn’t there just to protect the ideas that we like.”

While the title of the book may feel inflammatory to some, every publisher hopes to grab the market’s attention with a hot title. The cause of this sad situation in Blue Hill was not a white supremacist’s polemic offering specific ways to create genocide. This was a book suggesting that gender dysphoria presenting in adolescence may have multiple causes and raises concerns about the wisdom of the pace of some gender-affirming care.

Clearly the topic of gender dysphoria in adolescence has become a third rail that must be approached with caution or completely avoided. A recent opinion piece in the New York Times provides even more concerning examples of this peril. Again, the eye-catching title of the article — As Kids, They Thought They Were Trans. They No Longer Do — draws in the audience eager to read about some unfortunate individuals who have regretted their decision to transition and are now detransitioning.

If you are interested in hearing anecdotal evidence and opinions supporting the notion that there is such a thing as rapid-onset gender dysphoria, I suggest you read the entire piece. However, the article’s most troubling message for me comes when I read about the professionals who were former gender-related care providers who left the field because of “pushback, the accusations of being transphobic, from being pro-assessment and wanting a more thorough process.”

One therapist trained in gender-affirming care who began to have doubts about the model and spoke out in favor of a more measured approach was investigated by her licensing board after transgender advocates threatened to report her. Ultimately, her case was dismissed, but she continues to fear for her safety.

Gender-related healthcare is another sad example of how in this country it is the noise coming from the advocates on the extremes of the issue that is drowning out the “vast ideological middle” that is seeking civil and rational discussions.

In this situation there are those who want to make it illegal for the healthcare providers to help patients who might benefit from transitioning. On the other end of the spectrum are those advocates who are unwilling to acknowledge that there may be some adolescents with what has been called by some “rapid-onset gender dysphoria.”

The landscape on which this tragedy is being played out is changing so quickly that there will be no correct answers in the short term. There just isn’t enough data. However, there is enough anecdotal evidence from professionals who were and still are practicing gender-related care to raise a concern that something is happening in the adolescent population that suggests some individuals with gender dysphoria should be managed in a different way than the currently accepted gender-affirming model. The size of this subgroup is up for debate and we may never learn it because of reporting bias and privacy concerns.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has recently authorized a systematic review of gender-affirming care. I hope that, like the librarian in Blue Hill, it will have the courage to include all the evidence available even though, as we have seen here in Maine, some of it may spark a firestorm of vehement responses.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Blue Hill is a small idyllic town a little less than two and a half hours Down East the coast from where I am sitting here in Harpswell. Thanks to gentrification it tends to lean left politically, but like the rest of Maine most folks in the surrounding communities often don’t know or care much about their neighbor’s party affiliation. Its library, founded in 1796, is well funded and a source of civic pride.

One day a couple of years ago, the library director received a donated book from a patron. Although he personally didn’t agree with the book’s message, he felt it deserved a space in their collection dealing with the subject. What happened in the wake of this donation is an ugly tale. Some community members objected to the book and asked that it be removed from the shelves, or at least kept under the desk and loaned out only on request.

The objectors, many of whom knew the director, were confrontational. The collections committee unanimously supported his decision. Some committee members also received similar responses from community members. Remember, this is a small town.

A request for support sent to the American Library Association was basically ignored. Over the next 2 years things have quieted, but fractured friendships and relationships in this quiet coastal Maine town have not been repaired. However, as the librarian has observed, “intellectual freedom or the freedom of speech isn’t there just to protect the ideas that we like.”

While the title of the book may feel inflammatory to some, every publisher hopes to grab the market’s attention with a hot title. The cause of this sad situation in Blue Hill was not a white supremacist’s polemic offering specific ways to create genocide. This was a book suggesting that gender dysphoria presenting in adolescence may have multiple causes and raises concerns about the wisdom of the pace of some gender-affirming care.

Clearly the topic of gender dysphoria in adolescence has become a third rail that must be approached with caution or completely avoided. A recent opinion piece in the New York Times provides even more concerning examples of this peril. Again, the eye-catching title of the article — As Kids, They Thought They Were Trans. They No Longer Do — draws in the audience eager to read about some unfortunate individuals who have regretted their decision to transition and are now detransitioning.

If you are interested in hearing anecdotal evidence and opinions supporting the notion that there is such a thing as rapid-onset gender dysphoria, I suggest you read the entire piece. However, the article’s most troubling message for me comes when I read about the professionals who were former gender-related care providers who left the field because of “pushback, the accusations of being transphobic, from being pro-assessment and wanting a more thorough process.”

One therapist trained in gender-affirming care who began to have doubts about the model and spoke out in favor of a more measured approach was investigated by her licensing board after transgender advocates threatened to report her. Ultimately, her case was dismissed, but she continues to fear for her safety.

Gender-related healthcare is another sad example of how in this country it is the noise coming from the advocates on the extremes of the issue that is drowning out the “vast ideological middle” that is seeking civil and rational discussions.

In this situation there are those who want to make it illegal for the healthcare providers to help patients who might benefit from transitioning. On the other end of the spectrum are those advocates who are unwilling to acknowledge that there may be some adolescents with what has been called by some “rapid-onset gender dysphoria.”

The landscape on which this tragedy is being played out is changing so quickly that there will be no correct answers in the short term. There just isn’t enough data. However, there is enough anecdotal evidence from professionals who were and still are practicing gender-related care to raise a concern that something is happening in the adolescent population that suggests some individuals with gender dysphoria should be managed in a different way than the currently accepted gender-affirming model. The size of this subgroup is up for debate and we may never learn it because of reporting bias and privacy concerns.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has recently authorized a systematic review of gender-affirming care. I hope that, like the librarian in Blue Hill, it will have the courage to include all the evidence available even though, as we have seen here in Maine, some of it may spark a firestorm of vehement responses.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Blue Hill is a small idyllic town a little less than two and a half hours Down East the coast from where I am sitting here in Harpswell. Thanks to gentrification it tends to lean left politically, but like the rest of Maine most folks in the surrounding communities often don’t know or care much about their neighbor’s party affiliation. Its library, founded in 1796, is well funded and a source of civic pride.

One day a couple of years ago, the library director received a donated book from a patron. Although he personally didn’t agree with the book’s message, he felt it deserved a space in their collection dealing with the subject. What happened in the wake of this donation is an ugly tale. Some community members objected to the book and asked that it be removed from the shelves, or at least kept under the desk and loaned out only on request.

The objectors, many of whom knew the director, were confrontational. The collections committee unanimously supported his decision. Some committee members also received similar responses from community members. Remember, this is a small town.

A request for support sent to the American Library Association was basically ignored. Over the next 2 years things have quieted, but fractured friendships and relationships in this quiet coastal Maine town have not been repaired. However, as the librarian has observed, “intellectual freedom or the freedom of speech isn’t there just to protect the ideas that we like.”

While the title of the book may feel inflammatory to some, every publisher hopes to grab the market’s attention with a hot title. The cause of this sad situation in Blue Hill was not a white supremacist’s polemic offering specific ways to create genocide. This was a book suggesting that gender dysphoria presenting in adolescence may have multiple causes and raises concerns about the wisdom of the pace of some gender-affirming care.

Clearly the topic of gender dysphoria in adolescence has become a third rail that must be approached with caution or completely avoided. A recent opinion piece in the New York Times provides even more concerning examples of this peril. Again, the eye-catching title of the article — As Kids, They Thought They Were Trans. They No Longer Do — draws in the audience eager to read about some unfortunate individuals who have regretted their decision to transition and are now detransitioning.

If you are interested in hearing anecdotal evidence and opinions supporting the notion that there is such a thing as rapid-onset gender dysphoria, I suggest you read the entire piece. However, the article’s most troubling message for me comes when I read about the professionals who were former gender-related care providers who left the field because of “pushback, the accusations of being transphobic, from being pro-assessment and wanting a more thorough process.”

One therapist trained in gender-affirming care who began to have doubts about the model and spoke out in favor of a more measured approach was investigated by her licensing board after transgender advocates threatened to report her. Ultimately, her case was dismissed, but she continues to fear for her safety.

Gender-related healthcare is another sad example of how in this country it is the noise coming from the advocates on the extremes of the issue that is drowning out the “vast ideological middle” that is seeking civil and rational discussions.

In this situation there are those who want to make it illegal for the healthcare providers to help patients who might benefit from transitioning. On the other end of the spectrum are those advocates who are unwilling to acknowledge that there may be some adolescents with what has been called by some “rapid-onset gender dysphoria.”

The landscape on which this tragedy is being played out is changing so quickly that there will be no correct answers in the short term. There just isn’t enough data. However, there is enough anecdotal evidence from professionals who were and still are practicing gender-related care to raise a concern that something is happening in the adolescent population that suggests some individuals with gender dysphoria should be managed in a different way than the currently accepted gender-affirming model. The size of this subgroup is up for debate and we may never learn it because of reporting bias and privacy concerns.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has recently authorized a systematic review of gender-affirming care. I hope that, like the librarian in Blue Hill, it will have the courage to include all the evidence available even though, as we have seen here in Maine, some of it may spark a firestorm of vehement responses.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

TOPLINE:

Adolescents with severe obesity who undergo bariatric surgery may have a continuing need for mental health treatment and an increased risk for alcohol use disorder after the procedure.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the long-term effects of bariatric surgery on the mental health of 1554 adolescents (75% women) with severe obesity who underwent bariatric surgery in Sweden between 2007 and 2017.
• At the time of surgery, the mean age was 19.0 years, and the mean body mass index was 43.7.
• A general population reference group of 15,540 adolescents was created by matching 10 comparators each to adolescents in the surgery group by age, sex, and country of residence.
• Information on psychiatric healthcare use and filled psychiatric drug prescriptions for 5 years before surgery and the first 10 years after surgery were obtained from national registers.
• The number of visits for self-harm and substance use disorder and the number of filled prescriptions for any psychiatric drug, antidepressants, and anxiolytics were other outcomes of interest.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 5 years before surgery, the prevalence of psychiatric healthcare visits (prevalence difference [Δ], 3.7%) and of psychiatric drug use (Δ, 6.2%) was higher in the surgery vs reference group.
• The preoperative trajectories continued and grew post-surgery, with the differences in psychiatric healthcare visits (Δ, ~12%) and psychiatric drug use (Δ, 20.4%) between the groups peaking at 9 and 10 years post surgery, respectively.
• A low prevalence of healthcare visits for substance use disorder in both groups grew to about 5% of adolescents in the surgery group after 10 years, driven primarily by alcohol use, compared with about 1% of adolescents in the reference group (Δ, 4.3%).
• Surgery is an obesity treatment, leading to sustainable weight loss, cardiometabolic health, and physical quality of life, but mental health improvements cannot be expected at the group level.

IN PRACTICE:

“Adolescent patients should be informed of the increased risk for alcohol use disorder and that they might continue needing mental health treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Gustaf Bruze, PhD, from the Department of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology Division, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, and Kajsa Jarvholm, PhD, from the Department of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, led this study, which was published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings may have limited generalizability to other settings, as the study was performed in Sweden with a predominantly White population undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in a universally accessible healthcare system. Moreover, there was a shortage of nonsurgically treated adolescents with severe obesity for comparison. Patients undergoing surgery may have easier access to healthcare than the general population, which could account for an increase in healthcare visits.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare. Two authors were the current or previous director of the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry. Several authors declared receiving personal fees, participating in advisory boards and educational activities, and having other ties with Ethicon Johnson & Johnson, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adolescents with severe obesity who undergo bariatric surgery may have a continuing need for mental health treatment and an increased risk for alcohol use disorder after the procedure.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the long-term effects of bariatric surgery on the mental health of 1554 adolescents (75% women) with severe obesity who underwent bariatric surgery in Sweden between 2007 and 2017.
• At the time of surgery, the mean age was 19.0 years, and the mean body mass index was 43.7.
• A general population reference group of 15,540 adolescents was created by matching 10 comparators each to adolescents in the surgery group by age, sex, and country of residence.
• Information on psychiatric healthcare use and filled psychiatric drug prescriptions for 5 years before surgery and the first 10 years after surgery were obtained from national registers.
• The number of visits for self-harm and substance use disorder and the number of filled prescriptions for any psychiatric drug, antidepressants, and anxiolytics were other outcomes of interest.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 5 years before surgery, the prevalence of psychiatric healthcare visits (prevalence difference [Δ], 3.7%) and of psychiatric drug use (Δ, 6.2%) was higher in the surgery vs reference group.
• The preoperative trajectories continued and grew post-surgery, with the differences in psychiatric healthcare visits (Δ, ~12%) and psychiatric drug use (Δ, 20.4%) between the groups peaking at 9 and 10 years post surgery, respectively.
• A low prevalence of healthcare visits for substance use disorder in both groups grew to about 5% of adolescents in the surgery group after 10 years, driven primarily by alcohol use, compared with about 1% of adolescents in the reference group (Δ, 4.3%).
• Surgery is an obesity treatment, leading to sustainable weight loss, cardiometabolic health, and physical quality of life, but mental health improvements cannot be expected at the group level.

IN PRACTICE:

“Adolescent patients should be informed of the increased risk for alcohol use disorder and that they might continue needing mental health treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Gustaf Bruze, PhD, from the Department of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology Division, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, and Kajsa Jarvholm, PhD, from the Department of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, led this study, which was published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings may have limited generalizability to other settings, as the study was performed in Sweden with a predominantly White population undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in a universally accessible healthcare system. Moreover, there was a shortage of nonsurgically treated adolescents with severe obesity for comparison. Patients undergoing surgery may have easier access to healthcare than the general population, which could account for an increase in healthcare visits.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare. Two authors were the current or previous director of the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry. Several authors declared receiving personal fees, participating in advisory boards and educational activities, and having other ties with Ethicon Johnson & Johnson, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Adolescents with severe obesity who undergo bariatric surgery may have a continuing need for mental health treatment and an increased risk for alcohol use disorder after the procedure.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers evaluated the long-term effects of bariatric surgery on the mental health of 1554 adolescents (75% women) with severe obesity who underwent bariatric surgery in Sweden between 2007 and 2017.
• At the time of surgery, the mean age was 19.0 years, and the mean body mass index was 43.7.
• A general population reference group of 15,540 adolescents was created by matching 10 comparators each to adolescents in the surgery group by age, sex, and country of residence.
• Information on psychiatric healthcare use and filled psychiatric drug prescriptions for 5 years before surgery and the first 10 years after surgery were obtained from national registers.
• The number of visits for self-harm and substance use disorder and the number of filled prescriptions for any psychiatric drug, antidepressants, and anxiolytics were other outcomes of interest.

TAKEAWAY:

• At 5 years before surgery, the prevalence of psychiatric healthcare visits (prevalence difference [Δ], 3.7%) and of psychiatric drug use (Δ, 6.2%) was higher in the surgery vs reference group.
• The preoperative trajectories continued and grew post-surgery, with the differences in psychiatric healthcare visits (Δ, ~12%) and psychiatric drug use (Δ, 20.4%) between the groups peaking at 9 and 10 years post surgery, respectively.
• A low prevalence of healthcare visits for substance use disorder in both groups grew to about 5% of adolescents in the surgery group after 10 years, driven primarily by alcohol use, compared with about 1% of adolescents in the reference group (Δ, 4.3%).
• Surgery is an obesity treatment, leading to sustainable weight loss, cardiometabolic health, and physical quality of life, but mental health improvements cannot be expected at the group level.

IN PRACTICE:

“Adolescent patients should be informed of the increased risk for alcohol use disorder and that they might continue needing mental health treatment,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

Gustaf Bruze, PhD, from the Department of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology Division, Karolinska Institutet, Solna, and Kajsa Jarvholm, PhD, from the Department of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, led this study, which was published online in The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health.

LIMITATIONS:

The findings may have limited generalizability to other settings, as the study was performed in Sweden with a predominantly White population undergoing Roux-en-Y gastric bypass in a universally accessible healthcare system. Moreover, there was a shortage of nonsurgically treated adolescents with severe obesity for comparison. Patients undergoing surgery may have easier access to healthcare than the general population, which could account for an increase in healthcare visits.

DISCLOSURES:

This study was supported by the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life, and Welfare. Two authors were the current or previous director of the Scandinavian Obesity Surgery Registry. Several authors declared receiving personal fees, participating in advisory boards and educational activities, and having other ties with Ethicon Johnson & Johnson, and Novo Nordisk.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

SAN DIEGO — During her dermatology residency training, Caroline Piggott, MD, was taught that the classic signs of a Spitz nevus were a symmetric arrangement of colors and structures, followed by certain features on dermoscopy.

“For a pigmented Spitz nevus, we were taught to look for a starburst pattern, a central area of homogeneous pigment, and peripheral symmetrical streaks or pseudopods,” Dr. Piggott, an adult and pediatric dermatologist at Scripps Clinic, San Diego, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “For Spitz nevi without pigment, we were taught to look for symmetric dotted vessels.”

However, results from a retrospective study published in 2015 gave her pause in relying on dermoscopy alone for assessing Spitz nevi. Researchers from Italy, Japan, and Brazil studied excision specimens of 384 Spitzoid-looking lesions in patients 12 years and older. On histology, 86.7% were diagnosed as benign Spitz nevi and 13.3% were diagnosed as melanoma.

When the researchers looked at the dermoscopic images, many cases of atypical Spitz nevi were indistinguishable from the benign Spitz nevi. Now, Dr. Piggott said, “I respect the dermoscopy criteria, but I don’t rely solely on it.”

If a child presents with Spitzoid-looking lesion, biopsy is generally preferred to observation. “The traditional belief was that punch biopsy was preferable, followed by shave biopsy,” she said. “This is always on a case-by-case basis.”

However, results from a retrospective study of the records of 123 cases of biopsy-proven Spitz nevi with incomplete removal on biopsy suggests that the method of biopsy matters. The researchers found that the presence of residual lesion in the re-excision specimen was significantly higher when the initial biopsy was done by punch biopsy (90.9%) when compared with shave biopsy (48.9%) and formal excision (62.5%; P < .05).

“This suggests that shave may better than punch for the initial biopsy, but the study was limited by its retrospective design,” Dr. Piggott said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps Cancer Center. “Even today it remains controversial whether you should do a shave or punch biopsy.”

Parameters for diagnosing Spitzoid tumors that pathologists look for under the microscope are asymmetry, Clark’s level IV/V, lack of maturation, solid growth, nuclear pleomorphism, high nuclear-cytoplasmic ratio, and mitoses that are atypical, deep, or that exceed 6 mm² in size.

In terms of treatment recommendations for children with biopsy-proven Spitz nevi, Dr. Piggott said that there is no consensus among pediatric dermatologists. If the biopsy comes back as a benign Spitz nevus, the most reasonable approach is observation, “especially if there is no clinical residue — no pigment on exam, no papule left over in the scar,” she said. “You also want to educate the family about the rare potential for transformation down the line. Monitor for recurrence and consider re-excision if recurrence occurs.”

If the initial Spitz nevus biopsy reveals any degree of atypia, excision is preferred. “In young children, you have to weigh the risks of anesthesia for removal,” she said. “If you’re unable to excise the lesion, close observation is recommended at 6 months or 1 year.”

Treatment for borderline atypical Spitz tumor is excision, she continued, but no outcomes data exist that document a survival benefit with sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy. “The decision on whether to do a SLN biopsy is usually made on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Piggott said. “Nodal metastases from atypical Spitzoid tumors are not uncommon, but death from widespread disease is rare. If the SLN biopsy is positive, complete lymphadenectomy is associated with increased risk of morbidity and no evidence of increased survival. If lymph node disease is found, we in pediatric dermatology would consider referral to a pediatric oncologist for consideration of systemic therapy such as interferon or a newer immunotherapy.”

Dr. Piggott reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — During her dermatology residency training, Caroline Piggott, MD, was taught that the classic signs of a Spitz nevus were a symmetric arrangement of colors and structures, followed by certain features on dermoscopy.

“For a pigmented Spitz nevus, we were taught to look for a starburst pattern, a central area of homogeneous pigment, and peripheral symmetrical streaks or pseudopods,” Dr. Piggott, an adult and pediatric dermatologist at Scripps Clinic, San Diego, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “For Spitz nevi without pigment, we were taught to look for symmetric dotted vessels.”

However, results from a retrospective study published in 2015 gave her pause in relying on dermoscopy alone for assessing Spitz nevi. Researchers from Italy, Japan, and Brazil studied excision specimens of 384 Spitzoid-looking lesions in patients 12 years and older. On histology, 86.7% were diagnosed as benign Spitz nevi and 13.3% were diagnosed as melanoma.

When the researchers looked at the dermoscopic images, many cases of atypical Spitz nevi were indistinguishable from the benign Spitz nevi. Now, Dr. Piggott said, “I respect the dermoscopy criteria, but I don’t rely solely on it.”

If a child presents with Spitzoid-looking lesion, biopsy is generally preferred to observation. “The traditional belief was that punch biopsy was preferable, followed by shave biopsy,” she said. “This is always on a case-by-case basis.”

However, results from a retrospective study of the records of 123 cases of biopsy-proven Spitz nevi with incomplete removal on biopsy suggests that the method of biopsy matters. The researchers found that the presence of residual lesion in the re-excision specimen was significantly higher when the initial biopsy was done by punch biopsy (90.9%) when compared with shave biopsy (48.9%) and formal excision (62.5%; P < .05).

“This suggests that shave may better than punch for the initial biopsy, but the study was limited by its retrospective design,” Dr. Piggott said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps Cancer Center. “Even today it remains controversial whether you should do a shave or punch biopsy.”

Parameters for diagnosing Spitzoid tumors that pathologists look for under the microscope are asymmetry, Clark’s level IV/V, lack of maturation, solid growth, nuclear pleomorphism, high nuclear-cytoplasmic ratio, and mitoses that are atypical, deep, or that exceed 6 mm² in size.

In terms of treatment recommendations for children with biopsy-proven Spitz nevi, Dr. Piggott said that there is no consensus among pediatric dermatologists. If the biopsy comes back as a benign Spitz nevus, the most reasonable approach is observation, “especially if there is no clinical residue — no pigment on exam, no papule left over in the scar,” she said. “You also want to educate the family about the rare potential for transformation down the line. Monitor for recurrence and consider re-excision if recurrence occurs.”

If the initial Spitz nevus biopsy reveals any degree of atypia, excision is preferred. “In young children, you have to weigh the risks of anesthesia for removal,” she said. “If you’re unable to excise the lesion, close observation is recommended at 6 months or 1 year.”

Treatment for borderline atypical Spitz tumor is excision, she continued, but no outcomes data exist that document a survival benefit with sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy. “The decision on whether to do a SLN biopsy is usually made on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Piggott said. “Nodal metastases from atypical Spitzoid tumors are not uncommon, but death from widespread disease is rare. If the SLN biopsy is positive, complete lymphadenectomy is associated with increased risk of morbidity and no evidence of increased survival. If lymph node disease is found, we in pediatric dermatology would consider referral to a pediatric oncologist for consideration of systemic therapy such as interferon or a newer immunotherapy.”

Dr. Piggott reported having no relevant disclosures.

SAN DIEGO — During her dermatology residency training, Caroline Piggott, MD, was taught that the classic signs of a Spitz nevus were a symmetric arrangement of colors and structures, followed by certain features on dermoscopy.

“For a pigmented Spitz nevus, we were taught to look for a starburst pattern, a central area of homogeneous pigment, and peripheral symmetrical streaks or pseudopods,” Dr. Piggott, an adult and pediatric dermatologist at Scripps Clinic, San Diego, said at the annual Cutaneous Malignancy Update. “For Spitz nevi without pigment, we were taught to look for symmetric dotted vessels.”

However, results from a retrospective study published in 2015 gave her pause in relying on dermoscopy alone for assessing Spitz nevi. Researchers from Italy, Japan, and Brazil studied excision specimens of 384 Spitzoid-looking lesions in patients 12 years and older. On histology, 86.7% were diagnosed as benign Spitz nevi and 13.3% were diagnosed as melanoma.

When the researchers looked at the dermoscopic images, many cases of atypical Spitz nevi were indistinguishable from the benign Spitz nevi. Now, Dr. Piggott said, “I respect the dermoscopy criteria, but I don’t rely solely on it.”

If a child presents with Spitzoid-looking lesion, biopsy is generally preferred to observation. “The traditional belief was that punch biopsy was preferable, followed by shave biopsy,” she said. “This is always on a case-by-case basis.”

However, results from a retrospective study of the records of 123 cases of biopsy-proven Spitz nevi with incomplete removal on biopsy suggests that the method of biopsy matters. The researchers found that the presence of residual lesion in the re-excision specimen was significantly higher when the initial biopsy was done by punch biopsy (90.9%) when compared with shave biopsy (48.9%) and formal excision (62.5%; P < .05).

“This suggests that shave may better than punch for the initial biopsy, but the study was limited by its retrospective design,” Dr. Piggott said at the meeting, which was hosted by Scripps Cancer Center. “Even today it remains controversial whether you should do a shave or punch biopsy.”

Parameters for diagnosing Spitzoid tumors that pathologists look for under the microscope are asymmetry, Clark’s level IV/V, lack of maturation, solid growth, nuclear pleomorphism, high nuclear-cytoplasmic ratio, and mitoses that are atypical, deep, or that exceed 6 mm² in size.

In terms of treatment recommendations for children with biopsy-proven Spitz nevi, Dr. Piggott said that there is no consensus among pediatric dermatologists. If the biopsy comes back as a benign Spitz nevus, the most reasonable approach is observation, “especially if there is no clinical residue — no pigment on exam, no papule left over in the scar,” she said. “You also want to educate the family about the rare potential for transformation down the line. Monitor for recurrence and consider re-excision if recurrence occurs.”

If the initial Spitz nevus biopsy reveals any degree of atypia, excision is preferred. “In young children, you have to weigh the risks of anesthesia for removal,” she said. “If you’re unable to excise the lesion, close observation is recommended at 6 months or 1 year.”

Treatment for borderline atypical Spitz tumor is excision, she continued, but no outcomes data exist that document a survival benefit with sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy. “The decision on whether to do a SLN biopsy is usually made on a case-by-case basis,” Dr. Piggott said. “Nodal metastases from atypical Spitzoid tumors are not uncommon, but death from widespread disease is rare. If the SLN biopsy is positive, complete lymphadenectomy is associated with increased risk of morbidity and no evidence of increased survival. If lymph node disease is found, we in pediatric dermatology would consider referral to a pediatric oncologist for consideration of systemic therapy such as interferon or a newer immunotherapy.”

Dr. Piggott reported having no relevant disclosures.

Children and adolescents ages 5-17 who received a bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccine were less likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared with those who were unvaccinated or received only the monovalent COVID-19 vaccine, according to new data published February 6 in JAMA.

“All eligible children and adolescents should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations,” wrote the authors, led by Leora R. Feldstein, PhD, with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta.

By the end of 2023, at least 911 youths ages 5-17 had died from COVID-related causes.

Researchers found that compared with participants who did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine or got monovalent-only doses 180 days or more before, the adjusted vaccine effectiveness of a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose against SARS-CoV-2 infection was 51.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.6%-71.9%) 7-60 days after vaccination. Relative effectiveness was 62.4% (95% CI, 38.5%-81.1%) 61-150 days after vaccination. The researchers said the confidence intervals were wide because of the small sample size.

The information can help inform public health strategies, the authors noted, especially as new variants emerge.
 

Bivalent Dose Recommended in Fall of 2022

Bivalent mRNA COVID vaccines were recommended in the United States for children and adolescents ages 12 years or older on Sept. 1, 2022, and for children ages 5-11 on Oct. 12, 2022, when Omicron BA.4/5 types were the predominant circulating variant.

The study included 2,959 participants who completed periodic surveys (answering questions on demographics, household details, chronic medical conditions, and COVID-19 symptoms) and submitted weekly self-collected nasal swabs (whether or not they had symptoms). Those in the study submitted additional nasal swabs if they developed any symptoms.

Median adherence to weekly upper respiratory specimen swabbing was high throughout the study period at 93.8%.

Data from Sept. 4, 2022, to Jan. 31, 2023, were combined from three prospective US cohort studies at six sites. In addition to the surveys, researchers used information from state immunization information systems and electronic medical records.
 

Most of the Infected Were Unvaccinated or Had Monovalent Vax

Of the 426 participants (14.4% of the combined cohorts) infected with SARS-CoV-2, 383 (89.9%) were either unvaccinated or received monovalent vaccine doses only.

Calculations were adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, health conditions, prior SARS-CoV-2 infections, geographic location, proportion of circulating variants by site, and local virus prevalence.

Participants living in Oregon, for example, had the highest uptake of bivalent COVID-19 vaccine (56.2%), whereas those in Texas had the lowest (2.4%). Participants reporting Hispanic ethnicity had lower bivalent uptake (17.1%) compared with non-Hispanic participants of all races (27.1%).

Of the 2,207 participants who did not receive a bivalent dose, 24.2% were unvaccinated and 1,672 (75.8%) received at least 1 monovalent dose.

The researchers said they saw no sign of waning effectiveness 61-150 days (the limit for this analysis) after receipt of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine.

They wrote that continuation of the cohorts will allow study of waning patterns, which could help inform vaccine recommendations.

Among the limitations of the study are that testing methods and the COVID-19 symptoms surveyed varied among the three cohorts, so there may be some differences in defining infection or symptomatic COVID. In addition, the researchers were not able to account for the social vulnerability index and immunocompromised status, which could have affected vaccine uptake and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

This study was supported by the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Coauthor Dr. Caban-Martinez reported grants from the Florida Firefighter Cancer Initiative and the Florida Department of Health. Coauthors Dr. Chu, Dr. Englund, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Monto reported receiving personal fees or grants from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hegmann reported being the editor of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine practice guidelines. Coauthor Dr. Gaglani reported serving as cochair of the infectious diseases and immunization committee and the respiratory syncytial virus task force lead for the Texas Pediatric Society and the Texas Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. No other disclosures were reported.

Children and adolescents ages 5-17 who received a bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccine were less likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared with those who were unvaccinated or received only the monovalent COVID-19 vaccine, according to new data published February 6 in JAMA.

“All eligible children and adolescents should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations,” wrote the authors, led by Leora R. Feldstein, PhD, with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta.

By the end of 2023, at least 911 youths ages 5-17 had died from COVID-related causes.

Researchers found that compared with participants who did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine or got monovalent-only doses 180 days or more before, the adjusted vaccine effectiveness of a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose against SARS-CoV-2 infection was 51.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.6%-71.9%) 7-60 days after vaccination. Relative effectiveness was 62.4% (95% CI, 38.5%-81.1%) 61-150 days after vaccination. The researchers said the confidence intervals were wide because of the small sample size.

The information can help inform public health strategies, the authors noted, especially as new variants emerge.
 

Bivalent Dose Recommended in Fall of 2022

Bivalent mRNA COVID vaccines were recommended in the United States for children and adolescents ages 12 years or older on Sept. 1, 2022, and for children ages 5-11 on Oct. 12, 2022, when Omicron BA.4/5 types were the predominant circulating variant.

The study included 2,959 participants who completed periodic surveys (answering questions on demographics, household details, chronic medical conditions, and COVID-19 symptoms) and submitted weekly self-collected nasal swabs (whether or not they had symptoms). Those in the study submitted additional nasal swabs if they developed any symptoms.

Median adherence to weekly upper respiratory specimen swabbing was high throughout the study period at 93.8%.

Data from Sept. 4, 2022, to Jan. 31, 2023, were combined from three prospective US cohort studies at six sites. In addition to the surveys, researchers used information from state immunization information systems and electronic medical records.
 

Most of the Infected Were Unvaccinated or Had Monovalent Vax

Of the 426 participants (14.4% of the combined cohorts) infected with SARS-CoV-2, 383 (89.9%) were either unvaccinated or received monovalent vaccine doses only.

Calculations were adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, health conditions, prior SARS-CoV-2 infections, geographic location, proportion of circulating variants by site, and local virus prevalence.

Participants living in Oregon, for example, had the highest uptake of bivalent COVID-19 vaccine (56.2%), whereas those in Texas had the lowest (2.4%). Participants reporting Hispanic ethnicity had lower bivalent uptake (17.1%) compared with non-Hispanic participants of all races (27.1%).

Of the 2,207 participants who did not receive a bivalent dose, 24.2% were unvaccinated and 1,672 (75.8%) received at least 1 monovalent dose.

The researchers said they saw no sign of waning effectiveness 61-150 days (the limit for this analysis) after receipt of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine.

They wrote that continuation of the cohorts will allow study of waning patterns, which could help inform vaccine recommendations.

Among the limitations of the study are that testing methods and the COVID-19 symptoms surveyed varied among the three cohorts, so there may be some differences in defining infection or symptomatic COVID. In addition, the researchers were not able to account for the social vulnerability index and immunocompromised status, which could have affected vaccine uptake and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

This study was supported by the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Coauthor Dr. Caban-Martinez reported grants from the Florida Firefighter Cancer Initiative and the Florida Department of Health. Coauthors Dr. Chu, Dr. Englund, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Monto reported receiving personal fees or grants from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hegmann reported being the editor of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine practice guidelines. Coauthor Dr. Gaglani reported serving as cochair of the infectious diseases and immunization committee and the respiratory syncytial virus task force lead for the Texas Pediatric Society and the Texas Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. No other disclosures were reported.

Children and adolescents ages 5-17 who received a bivalent COVID-19 mRNA vaccine were less likely to become infected with SARS-CoV-2 compared with those who were unvaccinated or received only the monovalent COVID-19 vaccine, according to new data published February 6 in JAMA.

“All eligible children and adolescents should remain up to date with recommended COVID-19 vaccinations,” wrote the authors, led by Leora R. Feldstein, PhD, with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta.

By the end of 2023, at least 911 youths ages 5-17 had died from COVID-related causes.

Researchers found that compared with participants who did not receive the COVID-19 vaccine or got monovalent-only doses 180 days or more before, the adjusted vaccine effectiveness of a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine dose against SARS-CoV-2 infection was 51.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 23.6%-71.9%) 7-60 days after vaccination. Relative effectiveness was 62.4% (95% CI, 38.5%-81.1%) 61-150 days after vaccination. The researchers said the confidence intervals were wide because of the small sample size.

The information can help inform public health strategies, the authors noted, especially as new variants emerge.
 

Bivalent Dose Recommended in Fall of 2022

Bivalent mRNA COVID vaccines were recommended in the United States for children and adolescents ages 12 years or older on Sept. 1, 2022, and for children ages 5-11 on Oct. 12, 2022, when Omicron BA.4/5 types were the predominant circulating variant.

The study included 2,959 participants who completed periodic surveys (answering questions on demographics, household details, chronic medical conditions, and COVID-19 symptoms) and submitted weekly self-collected nasal swabs (whether or not they had symptoms). Those in the study submitted additional nasal swabs if they developed any symptoms.

Median adherence to weekly upper respiratory specimen swabbing was high throughout the study period at 93.8%.

Data from Sept. 4, 2022, to Jan. 31, 2023, were combined from three prospective US cohort studies at six sites. In addition to the surveys, researchers used information from state immunization information systems and electronic medical records.
 

Most of the Infected Were Unvaccinated or Had Monovalent Vax

Of the 426 participants (14.4% of the combined cohorts) infected with SARS-CoV-2, 383 (89.9%) were either unvaccinated or received monovalent vaccine doses only.

Calculations were adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, health conditions, prior SARS-CoV-2 infections, geographic location, proportion of circulating variants by site, and local virus prevalence.

Participants living in Oregon, for example, had the highest uptake of bivalent COVID-19 vaccine (56.2%), whereas those in Texas had the lowest (2.4%). Participants reporting Hispanic ethnicity had lower bivalent uptake (17.1%) compared with non-Hispanic participants of all races (27.1%).

Of the 2,207 participants who did not receive a bivalent dose, 24.2% were unvaccinated and 1,672 (75.8%) received at least 1 monovalent dose.

The researchers said they saw no sign of waning effectiveness 61-150 days (the limit for this analysis) after receipt of the bivalent COVID-19 vaccine.

They wrote that continuation of the cohorts will allow study of waning patterns, which could help inform vaccine recommendations.

Among the limitations of the study are that testing methods and the COVID-19 symptoms surveyed varied among the three cohorts, so there may be some differences in defining infection or symptomatic COVID. In addition, the researchers were not able to account for the social vulnerability index and immunocompromised status, which could have affected vaccine uptake and risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

This study was supported by the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Coauthor Dr. Caban-Martinez reported grants from the Florida Firefighter Cancer Initiative and the Florida Department of Health. Coauthors Dr. Chu, Dr. Englund, Dr. Martin, and Dr. Monto reported receiving personal fees or grants from multiple pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Hegmann reported being the editor of the American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine practice guidelines. Coauthor Dr. Gaglani reported serving as cochair of the infectious diseases and immunization committee and the respiratory syncytial virus task force lead for the Texas Pediatric Society and the Texas Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics. No other disclosures were reported.

When it comes to managing acne, new guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology rate the existing evidence as “strong” for topical benzoyl peroxide, retinoids, and/or antibiotics and their fixed-dose combinations, as well as the use of oral isotretinoin for severe forms of the condition. The guidelines also conditionally recommend the use of topical clascoterone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, oral minocycline, sarecycline, combined oral contraceptives, and spironolactone.

The development updates the AAD’s 2016 guidelines for managing acne. “Since there have been several important new treatments introduced since the prior guidelines, it was determined that there was a need to update these guidelines,” John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, who cochaired a 16-member multidisciplinary work group that assembled the guidelines, told this news organization.

Dr. Barbieri

For the new guidelines, which were published online January 30, 2023, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Barbieri, a dermatologist who directs the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, guidelines cochair Rachel V. Reynolds, MD, a dermatologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues conducted a systematic review of evidence regarding the management of acne. Next, the work group applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading clinical recommendations based on relevant randomized trials in the medical literature.

In all, the work group made 18 recommendations and 5 good practice statements. They ranked 7 of the recommendations as “strong” based on the evidence reviewed, and the rest as “conditional.” The “strong” recommendations include the use of benzoyl peroxide, the use of topical retinoids, the use of topical antibiotics, a fixed dose of a combination topical antibiotic with benzoyl peroxide, a fixed dose of a combination topical retinoid with topical antibiotic, a fixed dose combination of a topical retinoid with benzoyl peroxide, and the use of doxycycline.

“Conditional” recommendations include those for the use of clascoterone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, minocycline, sarecycline, doxycycline over azithromycin; combined oral contraceptive pills, spironolactone, and, for patients with severe acne, traditional daily dosing of isotretinoin over intermittent dosing of isotretinoin.

Meanwhile, good clinical practice statements contained in the document include using topical therapies combining multiple mechanisms of action, limiting systemic antibiotic use, combining topical and systemic antibiotics with benzoyl peroxide and other topical therapies, and adjuvant intralesional corticosteroid injections.

In Dr. Barbieri’s opinion, the recommendations regarding clascoterone and sarecycline represent important developments. “Clascoterone is the first FDA-approved treatment that can address hormonal causes of acne in both men and women,” he told this news organization. “Sarecycline is a narrow-spectrum tetracycline that might have some advantages over other tetracyclines such as doxycycline and minocycline. It will be important to payers to provide coverage to ensure that patients have access to these valuable new treatments.”

Dr. Barbieri added that while no evidence exists to suggest that minocycline is more effective than doxycycline, minocycline can be associated with rare but serious side effects, such as vestibular dysfunction, autoimmune hepatitis, drug-induced lupus, and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). “We should consider whether reducing use of minocycline might be beneficial to our overall care of patients with acne,” he said. “In addition, we discuss that use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be limited due to risk of severe adverse reactions such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, and acute respiratory failure.”

Another highlight of the guidelines, he continued, are specific recommendations for young, healthy patients on isotretinoin or spironolactone, which “can help clinicians and patients who are interested in less frequent monitoring feel more comfortable with these approaches,” he said.

Many discussions among work group members dealt with how to best implement the GRADE approach to the project “while ensuring the guidelines were as clinically relevant and actionable as possible,” according to Dr. Barbieri. “I think an important issue going forward will be to consider how to update and modify the GRADE approach to fit the unique needs of creating evidence-based guidelines for the management of skin disease.”

The work group acknowledged limitations of the guidelines, including identification of “important evidence gaps on the use of microbiology and endocrinology testing in acne, the use of systemic antibiotics beyond tetracycline-class antibiotics, physical modalities, complementary and alternative therapies, dietary interventions for the treatment of acne, and cost-effectiveness of acne treatments,” they wrote. “RCTs with long-term follow-up and comparative effectiveness research are necessary to examine and compare patient-centered acne treatment outcomes.”

The AAD funded the project. Dr. Barbieri disclosed that he serves as investigator for the National Institutes of Health and the National Psoriasis Foundation. Many coauthors reported being a speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies.

When it comes to managing acne, new guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology rate the existing evidence as “strong” for topical benzoyl peroxide, retinoids, and/or antibiotics and their fixed-dose combinations, as well as the use of oral isotretinoin for severe forms of the condition. The guidelines also conditionally recommend the use of topical clascoterone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, oral minocycline, sarecycline, combined oral contraceptives, and spironolactone.

The development updates the AAD’s 2016 guidelines for managing acne. “Since there have been several important new treatments introduced since the prior guidelines, it was determined that there was a need to update these guidelines,” John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, who cochaired a 16-member multidisciplinary work group that assembled the guidelines, told this news organization.

Dr. Barbieri

For the new guidelines, which were published online January 30, 2023, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Barbieri, a dermatologist who directs the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, guidelines cochair Rachel V. Reynolds, MD, a dermatologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues conducted a systematic review of evidence regarding the management of acne. Next, the work group applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading clinical recommendations based on relevant randomized trials in the medical literature.

In all, the work group made 18 recommendations and 5 good practice statements. They ranked 7 of the recommendations as “strong” based on the evidence reviewed, and the rest as “conditional.” The “strong” recommendations include the use of benzoyl peroxide, the use of topical retinoids, the use of topical antibiotics, a fixed dose of a combination topical antibiotic with benzoyl peroxide, a fixed dose of a combination topical retinoid with topical antibiotic, a fixed dose combination of a topical retinoid with benzoyl peroxide, and the use of doxycycline.

“Conditional” recommendations include those for the use of clascoterone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, minocycline, sarecycline, doxycycline over azithromycin; combined oral contraceptive pills, spironolactone, and, for patients with severe acne, traditional daily dosing of isotretinoin over intermittent dosing of isotretinoin.

Meanwhile, good clinical practice statements contained in the document include using topical therapies combining multiple mechanisms of action, limiting systemic antibiotic use, combining topical and systemic antibiotics with benzoyl peroxide and other topical therapies, and adjuvant intralesional corticosteroid injections.

In Dr. Barbieri’s opinion, the recommendations regarding clascoterone and sarecycline represent important developments. “Clascoterone is the first FDA-approved treatment that can address hormonal causes of acne in both men and women,” he told this news organization. “Sarecycline is a narrow-spectrum tetracycline that might have some advantages over other tetracyclines such as doxycycline and minocycline. It will be important to payers to provide coverage to ensure that patients have access to these valuable new treatments.”

Dr. Barbieri added that while no evidence exists to suggest that minocycline is more effective than doxycycline, minocycline can be associated with rare but serious side effects, such as vestibular dysfunction, autoimmune hepatitis, drug-induced lupus, and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). “We should consider whether reducing use of minocycline might be beneficial to our overall care of patients with acne,” he said. “In addition, we discuss that use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be limited due to risk of severe adverse reactions such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, and acute respiratory failure.”

Another highlight of the guidelines, he continued, are specific recommendations for young, healthy patients on isotretinoin or spironolactone, which “can help clinicians and patients who are interested in less frequent monitoring feel more comfortable with these approaches,” he said.

Many discussions among work group members dealt with how to best implement the GRADE approach to the project “while ensuring the guidelines were as clinically relevant and actionable as possible,” according to Dr. Barbieri. “I think an important issue going forward will be to consider how to update and modify the GRADE approach to fit the unique needs of creating evidence-based guidelines for the management of skin disease.”

The work group acknowledged limitations of the guidelines, including identification of “important evidence gaps on the use of microbiology and endocrinology testing in acne, the use of systemic antibiotics beyond tetracycline-class antibiotics, physical modalities, complementary and alternative therapies, dietary interventions for the treatment of acne, and cost-effectiveness of acne treatments,” they wrote. “RCTs with long-term follow-up and comparative effectiveness research are necessary to examine and compare patient-centered acne treatment outcomes.”

The AAD funded the project. Dr. Barbieri disclosed that he serves as investigator for the National Institutes of Health and the National Psoriasis Foundation. Many coauthors reported being a speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies.

When it comes to managing acne, new guidelines from the American Academy of Dermatology rate the existing evidence as “strong” for topical benzoyl peroxide, retinoids, and/or antibiotics and their fixed-dose combinations, as well as the use of oral isotretinoin for severe forms of the condition. The guidelines also conditionally recommend the use of topical clascoterone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, oral minocycline, sarecycline, combined oral contraceptives, and spironolactone.

The development updates the AAD’s 2016 guidelines for managing acne. “Since there have been several important new treatments introduced since the prior guidelines, it was determined that there was a need to update these guidelines,” John S. Barbieri, MD, MBA, who cochaired a 16-member multidisciplinary work group that assembled the guidelines, told this news organization.

Dr. Barbieri

For the new guidelines, which were published online January 30, 2023, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, Dr. Barbieri, a dermatologist who directs the Advanced Acne Therapeutics Clinic at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, guidelines cochair Rachel V. Reynolds, MD, a dermatologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues conducted a systematic review of evidence regarding the management of acne. Next, the work group applied the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for assessing the certainty of the evidence and formulating and grading clinical recommendations based on relevant randomized trials in the medical literature.

In all, the work group made 18 recommendations and 5 good practice statements. They ranked 7 of the recommendations as “strong” based on the evidence reviewed, and the rest as “conditional.” The “strong” recommendations include the use of benzoyl peroxide, the use of topical retinoids, the use of topical antibiotics, a fixed dose of a combination topical antibiotic with benzoyl peroxide, a fixed dose of a combination topical retinoid with topical antibiotic, a fixed dose combination of a topical retinoid with benzoyl peroxide, and the use of doxycycline.

“Conditional” recommendations include those for the use of clascoterone, salicylic acid, azelaic acid, minocycline, sarecycline, doxycycline over azithromycin; combined oral contraceptive pills, spironolactone, and, for patients with severe acne, traditional daily dosing of isotretinoin over intermittent dosing of isotretinoin.

Meanwhile, good clinical practice statements contained in the document include using topical therapies combining multiple mechanisms of action, limiting systemic antibiotic use, combining topical and systemic antibiotics with benzoyl peroxide and other topical therapies, and adjuvant intralesional corticosteroid injections.

In Dr. Barbieri’s opinion, the recommendations regarding clascoterone and sarecycline represent important developments. “Clascoterone is the first FDA-approved treatment that can address hormonal causes of acne in both men and women,” he told this news organization. “Sarecycline is a narrow-spectrum tetracycline that might have some advantages over other tetracyclines such as doxycycline and minocycline. It will be important to payers to provide coverage to ensure that patients have access to these valuable new treatments.”

Dr. Barbieri added that while no evidence exists to suggest that minocycline is more effective than doxycycline, minocycline can be associated with rare but serious side effects, such as vestibular dysfunction, autoimmune hepatitis, drug-induced lupus, and drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS). “We should consider whether reducing use of minocycline might be beneficial to our overall care of patients with acne,” he said. “In addition, we discuss that use of trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole should be limited due to risk of severe adverse reactions such as Stevens-Johnson syndrome/toxic epidermal necrolysis, and acute respiratory failure.”

Another highlight of the guidelines, he continued, are specific recommendations for young, healthy patients on isotretinoin or spironolactone, which “can help clinicians and patients who are interested in less frequent monitoring feel more comfortable with these approaches,” he said.

Many discussions among work group members dealt with how to best implement the GRADE approach to the project “while ensuring the guidelines were as clinically relevant and actionable as possible,” according to Dr. Barbieri. “I think an important issue going forward will be to consider how to update and modify the GRADE approach to fit the unique needs of creating evidence-based guidelines for the management of skin disease.”

The work group acknowledged limitations of the guidelines, including identification of “important evidence gaps on the use of microbiology and endocrinology testing in acne, the use of systemic antibiotics beyond tetracycline-class antibiotics, physical modalities, complementary and alternative therapies, dietary interventions for the treatment of acne, and cost-effectiveness of acne treatments,” they wrote. “RCTs with long-term follow-up and comparative effectiveness research are necessary to examine and compare patient-centered acne treatment outcomes.”

The AAD funded the project. Dr. Barbieri disclosed that he serves as investigator for the National Institutes of Health and the National Psoriasis Foundation. Many coauthors reported being a speaker for and/or a consultant and advisory board member to many pharmaceutical companies.

There is insufficient evidence that drugs targeting the Janus kinase–signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway increase the risk of cardiovascular or thrombotic complications in people undergoing treatment for a variety of dermatological conditions, at least in the short term, say the authors of a new meta-analysis published in JAMA Dermatology.

Considering data on over 17,000 patients with different dermatoses from 45 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials with an average follow up of 16 weeks, they found there was no significant increase in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with dermatoses treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, compared with placebo.

The I² statistic was 0.00% for both MACE and VTE comparing the two arms, indicating that the results were unlikely to be due to chance. There was no increased risk in MACE between those on placebo and those on JAK-STAT inhibitors, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.47; or for VTE risk, with an RR of 0.46.

Similar findings were obtained when data were analyzed according to the dermatological condition being treated, mechanism of action of the medication, or whether the medication carried a boxed warning.

These data “suggest inconsistency with established sentiments,” that JAK-STAT inhibitors increase the risk for cardiovascular events, Patrick Ireland, MD, of the University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia, and coauthors wrote in the article. “This may be owing to the limited time frames in which these rare events could be adequately captured, or the ages of enrolled patients being too young to realize the well established heightened risks of developing MACE and VTE,” they suggested.

However, the findings challenge the notion that the cardiovascular complications of these drugs are the same in all patients; dermatological use may not be associated with the same risks as with use for rheumatologic indications.
 

Class-Wide Boxed Warning

“JAK-STAT [inhibitors] have had some pretty indemnifying data against their use, with the ORAL [Surveillance] study demonstrating increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and malignancy,” Dr. Ireland said in an interview.

ORAL Surveillance was an open-label, postmarketing trial conducted in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. The results led the US Food and Drug Administration to require information about the risks of serious heart-related events, cancer, blood clots, and death in a boxed warning for JAK-STAT inhibitors in 2022.

“I think it’s important to recognize that these [ORAL Surveillance participants] are very different patients to the typical dermatological patient being treated with a JAK-STAT [inhibitors], with newer studies demonstrating a much safer profile than initially thought,” Dr. Ireland said.
 

Examining Risk in Dermatological Conditions

The meta-analysis performed by Dr. Ireland and associates focused specifically on the risk for MACE and VTE in patients being treated for dermatological conditions, and included trials published up until June 2023. Only trials that had included a placebo arm were considered; pooled analyses, long-term extension trial data, post hoc analyses, and pediatric-specific trials were excluded.

Most (25) of the trials were phase 2b or phase 3 trials, 18 were phase 2 to 2b, and two were phase 1 trials. The studies included 12,996 participants, mostly with atopic dermatitis or psoriasis, who were treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, which included baricitinib (2846 patients), tofacitinib (2470), upadacitinib (2218), abrocitinib (1904), and deucravacitinib (1492), among others. There were 4925 patients on placebo.

Overall, MACE — defined as a combined endpoint of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure, and unstable angina, as well as arterial embolism — occurred in 13 of the JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in four of those on placebo. VTE — defined as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and any unusual site thrombosis — was reported in eight JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in one patient on placebo.

The pooled incidence ratios for MACE and VTE were calculated as 0.20 per 100 person exposure years (PEY) for JAK-STAT inhibitor treatment and 0.13 PEY for placebo. The pooled RRs comparing the two treatment groups were a respective 1.13 for MACE and 2.79 for VTE, but neither RR reached statistical significance.

No difference was seen between the treatment arms in terms of treatment emergent adverse events (RR, 1.05), serious adverse events (RR, 0.92), or study discontinuation because of adverse events (RR, 0.94).
 

Reassuring Results?

Dr. Ireland and coauthors said the finding should help to reassure clinicians that the short-term use of JAK-STAT inhibitors in patients with dermatological conditions with low cardiovascular risk profiles “appears to be both safe and well tolerated.” They cautioned, however, that “clinicians must remain judicious” when using these medications for longer periods and in high-risk patient populations.

This was a pragmatic meta-analysis that provides useful information for dermatologists, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

“When there are safety concerns, I think that’s where data like this are so important to not just allay the fears of practitioners, but also to arm the practitioner with information for when they discuss a possible treatment with a patient,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved in the study.

“What’s unique here is that they’re looking at any possible use of JAK inhibitors for dermatological disease,” so this represents patients that dermatologists would be seeing, he added.

“The limitation here is time, we only can say so much about the safety of the medication with the data that we have,” Dr. Friedman said. Almost 4 months is “a good amount of time” to know about the cardiovascular risks, he said, but added, what happens then? Will the risk increase and will patients need to be switched to another medication?

“There’s no line in the sand,” with regard to using a JAK-STAT inhibitor. “If you look at the label, they’re not meant to be used incrementally,” but as ongoing treatment, while considering the needs of the patient and the relative risks and benefits, he said.

With that in mind, “the open label extension studies for all these [JAK-STAT inhibitors] are really, really important to get a sense of ‘do new signals emerge down the road.’ ”

The meta-analysis received no commercial funding. One author of the work reported personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies which were done outside of analysis. Dr. Friedman has received research funding from or acted as a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies including, Incyte, Pfizer, Eli Lily, and AbbVie.

There is insufficient evidence that drugs targeting the Janus kinase–signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway increase the risk of cardiovascular or thrombotic complications in people undergoing treatment for a variety of dermatological conditions, at least in the short term, say the authors of a new meta-analysis published in JAMA Dermatology.

Considering data on over 17,000 patients with different dermatoses from 45 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials with an average follow up of 16 weeks, they found there was no significant increase in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with dermatoses treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, compared with placebo.

The I² statistic was 0.00% for both MACE and VTE comparing the two arms, indicating that the results were unlikely to be due to chance. There was no increased risk in MACE between those on placebo and those on JAK-STAT inhibitors, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.47; or for VTE risk, with an RR of 0.46.

Similar findings were obtained when data were analyzed according to the dermatological condition being treated, mechanism of action of the medication, or whether the medication carried a boxed warning.

These data “suggest inconsistency with established sentiments,” that JAK-STAT inhibitors increase the risk for cardiovascular events, Patrick Ireland, MD, of the University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia, and coauthors wrote in the article. “This may be owing to the limited time frames in which these rare events could be adequately captured, or the ages of enrolled patients being too young to realize the well established heightened risks of developing MACE and VTE,” they suggested.

However, the findings challenge the notion that the cardiovascular complications of these drugs are the same in all patients; dermatological use may not be associated with the same risks as with use for rheumatologic indications.
 

Class-Wide Boxed Warning

“JAK-STAT [inhibitors] have had some pretty indemnifying data against their use, with the ORAL [Surveillance] study demonstrating increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and malignancy,” Dr. Ireland said in an interview.

ORAL Surveillance was an open-label, postmarketing trial conducted in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. The results led the US Food and Drug Administration to require information about the risks of serious heart-related events, cancer, blood clots, and death in a boxed warning for JAK-STAT inhibitors in 2022.

“I think it’s important to recognize that these [ORAL Surveillance participants] are very different patients to the typical dermatological patient being treated with a JAK-STAT [inhibitors], with newer studies demonstrating a much safer profile than initially thought,” Dr. Ireland said.
 

Examining Risk in Dermatological Conditions

The meta-analysis performed by Dr. Ireland and associates focused specifically on the risk for MACE and VTE in patients being treated for dermatological conditions, and included trials published up until June 2023. Only trials that had included a placebo arm were considered; pooled analyses, long-term extension trial data, post hoc analyses, and pediatric-specific trials were excluded.

Most (25) of the trials were phase 2b or phase 3 trials, 18 were phase 2 to 2b, and two were phase 1 trials. The studies included 12,996 participants, mostly with atopic dermatitis or psoriasis, who were treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, which included baricitinib (2846 patients), tofacitinib (2470), upadacitinib (2218), abrocitinib (1904), and deucravacitinib (1492), among others. There were 4925 patients on placebo.

Overall, MACE — defined as a combined endpoint of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure, and unstable angina, as well as arterial embolism — occurred in 13 of the JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in four of those on placebo. VTE — defined as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and any unusual site thrombosis — was reported in eight JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in one patient on placebo.

The pooled incidence ratios for MACE and VTE were calculated as 0.20 per 100 person exposure years (PEY) for JAK-STAT inhibitor treatment and 0.13 PEY for placebo. The pooled RRs comparing the two treatment groups were a respective 1.13 for MACE and 2.79 for VTE, but neither RR reached statistical significance.

No difference was seen between the treatment arms in terms of treatment emergent adverse events (RR, 1.05), serious adverse events (RR, 0.92), or study discontinuation because of adverse events (RR, 0.94).
 

Reassuring Results?

Dr. Ireland and coauthors said the finding should help to reassure clinicians that the short-term use of JAK-STAT inhibitors in patients with dermatological conditions with low cardiovascular risk profiles “appears to be both safe and well tolerated.” They cautioned, however, that “clinicians must remain judicious” when using these medications for longer periods and in high-risk patient populations.

This was a pragmatic meta-analysis that provides useful information for dermatologists, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

“When there are safety concerns, I think that’s where data like this are so important to not just allay the fears of practitioners, but also to arm the practitioner with information for when they discuss a possible treatment with a patient,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved in the study.

“What’s unique here is that they’re looking at any possible use of JAK inhibitors for dermatological disease,” so this represents patients that dermatologists would be seeing, he added.

“The limitation here is time, we only can say so much about the safety of the medication with the data that we have,” Dr. Friedman said. Almost 4 months is “a good amount of time” to know about the cardiovascular risks, he said, but added, what happens then? Will the risk increase and will patients need to be switched to another medication?

“There’s no line in the sand,” with regard to using a JAK-STAT inhibitor. “If you look at the label, they’re not meant to be used incrementally,” but as ongoing treatment, while considering the needs of the patient and the relative risks and benefits, he said.

With that in mind, “the open label extension studies for all these [JAK-STAT inhibitors] are really, really important to get a sense of ‘do new signals emerge down the road.’ ”

The meta-analysis received no commercial funding. One author of the work reported personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies which were done outside of analysis. Dr. Friedman has received research funding from or acted as a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies including, Incyte, Pfizer, Eli Lily, and AbbVie.

There is insufficient evidence that drugs targeting the Janus kinase–signal transducer and activator of transcription (JAK-STAT) pathway increase the risk of cardiovascular or thrombotic complications in people undergoing treatment for a variety of dermatological conditions, at least in the short term, say the authors of a new meta-analysis published in JAMA Dermatology.

Considering data on over 17,000 patients with different dermatoses from 45 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials with an average follow up of 16 weeks, they found there was no significant increase in the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) in people with dermatoses treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, compared with placebo.

The I² statistic was 0.00% for both MACE and VTE comparing the two arms, indicating that the results were unlikely to be due to chance. There was no increased risk in MACE between those on placebo and those on JAK-STAT inhibitors, with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.47; or for VTE risk, with an RR of 0.46.

Similar findings were obtained when data were analyzed according to the dermatological condition being treated, mechanism of action of the medication, or whether the medication carried a boxed warning.

These data “suggest inconsistency with established sentiments,” that JAK-STAT inhibitors increase the risk for cardiovascular events, Patrick Ireland, MD, of the University of New South Wales, Randwick, Australia, and coauthors wrote in the article. “This may be owing to the limited time frames in which these rare events could be adequately captured, or the ages of enrolled patients being too young to realize the well established heightened risks of developing MACE and VTE,” they suggested.

However, the findings challenge the notion that the cardiovascular complications of these drugs are the same in all patients; dermatological use may not be associated with the same risks as with use for rheumatologic indications.
 

Class-Wide Boxed Warning

“JAK-STAT [inhibitors] have had some pretty indemnifying data against their use, with the ORAL [Surveillance] study demonstrating increased all-cause mortality, cardiovascular events, venous thromboembolism, and malignancy,” Dr. Ireland said in an interview.

ORAL Surveillance was an open-label, postmarketing trial conducted in patients with rheumatoid arthritis treated with tofacitinib or a tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitor. The results led the US Food and Drug Administration to require information about the risks of serious heart-related events, cancer, blood clots, and death in a boxed warning for JAK-STAT inhibitors in 2022.

“I think it’s important to recognize that these [ORAL Surveillance participants] are very different patients to the typical dermatological patient being treated with a JAK-STAT [inhibitors], with newer studies demonstrating a much safer profile than initially thought,” Dr. Ireland said.
 

Examining Risk in Dermatological Conditions

The meta-analysis performed by Dr. Ireland and associates focused specifically on the risk for MACE and VTE in patients being treated for dermatological conditions, and included trials published up until June 2023. Only trials that had included a placebo arm were considered; pooled analyses, long-term extension trial data, post hoc analyses, and pediatric-specific trials were excluded.

Most (25) of the trials were phase 2b or phase 3 trials, 18 were phase 2 to 2b, and two were phase 1 trials. The studies included 12,996 participants, mostly with atopic dermatitis or psoriasis, who were treated with JAK-STAT inhibitors, which included baricitinib (2846 patients), tofacitinib (2470), upadacitinib (2218), abrocitinib (1904), and deucravacitinib (1492), among others. There were 4925 patients on placebo.

Overall, MACE — defined as a combined endpoint of acute myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure, and unstable angina, as well as arterial embolism — occurred in 13 of the JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in four of those on placebo. VTE — defined as deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, and any unusual site thrombosis — was reported in eight JAK-STAT inhibitor-treated patients and in one patient on placebo.

The pooled incidence ratios for MACE and VTE were calculated as 0.20 per 100 person exposure years (PEY) for JAK-STAT inhibitor treatment and 0.13 PEY for placebo. The pooled RRs comparing the two treatment groups were a respective 1.13 for MACE and 2.79 for VTE, but neither RR reached statistical significance.

No difference was seen between the treatment arms in terms of treatment emergent adverse events (RR, 1.05), serious adverse events (RR, 0.92), or study discontinuation because of adverse events (RR, 0.94).
 

Reassuring Results?

Dr. Ireland and coauthors said the finding should help to reassure clinicians that the short-term use of JAK-STAT inhibitors in patients with dermatological conditions with low cardiovascular risk profiles “appears to be both safe and well tolerated.” They cautioned, however, that “clinicians must remain judicious” when using these medications for longer periods and in high-risk patient populations.

This was a pragmatic meta-analysis that provides useful information for dermatologists, Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, DC, said in an interview.

“When there are safety concerns, I think that’s where data like this are so important to not just allay the fears of practitioners, but also to arm the practitioner with information for when they discuss a possible treatment with a patient,” said Dr. Friedman, who was not involved in the study.

“What’s unique here is that they’re looking at any possible use of JAK inhibitors for dermatological disease,” so this represents patients that dermatologists would be seeing, he added.

“The limitation here is time, we only can say so much about the safety of the medication with the data that we have,” Dr. Friedman said. Almost 4 months is “a good amount of time” to know about the cardiovascular risks, he said, but added, what happens then? Will the risk increase and will patients need to be switched to another medication?

“There’s no line in the sand,” with regard to using a JAK-STAT inhibitor. “If you look at the label, they’re not meant to be used incrementally,” but as ongoing treatment, while considering the needs of the patient and the relative risks and benefits, he said.

With that in mind, “the open label extension studies for all these [JAK-STAT inhibitors] are really, really important to get a sense of ‘do new signals emerge down the road.’ ”

The meta-analysis received no commercial funding. One author of the work reported personal fees from several pharmaceutical companies which were done outside of analysis. Dr. Friedman has received research funding from or acted as a consultant for several pharmaceutical companies including, Incyte, Pfizer, Eli Lily, and AbbVie.