Pediatric News

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first and only adjuvanted, cell-based pandemic vaccine to provide active immunization against the influenza A virus H5N1 strain.
 

Influenza A (H5N1) monovalent vaccine, adjuvanted (Audenz, Seqirus) is for use in individuals aged 6 months and older.  It’s designed to be rapidly deployed to help protect the U.S. population and can be stockpiled for first responders in the event of a pandemic.

The vaccine and formulated prefilled syringes used in the vaccine are produced in a state-of-the-art production facility built and supported through a multiyear public-private partnership between Seqirus and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

“Pandemic influenza viruses can be deadly and spread rapidly, making production of safe, effective vaccines essential in saving lives,” BARDA Director Rick Bright, PhD, said in a company news release.

“With this licensure – the latest FDA-approved vaccine to prevent H5N1 influenza — we celebrate a decade-long partnership to achieve health security goals set by the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza and the 2019 Executive Order to speed the availability of influenza vaccine. Ultimately, this latest licensure means we can protect more people in an influenza pandemic,” said Bright.

“The approval of Audenz represents a key advance in influenza prevention and pandemic preparedness, combining leading-edge, cell-based manufacturing and adjuvant technologies,” Russell Basser, MD, chief scientist and senior vice president of research and development at Seqirus, said in the news release. “This pandemic influenza vaccine exemplifies our commitment to developing innovative technologies that can help provide rapid response during a pandemic emergency.”

Audenz had FDA fast track designation, a process designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs to treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first and only adjuvanted, cell-based pandemic vaccine to provide active immunization against the influenza A virus H5N1 strain.
 

Influenza A (H5N1) monovalent vaccine, adjuvanted (Audenz, Seqirus) is for use in individuals aged 6 months and older.  It’s designed to be rapidly deployed to help protect the U.S. population and can be stockpiled for first responders in the event of a pandemic.

The vaccine and formulated prefilled syringes used in the vaccine are produced in a state-of-the-art production facility built and supported through a multiyear public-private partnership between Seqirus and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

“Pandemic influenza viruses can be deadly and spread rapidly, making production of safe, effective vaccines essential in saving lives,” BARDA Director Rick Bright, PhD, said in a company news release.

“With this licensure – the latest FDA-approved vaccine to prevent H5N1 influenza — we celebrate a decade-long partnership to achieve health security goals set by the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza and the 2019 Executive Order to speed the availability of influenza vaccine. Ultimately, this latest licensure means we can protect more people in an influenza pandemic,” said Bright.

“The approval of Audenz represents a key advance in influenza prevention and pandemic preparedness, combining leading-edge, cell-based manufacturing and adjuvant technologies,” Russell Basser, MD, chief scientist and senior vice president of research and development at Seqirus, said in the news release. “This pandemic influenza vaccine exemplifies our commitment to developing innovative technologies that can help provide rapid response during a pandemic emergency.”

Audenz had FDA fast track designation, a process designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs to treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first and only adjuvanted, cell-based pandemic vaccine to provide active immunization against the influenza A virus H5N1 strain.
 

Influenza A (H5N1) monovalent vaccine, adjuvanted (Audenz, Seqirus) is for use in individuals aged 6 months and older.  It’s designed to be rapidly deployed to help protect the U.S. population and can be stockpiled for first responders in the event of a pandemic.

The vaccine and formulated prefilled syringes used in the vaccine are produced in a state-of-the-art production facility built and supported through a multiyear public-private partnership between Seqirus and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), part of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response at the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services.

“Pandemic influenza viruses can be deadly and spread rapidly, making production of safe, effective vaccines essential in saving lives,” BARDA Director Rick Bright, PhD, said in a company news release.

“With this licensure – the latest FDA-approved vaccine to prevent H5N1 influenza — we celebrate a decade-long partnership to achieve health security goals set by the National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza and the 2019 Executive Order to speed the availability of influenza vaccine. Ultimately, this latest licensure means we can protect more people in an influenza pandemic,” said Bright.

“The approval of Audenz represents a key advance in influenza prevention and pandemic preparedness, combining leading-edge, cell-based manufacturing and adjuvant technologies,” Russell Basser, MD, chief scientist and senior vice president of research and development at Seqirus, said in the news release. “This pandemic influenza vaccine exemplifies our commitment to developing innovative technologies that can help provide rapid response during a pandemic emergency.”

Audenz had FDA fast track designation, a process designed to facilitate the development and expedite the review of drugs to treat serious conditions and fill an unmet medical need.
 

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

LONDON – Treatment with the antihypertensive drug losartan raised no safety concerns in the treatment of children with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) and reduced signs of fibrosis in an early clinical study.

In the ongoing phase 1/2 REFLECT (Recessive dystrophic EB: Mechanisms of fibrosis and its prevention with Losartan in vivo) trial, involving 29 children, no severe complications have been noted so far, according to one of the study investigators, Dimitra Kiritsi, MD, of the University of Freiburg, Germany. At the EB World Congress, organized by the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Association (DEBRA), she presented interim data on 18 patients in the trial, emphasizing that the primary aim of the trial was to evaluate the safety of this treatment approach.

Over the 2 years the trial has been underway, 65 adverse events have been reported, of which 4 have been severe. Two of these were bacterial infections that required hospital treatment and the other two were a reduction in the general health condition of the child.

Losartan is an angiotensin-II receptor blocker (ARB) that has been in clinical use for more than 25 years in adults and 15 years in children over the age of 6 years.

The drug may be used for treating recessive dystrophic EB (RDEB) in the future, Dr. Kiritsi said, because it attenuates tumor necrosis factor–beta (TGF-beta) signaling, which is thought to be involved in the fibrotic process. So while it may not target the genetic defect, it could help ameliorate the effects of the disease.

The precursor to REFLECT was a study performed in a mouse disease model of EB (EMBO Mol Med. 2015;7:1211-28) where a reduction in fibrotic scarring was seen with losartan with “remarkable effects” on “mitten” deformity, Dr. Kiritsi said. The results of that study suggested that the earlier treatment with losartan was started in the course of the disease, the better the effect, she added. (Mitten deformity is the result of fused skin between the fingers or toes, and the subsequent buildup of fibrotic tissue causes the hand or foot to contract.)

REFLECT is an investigator-initiated trial that started in 2017 and is being funded by DEBRA International. It is a dual-center, nonrandomized, single-arm study in which children aged 3-16 years with RDEB are treated with losartan for 10 months, with follow-up at 3 months.

Various secondary endpoints were included to look for the first signs of any efficacy: the Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA), the Birmingham Epidermolysis Bullosa Severity Score (BEBS), the Epidermolysis Bullosa Disease Activity and Scarring Index (EBDASI), the Itch Assessment Scale for the Pediatric Burn Patients, and two quality of life indices: the Quality of Life in EB (QOLEB) questionnaire and the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI).

Dr. Kiritsi highlighted a few of the secondary endpoint findings, saying that reduced BEBS scores showed there was “amelioration of the patients’ phenotype” and that EBDASI scores also decreased, with “nearly 60% of the patients having significant improvement of their skin disease.” Importantly, itch improved in most of the patients, she said. Reductions in CDLQI were observed, “meaning that quality of life was significantly better at the end of the trial.” There were also decreases in inflammatory markers, such as C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and TNF-alpha.

Although there is no validated tool available to assess hand function, Dr. Kiritsi and her team used their own morphometric scoring instrument to measure how far the hand could stretch; their evaluations suggested that this measure improved – or at least did not worsen – with losartan treatment, she noted.

A larger, randomized trial is needed to confirm if there is any benefit of losartan, but first, a new, easy-to-swallow losartan formulation needs to be developed specifically for EB in the pediatric population, Dr. Kiritsi said. Although a pediatric suspension of losartan was previously available, it is no longer on the market, so the next step is to develop a formulation that could be used in a pivotal clinical trial, she noted.

“Losartan faces fewer technical hurdles compared to other novel treatments as it is an established medicine,” Dr. Kiritsi and associates observed in a poster presentation. There are still economic hurdles, however, since “with losartan patents expired, companies cannot expect to recoup an investment into clinical studies” and alternative funding sources are needed.

In 2019, losartan was granted an orphan drug designation for the treatment of EB from both the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, but its use remains off label in children. “We decided to treat children,” Dr. Kiritsi said, “because we wanted to start as early as possible. If you already have mitten deformities, these cannot be reversed.”

DEBRA International funded the study. Dr. Kiritsi received research support from Rheacell GmbH and honoraria or consultation fees from Amryt Pharma and Rheacell GmbH. She has received other support from DEBRA International, EB Research Partnership, Fritz Thyssen Stiftung, German Research Foundation (funding of research projects), and 3R Pharma Consulting and Midas Pharma GmbH (consultation for losartan new drug formulation).

SOURCE: Kiritsi D et al. EB 2020. Poster 47.
 

LONDON – Treatment with the antihypertensive drug losartan raised no safety concerns in the treatment of children with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) and reduced signs of fibrosis in an early clinical study.

In the ongoing phase 1/2 REFLECT (Recessive dystrophic EB: Mechanisms of fibrosis and its prevention with Losartan in vivo) trial, involving 29 children, no severe complications have been noted so far, according to one of the study investigators, Dimitra Kiritsi, MD, of the University of Freiburg, Germany. At the EB World Congress, organized by the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Association (DEBRA), she presented interim data on 18 patients in the trial, emphasizing that the primary aim of the trial was to evaluate the safety of this treatment approach.

Over the 2 years the trial has been underway, 65 adverse events have been reported, of which 4 have been severe. Two of these were bacterial infections that required hospital treatment and the other two were a reduction in the general health condition of the child.

Losartan is an angiotensin-II receptor blocker (ARB) that has been in clinical use for more than 25 years in adults and 15 years in children over the age of 6 years.

The drug may be used for treating recessive dystrophic EB (RDEB) in the future, Dr. Kiritsi said, because it attenuates tumor necrosis factor–beta (TGF-beta) signaling, which is thought to be involved in the fibrotic process. So while it may not target the genetic defect, it could help ameliorate the effects of the disease.

The precursor to REFLECT was a study performed in a mouse disease model of EB (EMBO Mol Med. 2015;7:1211-28) where a reduction in fibrotic scarring was seen with losartan with “remarkable effects” on “mitten” deformity, Dr. Kiritsi said. The results of that study suggested that the earlier treatment with losartan was started in the course of the disease, the better the effect, she added. (Mitten deformity is the result of fused skin between the fingers or toes, and the subsequent buildup of fibrotic tissue causes the hand or foot to contract.)

REFLECT is an investigator-initiated trial that started in 2017 and is being funded by DEBRA International. It is a dual-center, nonrandomized, single-arm study in which children aged 3-16 years with RDEB are treated with losartan for 10 months, with follow-up at 3 months.

Various secondary endpoints were included to look for the first signs of any efficacy: the Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA), the Birmingham Epidermolysis Bullosa Severity Score (BEBS), the Epidermolysis Bullosa Disease Activity and Scarring Index (EBDASI), the Itch Assessment Scale for the Pediatric Burn Patients, and two quality of life indices: the Quality of Life in EB (QOLEB) questionnaire and the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI).

Dr. Kiritsi highlighted a few of the secondary endpoint findings, saying that reduced BEBS scores showed there was “amelioration of the patients’ phenotype” and that EBDASI scores also decreased, with “nearly 60% of the patients having significant improvement of their skin disease.” Importantly, itch improved in most of the patients, she said. Reductions in CDLQI were observed, “meaning that quality of life was significantly better at the end of the trial.” There were also decreases in inflammatory markers, such as C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and TNF-alpha.

Although there is no validated tool available to assess hand function, Dr. Kiritsi and her team used their own morphometric scoring instrument to measure how far the hand could stretch; their evaluations suggested that this measure improved – or at least did not worsen – with losartan treatment, she noted.

A larger, randomized trial is needed to confirm if there is any benefit of losartan, but first, a new, easy-to-swallow losartan formulation needs to be developed specifically for EB in the pediatric population, Dr. Kiritsi said. Although a pediatric suspension of losartan was previously available, it is no longer on the market, so the next step is to develop a formulation that could be used in a pivotal clinical trial, she noted.

“Losartan faces fewer technical hurdles compared to other novel treatments as it is an established medicine,” Dr. Kiritsi and associates observed in a poster presentation. There are still economic hurdles, however, since “with losartan patents expired, companies cannot expect to recoup an investment into clinical studies” and alternative funding sources are needed.

In 2019, losartan was granted an orphan drug designation for the treatment of EB from both the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, but its use remains off label in children. “We decided to treat children,” Dr. Kiritsi said, “because we wanted to start as early as possible. If you already have mitten deformities, these cannot be reversed.”

DEBRA International funded the study. Dr. Kiritsi received research support from Rheacell GmbH and honoraria or consultation fees from Amryt Pharma and Rheacell GmbH. She has received other support from DEBRA International, EB Research Partnership, Fritz Thyssen Stiftung, German Research Foundation (funding of research projects), and 3R Pharma Consulting and Midas Pharma GmbH (consultation for losartan new drug formulation).

SOURCE: Kiritsi D et al. EB 2020. Poster 47.
 

LONDON – Treatment with the antihypertensive drug losartan raised no safety concerns in the treatment of children with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) and reduced signs of fibrosis in an early clinical study.

In the ongoing phase 1/2 REFLECT (Recessive dystrophic EB: Mechanisms of fibrosis and its prevention with Losartan in vivo) trial, involving 29 children, no severe complications have been noted so far, according to one of the study investigators, Dimitra Kiritsi, MD, of the University of Freiburg, Germany. At the EB World Congress, organized by the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Association (DEBRA), she presented interim data on 18 patients in the trial, emphasizing that the primary aim of the trial was to evaluate the safety of this treatment approach.

Over the 2 years the trial has been underway, 65 adverse events have been reported, of which 4 have been severe. Two of these were bacterial infections that required hospital treatment and the other two were a reduction in the general health condition of the child.

Losartan is an angiotensin-II receptor blocker (ARB) that has been in clinical use for more than 25 years in adults and 15 years in children over the age of 6 years.

The drug may be used for treating recessive dystrophic EB (RDEB) in the future, Dr. Kiritsi said, because it attenuates tumor necrosis factor–beta (TGF-beta) signaling, which is thought to be involved in the fibrotic process. So while it may not target the genetic defect, it could help ameliorate the effects of the disease.

The precursor to REFLECT was a study performed in a mouse disease model of EB (EMBO Mol Med. 2015;7:1211-28) where a reduction in fibrotic scarring was seen with losartan with “remarkable effects” on “mitten” deformity, Dr. Kiritsi said. The results of that study suggested that the earlier treatment with losartan was started in the course of the disease, the better the effect, she added. (Mitten deformity is the result of fused skin between the fingers or toes, and the subsequent buildup of fibrotic tissue causes the hand or foot to contract.)

REFLECT is an investigator-initiated trial that started in 2017 and is being funded by DEBRA International. It is a dual-center, nonrandomized, single-arm study in which children aged 3-16 years with RDEB are treated with losartan for 10 months, with follow-up at 3 months.

Various secondary endpoints were included to look for the first signs of any efficacy: the Physician’s Global Assessment (PGA), the Birmingham Epidermolysis Bullosa Severity Score (BEBS), the Epidermolysis Bullosa Disease Activity and Scarring Index (EBDASI), the Itch Assessment Scale for the Pediatric Burn Patients, and two quality of life indices: the Quality of Life in EB (QOLEB) questionnaire and the Children’s Dermatology Life Quality Index (CDLQI).

Dr. Kiritsi highlighted a few of the secondary endpoint findings, saying that reduced BEBS scores showed there was “amelioration of the patients’ phenotype” and that EBDASI scores also decreased, with “nearly 60% of the patients having significant improvement of their skin disease.” Importantly, itch improved in most of the patients, she said. Reductions in CDLQI were observed, “meaning that quality of life was significantly better at the end of the trial.” There were also decreases in inflammatory markers, such as C-reactive protein, interleukin-6, and TNF-alpha.

Although there is no validated tool available to assess hand function, Dr. Kiritsi and her team used their own morphometric scoring instrument to measure how far the hand could stretch; their evaluations suggested that this measure improved – or at least did not worsen – with losartan treatment, she noted.

A larger, randomized trial is needed to confirm if there is any benefit of losartan, but first, a new, easy-to-swallow losartan formulation needs to be developed specifically for EB in the pediatric population, Dr. Kiritsi said. Although a pediatric suspension of losartan was previously available, it is no longer on the market, so the next step is to develop a formulation that could be used in a pivotal clinical trial, she noted.

“Losartan faces fewer technical hurdles compared to other novel treatments as it is an established medicine,” Dr. Kiritsi and associates observed in a poster presentation. There are still economic hurdles, however, since “with losartan patents expired, companies cannot expect to recoup an investment into clinical studies” and alternative funding sources are needed.

In 2019, losartan was granted an orphan drug designation for the treatment of EB from both the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, but its use remains off label in children. “We decided to treat children,” Dr. Kiritsi said, “because we wanted to start as early as possible. If you already have mitten deformities, these cannot be reversed.”

DEBRA International funded the study. Dr. Kiritsi received research support from Rheacell GmbH and honoraria or consultation fees from Amryt Pharma and Rheacell GmbH. She has received other support from DEBRA International, EB Research Partnership, Fritz Thyssen Stiftung, German Research Foundation (funding of research projects), and 3R Pharma Consulting and Midas Pharma GmbH (consultation for losartan new drug formulation).

SOURCE: Kiritsi D et al. EB 2020. Poster 47.
 

A new line of Barbie dolls unveiled by Mattel earlier this month includes one with vitiligo, much to the delight of clinicians who treat children and adolescents with the condition.

Mattel, Inc.

“When I see young children and adolescents with vitiligo, it is very common for me to feel their emotional suffering from their skin condition,” Seemal R. Desai, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas said in an interview. “Kids can be cruel. Name calling, social ostracizing, [and] effects on self-esteem are all things I have seen amongst my patients and their families in their own struggles with vitiligo.”

According to a brand communications representative from toymaker Mattel, which began manufacturing Barbie dolls in 1959, the company worked with a board-certified dermatologist to include a doll with vitiligo in its 2020 “Fashionistas” line. “As we continue to redefine what it means to be a ‘Barbie’ or look like Barbie, offering a doll with vitiligo in our main doll line allows kids to play out even more stories they see in the world around them,” the representative wrote in an email message. Other dolls debuting as part of the lineup include one with no hair, one with a darker skin tone that uses a gold prosthetic limb, and a Ken doll with long rooted hair (think Jeff Spicoli in “Fast Times at Ridgemont High,” but about six inches longer).

Such efforts to celebrate diversity and inclusiveness go far in helping children and young adults to embrace their skin and their own identities, said Dr. Desai, the immediate past president of the Skin of Color Society and a member of the American Academy of Dermatology board of directors. “One nuance, perhaps even more important, is that the Barbie can help to break down barriers, create awareness, and potentially even reduce bullying, stigma, and lack of knowledge about vitiligo amongst the general public who don’t understand vitiligo,” he said. “I hope the public and social media will embrace this new Barbie. Who knows? Pretty soon, vitiligo may no longer be a ‘thing’ that causes ‘stares’ and ‘glares.’ ”

Referring to the Barbie with no hair in the new line of dolls, the Mattel statement said, “ if a girl is experiencing hair loss for any reason, she can see herself reflected in the line.”

Mattel, Inc.

In 2019, Mattel introduced a lineup of Barbie dolls reflecting permanent disabilities, including one with a prosthetic limb. For that effort, the company collaborated with then-12-year-old Jordan Reeves, the “Born Just Right” coauthor “who is on a mission to build creative solutions that help kids with disabilities, to create a play experience that is as representative as possible,” the Mattel representative wrote.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

A new line of Barbie dolls unveiled by Mattel earlier this month includes one with vitiligo, much to the delight of clinicians who treat children and adolescents with the condition.

Mattel, Inc.

“When I see young children and adolescents with vitiligo, it is very common for me to feel their emotional suffering from their skin condition,” Seemal R. Desai, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas said in an interview. “Kids can be cruel. Name calling, social ostracizing, [and] effects on self-esteem are all things I have seen amongst my patients and their families in their own struggles with vitiligo.”

According to a brand communications representative from toymaker Mattel, which began manufacturing Barbie dolls in 1959, the company worked with a board-certified dermatologist to include a doll with vitiligo in its 2020 “Fashionistas” line. “As we continue to redefine what it means to be a ‘Barbie’ or look like Barbie, offering a doll with vitiligo in our main doll line allows kids to play out even more stories they see in the world around them,” the representative wrote in an email message. Other dolls debuting as part of the lineup include one with no hair, one with a darker skin tone that uses a gold prosthetic limb, and a Ken doll with long rooted hair (think Jeff Spicoli in “Fast Times at Ridgemont High,” but about six inches longer).

Such efforts to celebrate diversity and inclusiveness go far in helping children and young adults to embrace their skin and their own identities, said Dr. Desai, the immediate past president of the Skin of Color Society and a member of the American Academy of Dermatology board of directors. “One nuance, perhaps even more important, is that the Barbie can help to break down barriers, create awareness, and potentially even reduce bullying, stigma, and lack of knowledge about vitiligo amongst the general public who don’t understand vitiligo,” he said. “I hope the public and social media will embrace this new Barbie. Who knows? Pretty soon, vitiligo may no longer be a ‘thing’ that causes ‘stares’ and ‘glares.’ ”

Referring to the Barbie with no hair in the new line of dolls, the Mattel statement said, “ if a girl is experiencing hair loss for any reason, she can see herself reflected in the line.”

Mattel, Inc.

In 2019, Mattel introduced a lineup of Barbie dolls reflecting permanent disabilities, including one with a prosthetic limb. For that effort, the company collaborated with then-12-year-old Jordan Reeves, the “Born Just Right” coauthor “who is on a mission to build creative solutions that help kids with disabilities, to create a play experience that is as representative as possible,” the Mattel representative wrote.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

A new line of Barbie dolls unveiled by Mattel earlier this month includes one with vitiligo, much to the delight of clinicians who treat children and adolescents with the condition.

Mattel, Inc.

“When I see young children and adolescents with vitiligo, it is very common for me to feel their emotional suffering from their skin condition,” Seemal R. Desai, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas said in an interview. “Kids can be cruel. Name calling, social ostracizing, [and] effects on self-esteem are all things I have seen amongst my patients and their families in their own struggles with vitiligo.”

According to a brand communications representative from toymaker Mattel, which began manufacturing Barbie dolls in 1959, the company worked with a board-certified dermatologist to include a doll with vitiligo in its 2020 “Fashionistas” line. “As we continue to redefine what it means to be a ‘Barbie’ or look like Barbie, offering a doll with vitiligo in our main doll line allows kids to play out even more stories they see in the world around them,” the representative wrote in an email message. Other dolls debuting as part of the lineup include one with no hair, one with a darker skin tone that uses a gold prosthetic limb, and a Ken doll with long rooted hair (think Jeff Spicoli in “Fast Times at Ridgemont High,” but about six inches longer).

Such efforts to celebrate diversity and inclusiveness go far in helping children and young adults to embrace their skin and their own identities, said Dr. Desai, the immediate past president of the Skin of Color Society and a member of the American Academy of Dermatology board of directors. “One nuance, perhaps even more important, is that the Barbie can help to break down barriers, create awareness, and potentially even reduce bullying, stigma, and lack of knowledge about vitiligo amongst the general public who don’t understand vitiligo,” he said. “I hope the public and social media will embrace this new Barbie. Who knows? Pretty soon, vitiligo may no longer be a ‘thing’ that causes ‘stares’ and ‘glares.’ ”

Referring to the Barbie with no hair in the new line of dolls, the Mattel statement said, “ if a girl is experiencing hair loss for any reason, she can see herself reflected in the line.”

Mattel, Inc.

In 2019, Mattel introduced a lineup of Barbie dolls reflecting permanent disabilities, including one with a prosthetic limb. For that effort, the company collaborated with then-12-year-old Jordan Reeves, the “Born Just Right” coauthor “who is on a mission to build creative solutions that help kids with disabilities, to create a play experience that is as representative as possible,” the Mattel representative wrote.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

It took less than a day for physician groups to start pushing back at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services over its new Medicaid block grant plan, which was introduced on Jan. 30.

Dubbed “Healthy Adult Opportunity,” the agency is offering all states the chance to participate in a block grant program through the 1115 waiver process.

According to a fact sheet issued by the agency, the program will focus on “adults under age 65 who are not eligible for Medicaid on the basis of disability or their need for long term care services and supports, and who are not eligible under a state plan. Other very low-income parents, children, pregnant women, elderly adults, and people eligible on the basis of a disability will not be directly affected – except from the improvement that results from states reinvesting savings into strengthening their overall programs.”

States will be operating within a defined budget when participating in the program and expenditures exceeding that defined budget will not be eligible for additional federal funding. Budgets will be based on a state’s historic costs, as well as national and regional trends, and will be tied to inflation with the potential to have adjustments made for extraordinary events. States can set their baseline using the prior year’s total spending or a per-enrollee spending model.

A Jan. 30 letter to state Medicaid directors notes that states participating in the program “will be granted extensive flexibility to test alternative approaches to implementing their Medicaid programs, including the ability to make many ongoing program adjustments without the need for demonstration or state plan amendments that require prior approval.”

Among the activities states can engage in under this plan are adjusting cost-sharing requirements, adopting a closed formulary, and applying additional conditions of eligibility. Requests, if approved, will be approved for a 5-year initial period, with a renewal option of up to 10 years.

But physician groups are not seeing a benefit with this new block grant program.

“Moving to a block grant system will likely limit the ability of Medicaid patients to receive preventive and needed medical care from their family physicians, and it will only increase the health disparities that exist in these communities, worsen overall health outcomes, and ultimately increase costs,” Gary LeRoy, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in a statement.

The American Medical Association concurred.

“The AMA opposes caps on federal Medicaid funding, such as block grants, because they would increase the number of uninsured and undermine Medicaid’s role as an indispensable safety net,” Patrice Harris, MD, the AMA’s president, said in a statement. “The AMA supports flexibility in Medicaid and encourages CMS to work with states to develop and test new Medicaid models that best meet the needs and priorities of low-income patients. While encouraging flexibility, the AMA is mindful that expanding Medicaid has been a literal lifesaver for low-income patients. We need to find ways to build on this success. We look forward to reviewing the proposal in detail.”

Officials at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the changes have the potential to harm women and children’s health, as well as negatively impact physician reimbursement and ultimately access to care.

“Limits on the federal contribution to the Medicaid program would negatively impact patients by forcing states to reduce the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid coverage, eliminate covered services, and increase beneficiary cost-sharing,” ACOG President Ted Anderson, MD, said in a statement. “ACOG is also concerned that this block grant opportunity could lower physician reimbursement for certain services, forcing providers out of the program and jeopardizing patients’ ability to access health care services. Given our nation’s stark rates of maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity, we are alarmed by the Administration’s willingness to weaken physician payment in Medicaid.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

It took less than a day for physician groups to start pushing back at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services over its new Medicaid block grant plan, which was introduced on Jan. 30.

Dubbed “Healthy Adult Opportunity,” the agency is offering all states the chance to participate in a block grant program through the 1115 waiver process.

According to a fact sheet issued by the agency, the program will focus on “adults under age 65 who are not eligible for Medicaid on the basis of disability or their need for long term care services and supports, and who are not eligible under a state plan. Other very low-income parents, children, pregnant women, elderly adults, and people eligible on the basis of a disability will not be directly affected – except from the improvement that results from states reinvesting savings into strengthening their overall programs.”

States will be operating within a defined budget when participating in the program and expenditures exceeding that defined budget will not be eligible for additional federal funding. Budgets will be based on a state’s historic costs, as well as national and regional trends, and will be tied to inflation with the potential to have adjustments made for extraordinary events. States can set their baseline using the prior year’s total spending or a per-enrollee spending model.

A Jan. 30 letter to state Medicaid directors notes that states participating in the program “will be granted extensive flexibility to test alternative approaches to implementing their Medicaid programs, including the ability to make many ongoing program adjustments without the need for demonstration or state plan amendments that require prior approval.”

Among the activities states can engage in under this plan are adjusting cost-sharing requirements, adopting a closed formulary, and applying additional conditions of eligibility. Requests, if approved, will be approved for a 5-year initial period, with a renewal option of up to 10 years.

But physician groups are not seeing a benefit with this new block grant program.

“Moving to a block grant system will likely limit the ability of Medicaid patients to receive preventive and needed medical care from their family physicians, and it will only increase the health disparities that exist in these communities, worsen overall health outcomes, and ultimately increase costs,” Gary LeRoy, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in a statement.

The American Medical Association concurred.

“The AMA opposes caps on federal Medicaid funding, such as block grants, because they would increase the number of uninsured and undermine Medicaid’s role as an indispensable safety net,” Patrice Harris, MD, the AMA’s president, said in a statement. “The AMA supports flexibility in Medicaid and encourages CMS to work with states to develop and test new Medicaid models that best meet the needs and priorities of low-income patients. While encouraging flexibility, the AMA is mindful that expanding Medicaid has been a literal lifesaver for low-income patients. We need to find ways to build on this success. We look forward to reviewing the proposal in detail.”

Officials at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the changes have the potential to harm women and children’s health, as well as negatively impact physician reimbursement and ultimately access to care.

“Limits on the federal contribution to the Medicaid program would negatively impact patients by forcing states to reduce the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid coverage, eliminate covered services, and increase beneficiary cost-sharing,” ACOG President Ted Anderson, MD, said in a statement. “ACOG is also concerned that this block grant opportunity could lower physician reimbursement for certain services, forcing providers out of the program and jeopardizing patients’ ability to access health care services. Given our nation’s stark rates of maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity, we are alarmed by the Administration’s willingness to weaken physician payment in Medicaid.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

It took less than a day for physician groups to start pushing back at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services over its new Medicaid block grant plan, which was introduced on Jan. 30.

Dubbed “Healthy Adult Opportunity,” the agency is offering all states the chance to participate in a block grant program through the 1115 waiver process.

According to a fact sheet issued by the agency, the program will focus on “adults under age 65 who are not eligible for Medicaid on the basis of disability or their need for long term care services and supports, and who are not eligible under a state plan. Other very low-income parents, children, pregnant women, elderly adults, and people eligible on the basis of a disability will not be directly affected – except from the improvement that results from states reinvesting savings into strengthening their overall programs.”

States will be operating within a defined budget when participating in the program and expenditures exceeding that defined budget will not be eligible for additional federal funding. Budgets will be based on a state’s historic costs, as well as national and regional trends, and will be tied to inflation with the potential to have adjustments made for extraordinary events. States can set their baseline using the prior year’s total spending or a per-enrollee spending model.

A Jan. 30 letter to state Medicaid directors notes that states participating in the program “will be granted extensive flexibility to test alternative approaches to implementing their Medicaid programs, including the ability to make many ongoing program adjustments without the need for demonstration or state plan amendments that require prior approval.”

Among the activities states can engage in under this plan are adjusting cost-sharing requirements, adopting a closed formulary, and applying additional conditions of eligibility. Requests, if approved, will be approved for a 5-year initial period, with a renewal option of up to 10 years.

But physician groups are not seeing a benefit with this new block grant program.

“Moving to a block grant system will likely limit the ability of Medicaid patients to receive preventive and needed medical care from their family physicians, and it will only increase the health disparities that exist in these communities, worsen overall health outcomes, and ultimately increase costs,” Gary LeRoy, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said in a statement.

The American Medical Association concurred.

“The AMA opposes caps on federal Medicaid funding, such as block grants, because they would increase the number of uninsured and undermine Medicaid’s role as an indispensable safety net,” Patrice Harris, MD, the AMA’s president, said in a statement. “The AMA supports flexibility in Medicaid and encourages CMS to work with states to develop and test new Medicaid models that best meet the needs and priorities of low-income patients. While encouraging flexibility, the AMA is mindful that expanding Medicaid has been a literal lifesaver for low-income patients. We need to find ways to build on this success. We look forward to reviewing the proposal in detail.”

Officials at the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said the changes have the potential to harm women and children’s health, as well as negatively impact physician reimbursement and ultimately access to care.

“Limits on the federal contribution to the Medicaid program would negatively impact patients by forcing states to reduce the number of people who are eligible for Medicaid coverage, eliminate covered services, and increase beneficiary cost-sharing,” ACOG President Ted Anderson, MD, said in a statement. “ACOG is also concerned that this block grant opportunity could lower physician reimbursement for certain services, forcing providers out of the program and jeopardizing patients’ ability to access health care services. Given our nation’s stark rates of maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity, we are alarmed by the Administration’s willingness to weaken physician payment in Medicaid.”

gtwachtman@mdedge.com

After 2 weeks of declines at the beginning of the year, flu activity has now increased for 2 consecutive weeks, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationally, an estimated 5.7% of all outpatients visiting health care providers had influenza-like illness (ILI) for the week ending Jan. 25, which was up from 5.1% the previous week but still lower than the current seasonal high of 7.1% recorded during the week of Dec. 22-28, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

Another key indicator of influenza activity, the percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive, also remains high as it rose from 25.7% the week before to 27.7% for the week ending Jan. 25, the influenza division said. That is the highest rate of the 2019-2020 season so far, surpassing the 26.8% reached during Dec. 22-28.

Another new seasonal high involves the number of states, 33 plus Puerto Rico, at the highest level of ILI activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale for the latest reporting week, topping the 32 jurisdictions from the last full week of December. Another eight states and the District of Columbia were in the “high” range with activity levels of 8 and 9, and no state with available data was lower than level 6, the CDC data show.

Going along with the recent 2-week increase in activity is a large increase in the number of ILI-related pediatric deaths, which rose from 39 on Jan. 11 to the current count of 68, the CDC said. At the same point last year, there had been 36 pediatric deaths.

Other indicators of ILI severity, however, “are not high at this point in the season,” the influenza division noted. “Overall, hospitalization rates remain similar to what has been seen at this time during recent seasons, but rates among children and young adults are higher at this time than in recent seasons.” Overall pneumonia and influenza mortality is also low, the CDC added.

rfranki@mdedge.com

After 2 weeks of declines at the beginning of the year, flu activity has now increased for 2 consecutive weeks, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationally, an estimated 5.7% of all outpatients visiting health care providers had influenza-like illness (ILI) for the week ending Jan. 25, which was up from 5.1% the previous week but still lower than the current seasonal high of 7.1% recorded during the week of Dec. 22-28, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

Another key indicator of influenza activity, the percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive, also remains high as it rose from 25.7% the week before to 27.7% for the week ending Jan. 25, the influenza division said. That is the highest rate of the 2019-2020 season so far, surpassing the 26.8% reached during Dec. 22-28.

Another new seasonal high involves the number of states, 33 plus Puerto Rico, at the highest level of ILI activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale for the latest reporting week, topping the 32 jurisdictions from the last full week of December. Another eight states and the District of Columbia were in the “high” range with activity levels of 8 and 9, and no state with available data was lower than level 6, the CDC data show.

Going along with the recent 2-week increase in activity is a large increase in the number of ILI-related pediatric deaths, which rose from 39 on Jan. 11 to the current count of 68, the CDC said. At the same point last year, there had been 36 pediatric deaths.

Other indicators of ILI severity, however, “are not high at this point in the season,” the influenza division noted. “Overall, hospitalization rates remain similar to what has been seen at this time during recent seasons, but rates among children and young adults are higher at this time than in recent seasons.” Overall pneumonia and influenza mortality is also low, the CDC added.

rfranki@mdedge.com

After 2 weeks of declines at the beginning of the year, flu activity has now increased for 2 consecutive weeks, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Nationally, an estimated 5.7% of all outpatients visiting health care providers had influenza-like illness (ILI) for the week ending Jan. 25, which was up from 5.1% the previous week but still lower than the current seasonal high of 7.1% recorded during the week of Dec. 22-28, the CDC’s influenza division reported.

Another key indicator of influenza activity, the percentage of respiratory specimens testing positive, also remains high as it rose from 25.7% the week before to 27.7% for the week ending Jan. 25, the influenza division said. That is the highest rate of the 2019-2020 season so far, surpassing the 26.8% reached during Dec. 22-28.

Another new seasonal high involves the number of states, 33 plus Puerto Rico, at the highest level of ILI activity on the CDC’s 1-10 scale for the latest reporting week, topping the 32 jurisdictions from the last full week of December. Another eight states and the District of Columbia were in the “high” range with activity levels of 8 and 9, and no state with available data was lower than level 6, the CDC data show.

Going along with the recent 2-week increase in activity is a large increase in the number of ILI-related pediatric deaths, which rose from 39 on Jan. 11 to the current count of 68, the CDC said. At the same point last year, there had been 36 pediatric deaths.

Other indicators of ILI severity, however, “are not high at this point in the season,” the influenza division noted. “Overall, hospitalization rates remain similar to what has been seen at this time during recent seasons, but rates among children and young adults are higher at this time than in recent seasons.” Overall pneumonia and influenza mortality is also low, the CDC added.

rfranki@mdedge.com

LONDON – More than £2.8 million (almost $3.7 million) was spent every year on wound dressings and bandages for treatment in a group of 60 people with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB), according to a report at the EB World Congress, organized by the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Association (DEBRA).

Results from the Prospective Epidermolysis Bullosa Longitudinal Evaluation Study (PEBLES), which is looking at the natural history of RDEB, showed that wound dressing and bandage costs were highest for study participants with the generalized severe (RDEB-GS) subtype, at just over £85,156 (about $112,450) per patient annually. Respective yearly costs for the generalized intermediate (RDEB-GI) and inversa (RDEB-INV) subtypes were £10,112 (about $13,350) and £1,699 (about $2,240) per patient.

Looking at the costs associated with EB is important, said one of the lead investigators for PEBLES, Jemima Mellerio, MD, FRCP, consultant dermatologist at St John’s Institute of Dermatology, at Guy’s & St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London.

“If we are going to justify the kind of expenditure [associated with new treatments], we need to know that what we are treating is already a significant burden on our health care systems,” Dr. Mellerio said.

PEBLES is an ongoing London-based registry study that is enrolling patients with all subtypes of RDEB. Data are collected via a tablet device and include demographic data, information on clinical features, results of skin biopsies and genetic tests, and laboratory findings, as well as objective disease severity and subjective patient-orientated outcome scores.

So far, 60 patients – 49 adults and 11 children – have been enrolled in PEBLES since November 2014: 26 with RDEB-GS, 23 with RDEB-GI, 9 with RDEB-INV, and 2 with the pruriginosa RDEB subtype (RDEB-PR).

Most of the participants (71%) changed all their wound dressings at one time, patching up when required. Fourteen of 49 participants had paid people to help them change their dressings and when the total cost of combined wound dressings and paid care was taken into consideration, the mean annual cost per patient was around £2,500 (about $3,300) for RDEB-INV, £10,375 (about $13,700) per patient for RDEB-GS, and a staggering £98,000 (about $129,000) per patient for RDEB-GS. The total annual cost of dressings and associated care was an estimated £3,184,229 (about $4.2 million).

In addition to data on the cost of wound dressings, data on itch and pain and quality of life were presented at the EB World Congress and discussed by Dr. Mellerio.

A total of 42 participants older than 8 years of age had itch measured via the Leuven Itch Scale, she reported, noting that itch was a consistent symptom across all subtypes of RDEB. Itch is important as it not only causes problems with skin lesions and healing, but also significantly affects sleep and has a negative impact on patients’ mood, she emphasized.

xtrekx/iStock/Getty Images Plus

SOURCE: Mellerio JE et al. EB 2020. Pillay EI et al. Poster 77; Jeffs E et al. Poster 74; Jeffs et al. Poster 75. https://ebworldcongress.org/.

LONDON – More than £2.8 million (almost $3.7 million) was spent every year on wound dressings and bandages for treatment in a group of 60 people with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB), according to a report at the EB World Congress, organized by the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Association (DEBRA).

Results from the Prospective Epidermolysis Bullosa Longitudinal Evaluation Study (PEBLES), which is looking at the natural history of RDEB, showed that wound dressing and bandage costs were highest for study participants with the generalized severe (RDEB-GS) subtype, at just over £85,156 (about $112,450) per patient annually. Respective yearly costs for the generalized intermediate (RDEB-GI) and inversa (RDEB-INV) subtypes were £10,112 (about $13,350) and £1,699 (about $2,240) per patient.

Looking at the costs associated with EB is important, said one of the lead investigators for PEBLES, Jemima Mellerio, MD, FRCP, consultant dermatologist at St John’s Institute of Dermatology, at Guy’s & St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London.

“If we are going to justify the kind of expenditure [associated with new treatments], we need to know that what we are treating is already a significant burden on our health care systems,” Dr. Mellerio said.

PEBLES is an ongoing London-based registry study that is enrolling patients with all subtypes of RDEB. Data are collected via a tablet device and include demographic data, information on clinical features, results of skin biopsies and genetic tests, and laboratory findings, as well as objective disease severity and subjective patient-orientated outcome scores.

So far, 60 patients – 49 adults and 11 children – have been enrolled in PEBLES since November 2014: 26 with RDEB-GS, 23 with RDEB-GI, 9 with RDEB-INV, and 2 with the pruriginosa RDEB subtype (RDEB-PR).

Most of the participants (71%) changed all their wound dressings at one time, patching up when required. Fourteen of 49 participants had paid people to help them change their dressings and when the total cost of combined wound dressings and paid care was taken into consideration, the mean annual cost per patient was around £2,500 (about $3,300) for RDEB-INV, £10,375 (about $13,700) per patient for RDEB-GS, and a staggering £98,000 (about $129,000) per patient for RDEB-GS. The total annual cost of dressings and associated care was an estimated £3,184,229 (about $4.2 million).

In addition to data on the cost of wound dressings, data on itch and pain and quality of life were presented at the EB World Congress and discussed by Dr. Mellerio.

A total of 42 participants older than 8 years of age had itch measured via the Leuven Itch Scale, she reported, noting that itch was a consistent symptom across all subtypes of RDEB. Itch is important as it not only causes problems with skin lesions and healing, but also significantly affects sleep and has a negative impact on patients’ mood, she emphasized.

xtrekx/iStock/Getty Images Plus

SOURCE: Mellerio JE et al. EB 2020. Pillay EI et al. Poster 77; Jeffs E et al. Poster 74; Jeffs et al. Poster 75. https://ebworldcongress.org/.

LONDON – More than £2.8 million (almost $3.7 million) was spent every year on wound dressings and bandages for treatment in a group of 60 people with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB), according to a report at the EB World Congress, organized by the Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Association (DEBRA).

Results from the Prospective Epidermolysis Bullosa Longitudinal Evaluation Study (PEBLES), which is looking at the natural history of RDEB, showed that wound dressing and bandage costs were highest for study participants with the generalized severe (RDEB-GS) subtype, at just over £85,156 (about $112,450) per patient annually. Respective yearly costs for the generalized intermediate (RDEB-GI) and inversa (RDEB-INV) subtypes were £10,112 (about $13,350) and £1,699 (about $2,240) per patient.

Looking at the costs associated with EB is important, said one of the lead investigators for PEBLES, Jemima Mellerio, MD, FRCP, consultant dermatologist at St John’s Institute of Dermatology, at Guy’s & St. Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust, London.

“If we are going to justify the kind of expenditure [associated with new treatments], we need to know that what we are treating is already a significant burden on our health care systems,” Dr. Mellerio said.

PEBLES is an ongoing London-based registry study that is enrolling patients with all subtypes of RDEB. Data are collected via a tablet device and include demographic data, information on clinical features, results of skin biopsies and genetic tests, and laboratory findings, as well as objective disease severity and subjective patient-orientated outcome scores.

So far, 60 patients – 49 adults and 11 children – have been enrolled in PEBLES since November 2014: 26 with RDEB-GS, 23 with RDEB-GI, 9 with RDEB-INV, and 2 with the pruriginosa RDEB subtype (RDEB-PR).

Most of the participants (71%) changed all their wound dressings at one time, patching up when required. Fourteen of 49 participants had paid people to help them change their dressings and when the total cost of combined wound dressings and paid care was taken into consideration, the mean annual cost per patient was around £2,500 (about $3,300) for RDEB-INV, £10,375 (about $13,700) per patient for RDEB-GS, and a staggering £98,000 (about $129,000) per patient for RDEB-GS. The total annual cost of dressings and associated care was an estimated £3,184,229 (about $4.2 million).

In addition to data on the cost of wound dressings, data on itch and pain and quality of life were presented at the EB World Congress and discussed by Dr. Mellerio.

A total of 42 participants older than 8 years of age had itch measured via the Leuven Itch Scale, she reported, noting that itch was a consistent symptom across all subtypes of RDEB. Itch is important as it not only causes problems with skin lesions and healing, but also significantly affects sleep and has a negative impact on patients’ mood, she emphasized.

xtrekx/iStock/Getty Images Plus

SOURCE: Mellerio JE et al. EB 2020. Pillay EI et al. Poster 77; Jeffs E et al. Poster 74; Jeffs et al. Poster 75. https://ebworldcongress.org/.

A small survey suggests many patients consult social media for advice on acne treatment and follow recommendations that don’t align with clinical guidelines.

llhedgehogll/Thinkstock

Of the 130 patients surveyed, 45% consulted social media for advice on acne treatment, and 52% of those patients followed recommendations that don’t correspond to American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) guidelines. Most patients reported no improvement (40%) or minimal improvement (53%) in their acne after following advice from social media.

“These results suggest that dermatologists should inquire about social media acne treatment advice and directly address misinformation,” wrote Ahmed Yousaf, of West Virginia University, Morgantown, W.Va., and colleagues. Their report is in Pediatric Dermatology.

They conducted the survey of 130 patients treated for acne at West Virginia University. Most patients were female (60%), and a majority were adolescents (54%) or adults (44%). About half of the patients (51%) said their acne was moderate, 38% said it was severe, and 11% said it was mild.

Most patients said they consulted a medical professional for their first acne treatment (58%). However, 16% of patients said they first went to social media for advice, 26% said they consulted family or friends, and 10% took “other” steps as their first approach to acne treatment.

In all, 45% of patients consulted social media for acne treatment advice at some point. This includes 54% of women, 31% of men, 41% of adolescents, and 51% of adults. Social media consultation was more common among patients with severe acne (54%) than among those with mild (36%) or moderate (39%) acne.

The most common social media platforms used were YouTube and Instagram (58% each), followed by Pinterest (31%), Facebook (19%), Twitter (9%), Snapchat (7%), and Tumblr (3%). (Patients could select more than one social media platform.)

Roughly half (52%) of patients who consulted social media followed advice that does not align with AAD guidelines, 31% made changes that are recommended by the AAD, and 17% did not provide information on recommendations they followed.

The social media advice patients followed included using over-the-counter products (81%), making dietary changes (40%), using self-made products (19%), taking supplements (16%), and making changes in exercise routines (7%). (Patients could select more than one treatment approach.)

Among the patients who followed social media advice, 40% said they saw no change in their acne, and 53% reported minimal improvement.

“Only 7% of social media users reported significant improvement in their acne,” Mr. Yousaf and colleagues wrote. “This may be due to less accurate content found on social media compared to other health care sources.”

The authors acknowledged that the patients surveyed were recruited from a dermatology clinic. Therefore, these results “likely underestimate the percentage of patients who improve from social media acne treatment advice and do not consult a medical professional.”

Mr. Yousaf and colleagues did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Yousaf A et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2020 Jan 15. doi: 10.1111/pde.14091.

A small survey suggests many patients consult social media for advice on acne treatment and follow recommendations that don’t align with clinical guidelines.

llhedgehogll/Thinkstock

Of the 130 patients surveyed, 45% consulted social media for advice on acne treatment, and 52% of those patients followed recommendations that don’t correspond to American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) guidelines. Most patients reported no improvement (40%) or minimal improvement (53%) in their acne after following advice from social media.

“These results suggest that dermatologists should inquire about social media acne treatment advice and directly address misinformation,” wrote Ahmed Yousaf, of West Virginia University, Morgantown, W.Va., and colleagues. Their report is in Pediatric Dermatology.

They conducted the survey of 130 patients treated for acne at West Virginia University. Most patients were female (60%), and a majority were adolescents (54%) or adults (44%). About half of the patients (51%) said their acne was moderate, 38% said it was severe, and 11% said it was mild.

Most patients said they consulted a medical professional for their first acne treatment (58%). However, 16% of patients said they first went to social media for advice, 26% said they consulted family or friends, and 10% took “other” steps as their first approach to acne treatment.

In all, 45% of patients consulted social media for acne treatment advice at some point. This includes 54% of women, 31% of men, 41% of adolescents, and 51% of adults. Social media consultation was more common among patients with severe acne (54%) than among those with mild (36%) or moderate (39%) acne.

The most common social media platforms used were YouTube and Instagram (58% each), followed by Pinterest (31%), Facebook (19%), Twitter (9%), Snapchat (7%), and Tumblr (3%). (Patients could select more than one social media platform.)

Roughly half (52%) of patients who consulted social media followed advice that does not align with AAD guidelines, 31% made changes that are recommended by the AAD, and 17% did not provide information on recommendations they followed.

The social media advice patients followed included using over-the-counter products (81%), making dietary changes (40%), using self-made products (19%), taking supplements (16%), and making changes in exercise routines (7%). (Patients could select more than one treatment approach.)

Among the patients who followed social media advice, 40% said they saw no change in their acne, and 53% reported minimal improvement.

“Only 7% of social media users reported significant improvement in their acne,” Mr. Yousaf and colleagues wrote. “This may be due to less accurate content found on social media compared to other health care sources.”

The authors acknowledged that the patients surveyed were recruited from a dermatology clinic. Therefore, these results “likely underestimate the percentage of patients who improve from social media acne treatment advice and do not consult a medical professional.”

Mr. Yousaf and colleagues did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Yousaf A et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2020 Jan 15. doi: 10.1111/pde.14091.

A small survey suggests many patients consult social media for advice on acne treatment and follow recommendations that don’t align with clinical guidelines.

llhedgehogll/Thinkstock

Of the 130 patients surveyed, 45% consulted social media for advice on acne treatment, and 52% of those patients followed recommendations that don’t correspond to American Academy of Dermatology (AAD) guidelines. Most patients reported no improvement (40%) or minimal improvement (53%) in their acne after following advice from social media.

“These results suggest that dermatologists should inquire about social media acne treatment advice and directly address misinformation,” wrote Ahmed Yousaf, of West Virginia University, Morgantown, W.Va., and colleagues. Their report is in Pediatric Dermatology.

They conducted the survey of 130 patients treated for acne at West Virginia University. Most patients were female (60%), and a majority were adolescents (54%) or adults (44%). About half of the patients (51%) said their acne was moderate, 38% said it was severe, and 11% said it was mild.

Most patients said they consulted a medical professional for their first acne treatment (58%). However, 16% of patients said they first went to social media for advice, 26% said they consulted family or friends, and 10% took “other” steps as their first approach to acne treatment.

In all, 45% of patients consulted social media for acne treatment advice at some point. This includes 54% of women, 31% of men, 41% of adolescents, and 51% of adults. Social media consultation was more common among patients with severe acne (54%) than among those with mild (36%) or moderate (39%) acne.

The most common social media platforms used were YouTube and Instagram (58% each), followed by Pinterest (31%), Facebook (19%), Twitter (9%), Snapchat (7%), and Tumblr (3%). (Patients could select more than one social media platform.)

Roughly half (52%) of patients who consulted social media followed advice that does not align with AAD guidelines, 31% made changes that are recommended by the AAD, and 17% did not provide information on recommendations they followed.

The social media advice patients followed included using over-the-counter products (81%), making dietary changes (40%), using self-made products (19%), taking supplements (16%), and making changes in exercise routines (7%). (Patients could select more than one treatment approach.)

Among the patients who followed social media advice, 40% said they saw no change in their acne, and 53% reported minimal improvement.

“Only 7% of social media users reported significant improvement in their acne,” Mr. Yousaf and colleagues wrote. “This may be due to less accurate content found on social media compared to other health care sources.”

The authors acknowledged that the patients surveyed were recruited from a dermatology clinic. Therefore, these results “likely underestimate the percentage of patients who improve from social media acne treatment advice and do not consult a medical professional.”

Mr. Yousaf and colleagues did not disclose any conflicts of interest.

jensmith@mdedge.com

SOURCE: Yousaf A et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2020 Jan 15. doi: 10.1111/pde.14091.

Assessing appendicitis in children with initial ultrasound followed by computed tomography in the absence of appendix visualization and presence of secondary signs was the most cost-effective approach, according to data from a modeling study of 10 strategies.

Ultrasound is safer and less expensive than computed tomography and avoids radiation exposure; however, cost-effectiveness models of various approaches to imaging have not been well studied, wrote Rebecca Jennings, MD, of Seattle Children’s Hospital, Washington, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers simulated a hypothetical patient population using a Markov cohort model and compared 10 different strategies including CT only, MRI only, and ultrasound followed by CT or MRI after ultrasounds that are negative or fail to visualize the appendix.

Overall, the most cost-effective strategy for moderate-risk patients was the use of ultrasound followed by CT or MRI if the ultrasound failed to visualize the appendix and secondary signs of inflammation were present in the right lower quadrant. The cost of this strategy was $4,815, with effectiveness of 0.99694 quality-adjusted life-years. “The most cost-effective strategy is highly dependent on a patient’s risk stratification,” the researchers noted. Based on their model, imaging was not cost effective for patients with a prevalence less than 16% or greater than 95%. However, those with appendicitis risk between 16% and 95% and no secondary signs of inflammation can forgo further imaging, even without visualization of the appendix for maximum cost-effectiveness, the researchers said.

The study was limited by several factors, including the inability to account for all potential costs related to imaging and outcomes, lack of accounting for the use of sedation when assessing costs, and inability to separate imaging costs from total hospital costs, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that tailored imaging approaches based on patient risk are the most cost-effective strategies to assess appendicitis, they said.

“The diagnosis and exclusion of appendicitis continues to be one of the primary concerns of providers who care for children with abdominal pain,” wrote Rebecca M. Rentea, MD, and Charles L. Snyder, MD, of Children’s Mercy Hospital Kansas City, Mo., in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Feb;145:e20193349).

“The best diagnostic and imaging approach to appendicitis has been a topic of interest for some time, and improvements such as appendicitis scoring systems, decreased use of ionized radiation, and adoption of clinical algorithms have been incremental but steady,” they said. Despite the potential of missed appendicitis, the use of an algorithm based on an initial ultrasound and previous possibility of appendicitis described in the study was the most cost effective, they said. In addition, “the ability to visualize the appendix did not alter the most cost-effective approach in those with a moderate risk of appendicitis (most patients),” they concluded.

The study was supported by the University of Washington and Seattle Children’s Hospital Quality Improvement Scholars Program. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Rentea and Dr. Snyder had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Jennings R et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1352.

Assessing appendicitis in children with initial ultrasound followed by computed tomography in the absence of appendix visualization and presence of secondary signs was the most cost-effective approach, according to data from a modeling study of 10 strategies.

Ultrasound is safer and less expensive than computed tomography and avoids radiation exposure; however, cost-effectiveness models of various approaches to imaging have not been well studied, wrote Rebecca Jennings, MD, of Seattle Children’s Hospital, Washington, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers simulated a hypothetical patient population using a Markov cohort model and compared 10 different strategies including CT only, MRI only, and ultrasound followed by CT or MRI after ultrasounds that are negative or fail to visualize the appendix.

Overall, the most cost-effective strategy for moderate-risk patients was the use of ultrasound followed by CT or MRI if the ultrasound failed to visualize the appendix and secondary signs of inflammation were present in the right lower quadrant. The cost of this strategy was $4,815, with effectiveness of 0.99694 quality-adjusted life-years. “The most cost-effective strategy is highly dependent on a patient’s risk stratification,” the researchers noted. Based on their model, imaging was not cost effective for patients with a prevalence less than 16% or greater than 95%. However, those with appendicitis risk between 16% and 95% and no secondary signs of inflammation can forgo further imaging, even without visualization of the appendix for maximum cost-effectiveness, the researchers said.

The study was limited by several factors, including the inability to account for all potential costs related to imaging and outcomes, lack of accounting for the use of sedation when assessing costs, and inability to separate imaging costs from total hospital costs, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that tailored imaging approaches based on patient risk are the most cost-effective strategies to assess appendicitis, they said.

“The diagnosis and exclusion of appendicitis continues to be one of the primary concerns of providers who care for children with abdominal pain,” wrote Rebecca M. Rentea, MD, and Charles L. Snyder, MD, of Children’s Mercy Hospital Kansas City, Mo., in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Feb;145:e20193349).

“The best diagnostic and imaging approach to appendicitis has been a topic of interest for some time, and improvements such as appendicitis scoring systems, decreased use of ionized radiation, and adoption of clinical algorithms have been incremental but steady,” they said. Despite the potential of missed appendicitis, the use of an algorithm based on an initial ultrasound and previous possibility of appendicitis described in the study was the most cost effective, they said. In addition, “the ability to visualize the appendix did not alter the most cost-effective approach in those with a moderate risk of appendicitis (most patients),” they concluded.

The study was supported by the University of Washington and Seattle Children’s Hospital Quality Improvement Scholars Program. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Rentea and Dr. Snyder had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Jennings R et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1352.

Assessing appendicitis in children with initial ultrasound followed by computed tomography in the absence of appendix visualization and presence of secondary signs was the most cost-effective approach, according to data from a modeling study of 10 strategies.

Ultrasound is safer and less expensive than computed tomography and avoids radiation exposure; however, cost-effectiveness models of various approaches to imaging have not been well studied, wrote Rebecca Jennings, MD, of Seattle Children’s Hospital, Washington, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatrics, the researchers simulated a hypothetical patient population using a Markov cohort model and compared 10 different strategies including CT only, MRI only, and ultrasound followed by CT or MRI after ultrasounds that are negative or fail to visualize the appendix.

Overall, the most cost-effective strategy for moderate-risk patients was the use of ultrasound followed by CT or MRI if the ultrasound failed to visualize the appendix and secondary signs of inflammation were present in the right lower quadrant. The cost of this strategy was $4,815, with effectiveness of 0.99694 quality-adjusted life-years. “The most cost-effective strategy is highly dependent on a patient’s risk stratification,” the researchers noted. Based on their model, imaging was not cost effective for patients with a prevalence less than 16% or greater than 95%. However, those with appendicitis risk between 16% and 95% and no secondary signs of inflammation can forgo further imaging, even without visualization of the appendix for maximum cost-effectiveness, the researchers said.

The study was limited by several factors, including the inability to account for all potential costs related to imaging and outcomes, lack of accounting for the use of sedation when assessing costs, and inability to separate imaging costs from total hospital costs, the researchers noted. However, the results suggest that tailored imaging approaches based on patient risk are the most cost-effective strategies to assess appendicitis, they said.

“The diagnosis and exclusion of appendicitis continues to be one of the primary concerns of providers who care for children with abdominal pain,” wrote Rebecca M. Rentea, MD, and Charles L. Snyder, MD, of Children’s Mercy Hospital Kansas City, Mo., in an accompanying editorial (Pediatrics. 2020 Feb;145:e20193349).

“The best diagnostic and imaging approach to appendicitis has been a topic of interest for some time, and improvements such as appendicitis scoring systems, decreased use of ionized radiation, and adoption of clinical algorithms have been incremental but steady,” they said. Despite the potential of missed appendicitis, the use of an algorithm based on an initial ultrasound and previous possibility of appendicitis described in the study was the most cost effective, they said. In addition, “the ability to visualize the appendix did not alter the most cost-effective approach in those with a moderate risk of appendicitis (most patients),” they concluded.

The study was supported by the University of Washington and Seattle Children’s Hospital Quality Improvement Scholars Program. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.

Dr. Rentea and Dr. Snyder had no financial conflicts to disclose.

SOURCE: Jennings R et al. Pediatrics. 2020. doi: 10.1542/peds.2019-1352.

Most patients with epidermolysis bullosa who use topical products choose antimicrobials, according to data from a survey of 202 children and adults.

Management of epidermolysis bullosa (EB) involves a combination of skin protection and infection management, but patient home care practices have not been well studied, wrote Leila Shayegan of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatric Dermatology, the researchers surveyed 202 patients who were enrolled in the Epidermolysis Bullosa Clinical Characterization and Outcomes Database during 2017. The patients ranged in age from 1 month to 62 years with an average age of 11 years; 52% were female. The patients represented a range of EB subtypes, including 130 patients with dystrophic EB, 51 patients with EB simplex, 21 with junctional EB, and 3 patients each with Kindler syndrome and unspecified subtypes.

Overall, most of the patients reported cleaning their skin either every day (37%) or every other day (32%). Of the 188 patients who reported using topical products on their wounds, 131 (70%) said they used at least one antimicrobial product, while 125 patients (66%) reported using at least one emollient; 32 (17%) used emollients only, and 21(11%) reported no use of topical products.

The most popular topical antibiotics were mupirocin (31%) and bacitracin (31%). In addition, 14% of respondents used silver-containing products, and 16% used medical-grade honey. Roughly half (51%) of patients who reported use of at least one antimicrobial product used two or more different antimicrobial products.

A total of 38% of patients used only water for cleansing. Of the 131 patients who reported using additives in their cleansing water, 57% added salt, 54% added bleach, 27% added vinegar, and 26% reported “other” additive use, which could include Epsom salt, baking soda, oatmeal, or essential oils, the researchers said. The concentrations of these additives ranged from barely effective 0.002% sodium hypochlorite and 0.002% acetic acid solutions to potentially cytotoxic solutions of 0.09% sodium hypochlorite and 0.156% acetic acid.

“Although the survey was not designed to correlate skin care practices with wound culture results and resistance patterns, widespread use of topical antimicrobials described among EB patients highlights the need for increased emphasis on antibiotic stewardship,” the researchers noted. They added that health care providers should educate patients and families not only about mindful use of antibiotics, but also appropriate concentrations of cleansing additives.

“Optimizing EB patient home skin care routines, along with future longitudinal studies on the impact of EB skin care interventions on microbial resistance patterns, wound healing and [squamous cell carcinoma] risk are necessary to improve outcomes for patients with EB,” they emphasized.

The Epidermolysis Bullosa Clinical Characterization and Outcomes Database used in the study is funded by the Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Partnership and the Epidermolysis Bullosa Medical Research Foundation. Ms. Shayegan had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Abeona Therapeutics, Castle Creek Pharmaceuticals, Fibrocell Science, ProQR, and Scioderm.

SOURCE: Shayegan L et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2020. doi: 10.1111/pde.14102.

Most patients with epidermolysis bullosa who use topical products choose antimicrobials, according to data from a survey of 202 children and adults.

Management of epidermolysis bullosa (EB) involves a combination of skin protection and infection management, but patient home care practices have not been well studied, wrote Leila Shayegan of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatric Dermatology, the researchers surveyed 202 patients who were enrolled in the Epidermolysis Bullosa Clinical Characterization and Outcomes Database during 2017. The patients ranged in age from 1 month to 62 years with an average age of 11 years; 52% were female. The patients represented a range of EB subtypes, including 130 patients with dystrophic EB, 51 patients with EB simplex, 21 with junctional EB, and 3 patients each with Kindler syndrome and unspecified subtypes.

Overall, most of the patients reported cleaning their skin either every day (37%) or every other day (32%). Of the 188 patients who reported using topical products on their wounds, 131 (70%) said they used at least one antimicrobial product, while 125 patients (66%) reported using at least one emollient; 32 (17%) used emollients only, and 21(11%) reported no use of topical products.

The most popular topical antibiotics were mupirocin (31%) and bacitracin (31%). In addition, 14% of respondents used silver-containing products, and 16% used medical-grade honey. Roughly half (51%) of patients who reported use of at least one antimicrobial product used two or more different antimicrobial products.

A total of 38% of patients used only water for cleansing. Of the 131 patients who reported using additives in their cleansing water, 57% added salt, 54% added bleach, 27% added vinegar, and 26% reported “other” additive use, which could include Epsom salt, baking soda, oatmeal, or essential oils, the researchers said. The concentrations of these additives ranged from barely effective 0.002% sodium hypochlorite and 0.002% acetic acid solutions to potentially cytotoxic solutions of 0.09% sodium hypochlorite and 0.156% acetic acid.

“Although the survey was not designed to correlate skin care practices with wound culture results and resistance patterns, widespread use of topical antimicrobials described among EB patients highlights the need for increased emphasis on antibiotic stewardship,” the researchers noted. They added that health care providers should educate patients and families not only about mindful use of antibiotics, but also appropriate concentrations of cleansing additives.

“Optimizing EB patient home skin care routines, along with future longitudinal studies on the impact of EB skin care interventions on microbial resistance patterns, wound healing and [squamous cell carcinoma] risk are necessary to improve outcomes for patients with EB,” they emphasized.

The Epidermolysis Bullosa Clinical Characterization and Outcomes Database used in the study is funded by the Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Partnership and the Epidermolysis Bullosa Medical Research Foundation. Ms. Shayegan had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Abeona Therapeutics, Castle Creek Pharmaceuticals, Fibrocell Science, ProQR, and Scioderm.

SOURCE: Shayegan L et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2020. doi: 10.1111/pde.14102.

Most patients with epidermolysis bullosa who use topical products choose antimicrobials, according to data from a survey of 202 children and adults.

Management of epidermolysis bullosa (EB) involves a combination of skin protection and infection management, but patient home care practices have not been well studied, wrote Leila Shayegan of Columbia University, New York, and colleagues.

In a study published in Pediatric Dermatology, the researchers surveyed 202 patients who were enrolled in the Epidermolysis Bullosa Clinical Characterization and Outcomes Database during 2017. The patients ranged in age from 1 month to 62 years with an average age of 11 years; 52% were female. The patients represented a range of EB subtypes, including 130 patients with dystrophic EB, 51 patients with EB simplex, 21 with junctional EB, and 3 patients each with Kindler syndrome and unspecified subtypes.

Overall, most of the patients reported cleaning their skin either every day (37%) or every other day (32%). Of the 188 patients who reported using topical products on their wounds, 131 (70%) said they used at least one antimicrobial product, while 125 patients (66%) reported using at least one emollient; 32 (17%) used emollients only, and 21(11%) reported no use of topical products.

The most popular topical antibiotics were mupirocin (31%) and bacitracin (31%). In addition, 14% of respondents used silver-containing products, and 16% used medical-grade honey. Roughly half (51%) of patients who reported use of at least one antimicrobial product used two or more different antimicrobial products.

A total of 38% of patients used only water for cleansing. Of the 131 patients who reported using additives in their cleansing water, 57% added salt, 54% added bleach, 27% added vinegar, and 26% reported “other” additive use, which could include Epsom salt, baking soda, oatmeal, or essential oils, the researchers said. The concentrations of these additives ranged from barely effective 0.002% sodium hypochlorite and 0.002% acetic acid solutions to potentially cytotoxic solutions of 0.09% sodium hypochlorite and 0.156% acetic acid.

“Although the survey was not designed to correlate skin care practices with wound culture results and resistance patterns, widespread use of topical antimicrobials described among EB patients highlights the need for increased emphasis on antibiotic stewardship,” the researchers noted. They added that health care providers should educate patients and families not only about mindful use of antibiotics, but also appropriate concentrations of cleansing additives.

“Optimizing EB patient home skin care routines, along with future longitudinal studies on the impact of EB skin care interventions on microbial resistance patterns, wound healing and [squamous cell carcinoma] risk are necessary to improve outcomes for patients with EB,” they emphasized.

The Epidermolysis Bullosa Clinical Characterization and Outcomes Database used in the study is funded by the Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Partnership and the Epidermolysis Bullosa Medical Research Foundation. Ms. Shayegan had no financial conflicts to disclose. Several coauthors disclosed relationships with multiple companies including Abeona Therapeutics, Castle Creek Pharmaceuticals, Fibrocell Science, ProQR, and Scioderm.

SOURCE: Shayegan L et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2020. doi: 10.1111/pde.14102.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first drug to combat peanut allergy in children, (Palforzia, Aimmune Therapeutics), although those who take it must continue to avoid peanuts in their diets.

The peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder is also the first drug ever approved to treat a food allergy. It is not a cure, but it mitigates allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, that may occur with accidental exposure to peanuts, the FDA said in a news release.

Treatment with the oral powder, which is mixed into semisolid food – such as applesauce or yogurt – can be started in children aged 4 through 17 years who have a confirmed peanut allergy and then continued as a maintenance medication. Some 1 million American children have peanut allergy, and only a fifth will outgrow the allergy, the agency said.

“Because there is no cure, allergic individuals must strictly avoid exposure to prevent severe and potentially life-threatening reactions,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in the statement.

An FDA advisory panel backed the medication in September 2019, but some committee members expressed concern about the large number of children in clinical trials who required epinephrine after receiving a dose of Palforzia.

The initial dose phase is given on a single day, while updosing consists of 11 increasing doses over several months. If the patient tolerates the first administration of an increased dose level, they may continue that dose daily at home. Daily maintenance begins after the completion of all updosing levels.

The drug will carry a boxed warning on the risk of anaphylaxis with the drug, and the FDA is requiring a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

Palforzia will be available only through specially certified health care providers, health care settings, and pharmacies to patients enrolled in the REMS program, the agency said. Also, the initial dose escalation and first dose of each updosing level can be given only in a certified setting.

The agency said that patients or parents or caregivers must be counseled on the need for constant availability of injectable epinephrine, the need for continued dietary peanut avoidance, and on how to recognize the signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis.

‘Eagerly’ awaited

Palforzia’s effectiveness was based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving about 500 peanut-allergic individuals that found that 67.2% of allergic patients tolerated an oral challenge with a single 600-mg dose of peanut protein with no more than mild allergic symptoms after 6 months of maintenance treatment, compared with 4% of placebo recipients, the FDA said.

In two double-blind, placebo-controlled studies looking at safety, the most commonly reported side effects among about 700 individuals involved in the research were abdominal pain, vomiting, nausea, tingling in the mouth, itching (including in the mouth and ears), cough, runny nose, throat irritation and tightness, hives, wheezing and shortness of breath, and anaphylaxis.

Palforzia should not be given to those with uncontrolled asthma and can’t be used for emergency treatment of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.

“The food allergy community has been eagerly awaiting an FDA-approved treatment that can help mitigate allergic reactions to peanut and, as allergists, we want nothing more than to have a treatment option to offer our patients that has demonstrated both the safety and efficacy to truly impact the lives of patients who live with peanut allergy,” said Christina Ciaccio, MD, chief of Allergy/Immunology and Pediatric Pulmonary Medicine at the University of Chicago Medical Center and Biological Sciences, in a company statement from Aimmune. “With today’s approval of Palforzia, we can – for the first time – offer children and teens with peanut allergy a proven medicine that employs an established therapeutic approach.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first drug to combat peanut allergy in children, (Palforzia, Aimmune Therapeutics), although those who take it must continue to avoid peanuts in their diets.

The peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder is also the first drug ever approved to treat a food allergy. It is not a cure, but it mitigates allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, that may occur with accidental exposure to peanuts, the FDA said in a news release.

Treatment with the oral powder, which is mixed into semisolid food – such as applesauce or yogurt – can be started in children aged 4 through 17 years who have a confirmed peanut allergy and then continued as a maintenance medication. Some 1 million American children have peanut allergy, and only a fifth will outgrow the allergy, the agency said.

“Because there is no cure, allergic individuals must strictly avoid exposure to prevent severe and potentially life-threatening reactions,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in the statement.

An FDA advisory panel backed the medication in September 2019, but some committee members expressed concern about the large number of children in clinical trials who required epinephrine after receiving a dose of Palforzia.

The initial dose phase is given on a single day, while updosing consists of 11 increasing doses over several months. If the patient tolerates the first administration of an increased dose level, they may continue that dose daily at home. Daily maintenance begins after the completion of all updosing levels.

The drug will carry a boxed warning on the risk of anaphylaxis with the drug, and the FDA is requiring a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

Palforzia will be available only through specially certified health care providers, health care settings, and pharmacies to patients enrolled in the REMS program, the agency said. Also, the initial dose escalation and first dose of each updosing level can be given only in a certified setting.

The agency said that patients or parents or caregivers must be counseled on the need for constant availability of injectable epinephrine, the need for continued dietary peanut avoidance, and on how to recognize the signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis.

‘Eagerly’ awaited

Palforzia’s effectiveness was based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving about 500 peanut-allergic individuals that found that 67.2% of allergic patients tolerated an oral challenge with a single 600-mg dose of peanut protein with no more than mild allergic symptoms after 6 months of maintenance treatment, compared with 4% of placebo recipients, the FDA said.

In two double-blind, placebo-controlled studies looking at safety, the most commonly reported side effects among about 700 individuals involved in the research were abdominal pain, vomiting, nausea, tingling in the mouth, itching (including in the mouth and ears), cough, runny nose, throat irritation and tightness, hives, wheezing and shortness of breath, and anaphylaxis.

Palforzia should not be given to those with uncontrolled asthma and can’t be used for emergency treatment of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.

“The food allergy community has been eagerly awaiting an FDA-approved treatment that can help mitigate allergic reactions to peanut and, as allergists, we want nothing more than to have a treatment option to offer our patients that has demonstrated both the safety and efficacy to truly impact the lives of patients who live with peanut allergy,” said Christina Ciaccio, MD, chief of Allergy/Immunology and Pediatric Pulmonary Medicine at the University of Chicago Medical Center and Biological Sciences, in a company statement from Aimmune. “With today’s approval of Palforzia, we can – for the first time – offer children and teens with peanut allergy a proven medicine that employs an established therapeutic approach.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved the first drug to combat peanut allergy in children, (Palforzia, Aimmune Therapeutics), although those who take it must continue to avoid peanuts in their diets.

The peanut (Arachis hypogaea) allergen powder is also the first drug ever approved to treat a food allergy. It is not a cure, but it mitigates allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, that may occur with accidental exposure to peanuts, the FDA said in a news release.

Treatment with the oral powder, which is mixed into semisolid food – such as applesauce or yogurt – can be started in children aged 4 through 17 years who have a confirmed peanut allergy and then continued as a maintenance medication. Some 1 million American children have peanut allergy, and only a fifth will outgrow the allergy, the agency said.

“Because there is no cure, allergic individuals must strictly avoid exposure to prevent severe and potentially life-threatening reactions,” said Peter Marks, MD, PhD, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, in the statement.

An FDA advisory panel backed the medication in September 2019, but some committee members expressed concern about the large number of children in clinical trials who required epinephrine after receiving a dose of Palforzia.

The initial dose phase is given on a single day, while updosing consists of 11 increasing doses over several months. If the patient tolerates the first administration of an increased dose level, they may continue that dose daily at home. Daily maintenance begins after the completion of all updosing levels.

The drug will carry a boxed warning on the risk of anaphylaxis with the drug, and the FDA is requiring a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS).

Palforzia will be available only through specially certified health care providers, health care settings, and pharmacies to patients enrolled in the REMS program, the agency said. Also, the initial dose escalation and first dose of each updosing level can be given only in a certified setting.

The agency said that patients or parents or caregivers must be counseled on the need for constant availability of injectable epinephrine, the need for continued dietary peanut avoidance, and on how to recognize the signs and symptoms of anaphylaxis.

‘Eagerly’ awaited

Palforzia’s effectiveness was based on a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study involving about 500 peanut-allergic individuals that found that 67.2% of allergic patients tolerated an oral challenge with a single 600-mg dose of peanut protein with no more than mild allergic symptoms after 6 months of maintenance treatment, compared with 4% of placebo recipients, the FDA said.

In two double-blind, placebo-controlled studies looking at safety, the most commonly reported side effects among about 700 individuals involved in the research were abdominal pain, vomiting, nausea, tingling in the mouth, itching (including in the mouth and ears), cough, runny nose, throat irritation and tightness, hives, wheezing and shortness of breath, and anaphylaxis.

Palforzia should not be given to those with uncontrolled asthma and can’t be used for emergency treatment of allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis.

“The food allergy community has been eagerly awaiting an FDA-approved treatment that can help mitigate allergic reactions to peanut and, as allergists, we want nothing more than to have a treatment option to offer our patients that has demonstrated both the safety and efficacy to truly impact the lives of patients who live with peanut allergy,” said Christina Ciaccio, MD, chief of Allergy/Immunology and Pediatric Pulmonary Medicine at the University of Chicago Medical Center and Biological Sciences, in a company statement from Aimmune. “With today’s approval of Palforzia, we can – for the first time – offer children and teens with peanut allergy a proven medicine that employs an established therapeutic approach.”

This article first appeared on Medscape.com.