Conference Coverage

GLASGOW, Scotland – There are wide variations across Europe in how the different forms of phototherapy are used in the treatment of atopic eczema for both adults and children, reveals a region-wide survey, which points to the need for management guidelines.

Over 140 phototherapy practitioners from 27 European countries responded to the survey. Of the practitioners surveyed, 96% used narrow-band ultraviolet B (NB-UVB), and about 50% prescribed psoralen and ultraviolet A (PUVA) for adults. Fewer than 10% did so for children.

There was considerable variation in prescribing practices, “especially when it comes to dosing and treatment duration,” said study presenter Mia Steyn, MD, dermatology registrar, St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’s Hospital, London.

These results, she said, demonstrate that “an optimal treatment modality either is not known or agreed upon” and that studies are required to determine treatment efficacy, cost, and safety “in a range of skin types.”

Dr. Steyn said that what is needed first is a set of consensus treatment guidelines, “hopefully leading to a randomized controlled trial” that would compare the various treatment options.

The research was presented at the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) 2022 Annual Meeting on July 7.

Session co-chair Adam Fityan, MD, a consultant dermatologist at University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, U.K., commented that the study was “fascinating” and “really helpful.”

Dr. Fityan, who was not involved with the survey, told this news organization that, “clearly, what we’ve seen is that there is a huge variation in the way everyone uses the different modalities of phototherapy.”

“Having that sort of knowledge will hopefully help us to think a bit more clearly about the regimens and protocols that we use and to maybe find the evidence that everyone needs to have the most effective protocol.”

The data from the study are also useful on an individual level, Dr. Fityan continued, as “you have no idea what anyone is doing” and whether “you are an outlier.”

Dr. Steyn said that phototherapy is commonly used for the treatment of atopic eczema, but the evidence for its efficacy, its impact on quality on life, its cost-effectiveness, and short- and long-term safety is “weak,” particularly in relation to real-life use.

Electronic survey

In lieu of a well-designed randomized controlled trial to answer these questions, the researchers set up a task force to assess how phototherapy is currently being used to treat atopic eczema across the United Kingdom and Europe so as to guide further research.

An electronic survey was devised, and 144 members of phototherapy groups from 27 European countries submitted their responses during 2020. Most responses came from the Netherlands (20), Italy (16), the United Kingdom (14), France (11), and Germany (10).

The results showed that NB-UVB was the most widely used modality of phototherapy, chosen by 96% of respondents. In addition, 17% of respondents said they also prescribed home-based NB-UVB, which was available in eight of the 27 countries.

When asked how they used NB-UVB, the majority (68%) of respondents said they had an age cutoff for use in children, which was set at an average age of 9 years and older, although the range was age 2 years to 16 years.

NBUVB was used as a second-line therapy instead of systemic treatments in up to 93% of adults and in 69% of children. It was used concomitantly with systemic treatment in up to 58% of adults and 11% of children, according to the survey responses.

For about 70% of respondents, the use of NB-UVB was determined by assessing the Fitzpatrick skin type, although almost 40% relied on clinical experience.
 

Frequency of treatment

NB-UVB was prescribed three times a week by 59% of respondents; 31% of respondents prescribed it twice a week; 7%, five times per week; and 2%, four times a week. The typical number of treatments was 21-30 for 53% of respondents, 0-20 treatments for 24%, and 31-40 treatments for 20%.

The dose was typically increased in 10% increments, although there were wide variations in how the treatment was stepped up. Dose was increased after each treatment by almost 50% of respondents, after every two treatments by almost 25%, and after every three treatments by approximately 15%.

For the majority (53%) of respondents, response to NBUVB was assessed after 7-15 treatments, while 43% waited until after 16-30 treatments. Success was defined as a 75% reduction in eczema from baseline by 56% of respondents, while 54% looked to patient satisfaction, and 47% relied on quality of life to determine success of treatment.

Maintenance NB-UVB was never used by 54% of respondents, but 44% said they used it occasionally, and 83% said they did not follow a weaning schedule at the end of treatment.

The most commonly reported adverse effects of NB-UVB were significant erythema, hyperpigmentation, and eczema flare, while the most commonly cited absolute contraindications included a history of melanoma, a history of squamous cell carcinoma, the use of photosensitizing medications, and claustrophobia.
 

Use of PUVA, UVA1

The next most commonly used phototherapy for atopic eczema was PUVA. Although it was available to 83% of respondents, only 52% of respondents had personally prescribed the treatment for adults, and only 7% prescribed it for children.

Of the respondents, 71% said they would switch from NB-UVB to PUVA if desired treatment outcomes were not achieved with the former, and 44% said they would “sometimes consider” PUVA as second-line therapy instead of systemic treatments. Only 13% said they would use it concomitantly with systemic treatment.

Ultraviolet A1 (UVA1) phototherapy was not widely available, with 66% of respondents declaring that they did not have access to this option and just 29% saying they prescribed it.

But when it was used, UVA1 was cited as being used often in adults by 24% of respondents, while 33% used it was used sometimes, and 43% said it was used rarely. It was used for children by 26% of respondents. In addition, 29% said they favored using UVA1 for chronic atopic eczema, and 33% favored using it for acute eczema while 38% had no preference over whether to use it for chronic versus acute atopic eczema.

Similarly to NB-UVB, there were wide variations in the use of PUVA and UVA1 by respondents in terms of dosing schedules, duration of treatment, and how response to treatment was measured.

No funding for the study has been reported. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

GLASGOW, Scotland – There are wide variations across Europe in how the different forms of phototherapy are used in the treatment of atopic eczema for both adults and children, reveals a region-wide survey, which points to the need for management guidelines.

Over 140 phototherapy practitioners from 27 European countries responded to the survey. Of the practitioners surveyed, 96% used narrow-band ultraviolet B (NB-UVB), and about 50% prescribed psoralen and ultraviolet A (PUVA) for adults. Fewer than 10% did so for children.

There was considerable variation in prescribing practices, “especially when it comes to dosing and treatment duration,” said study presenter Mia Steyn, MD, dermatology registrar, St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’s Hospital, London.

These results, she said, demonstrate that “an optimal treatment modality either is not known or agreed upon” and that studies are required to determine treatment efficacy, cost, and safety “in a range of skin types.”

Dr. Steyn said that what is needed first is a set of consensus treatment guidelines, “hopefully leading to a randomized controlled trial” that would compare the various treatment options.

The research was presented at the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) 2022 Annual Meeting on July 7.

Session co-chair Adam Fityan, MD, a consultant dermatologist at University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, U.K., commented that the study was “fascinating” and “really helpful.”

Dr. Fityan, who was not involved with the survey, told this news organization that, “clearly, what we’ve seen is that there is a huge variation in the way everyone uses the different modalities of phototherapy.”

“Having that sort of knowledge will hopefully help us to think a bit more clearly about the regimens and protocols that we use and to maybe find the evidence that everyone needs to have the most effective protocol.”

The data from the study are also useful on an individual level, Dr. Fityan continued, as “you have no idea what anyone is doing” and whether “you are an outlier.”

Dr. Steyn said that phototherapy is commonly used for the treatment of atopic eczema, but the evidence for its efficacy, its impact on quality on life, its cost-effectiveness, and short- and long-term safety is “weak,” particularly in relation to real-life use.

Electronic survey

In lieu of a well-designed randomized controlled trial to answer these questions, the researchers set up a task force to assess how phototherapy is currently being used to treat atopic eczema across the United Kingdom and Europe so as to guide further research.

An electronic survey was devised, and 144 members of phototherapy groups from 27 European countries submitted their responses during 2020. Most responses came from the Netherlands (20), Italy (16), the United Kingdom (14), France (11), and Germany (10).

The results showed that NB-UVB was the most widely used modality of phototherapy, chosen by 96% of respondents. In addition, 17% of respondents said they also prescribed home-based NB-UVB, which was available in eight of the 27 countries.

When asked how they used NB-UVB, the majority (68%) of respondents said they had an age cutoff for use in children, which was set at an average age of 9 years and older, although the range was age 2 years to 16 years.

NBUVB was used as a second-line therapy instead of systemic treatments in up to 93% of adults and in 69% of children. It was used concomitantly with systemic treatment in up to 58% of adults and 11% of children, according to the survey responses.

For about 70% of respondents, the use of NB-UVB was determined by assessing the Fitzpatrick skin type, although almost 40% relied on clinical experience.
 

Frequency of treatment

NB-UVB was prescribed three times a week by 59% of respondents; 31% of respondents prescribed it twice a week; 7%, five times per week; and 2%, four times a week. The typical number of treatments was 21-30 for 53% of respondents, 0-20 treatments for 24%, and 31-40 treatments for 20%.

The dose was typically increased in 10% increments, although there were wide variations in how the treatment was stepped up. Dose was increased after each treatment by almost 50% of respondents, after every two treatments by almost 25%, and after every three treatments by approximately 15%.

For the majority (53%) of respondents, response to NBUVB was assessed after 7-15 treatments, while 43% waited until after 16-30 treatments. Success was defined as a 75% reduction in eczema from baseline by 56% of respondents, while 54% looked to patient satisfaction, and 47% relied on quality of life to determine success of treatment.

Maintenance NB-UVB was never used by 54% of respondents, but 44% said they used it occasionally, and 83% said they did not follow a weaning schedule at the end of treatment.

The most commonly reported adverse effects of NB-UVB were significant erythema, hyperpigmentation, and eczema flare, while the most commonly cited absolute contraindications included a history of melanoma, a history of squamous cell carcinoma, the use of photosensitizing medications, and claustrophobia.
 

Use of PUVA, UVA1

The next most commonly used phototherapy for atopic eczema was PUVA. Although it was available to 83% of respondents, only 52% of respondents had personally prescribed the treatment for adults, and only 7% prescribed it for children.

Of the respondents, 71% said they would switch from NB-UVB to PUVA if desired treatment outcomes were not achieved with the former, and 44% said they would “sometimes consider” PUVA as second-line therapy instead of systemic treatments. Only 13% said they would use it concomitantly with systemic treatment.

Ultraviolet A1 (UVA1) phototherapy was not widely available, with 66% of respondents declaring that they did not have access to this option and just 29% saying they prescribed it.

But when it was used, UVA1 was cited as being used often in adults by 24% of respondents, while 33% used it was used sometimes, and 43% said it was used rarely. It was used for children by 26% of respondents. In addition, 29% said they favored using UVA1 for chronic atopic eczema, and 33% favored using it for acute eczema while 38% had no preference over whether to use it for chronic versus acute atopic eczema.

Similarly to NB-UVB, there were wide variations in the use of PUVA and UVA1 by respondents in terms of dosing schedules, duration of treatment, and how response to treatment was measured.

No funding for the study has been reported. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

GLASGOW, Scotland – There are wide variations across Europe in how the different forms of phototherapy are used in the treatment of atopic eczema for both adults and children, reveals a region-wide survey, which points to the need for management guidelines.

Over 140 phototherapy practitioners from 27 European countries responded to the survey. Of the practitioners surveyed, 96% used narrow-band ultraviolet B (NB-UVB), and about 50% prescribed psoralen and ultraviolet A (PUVA) for adults. Fewer than 10% did so for children.

There was considerable variation in prescribing practices, “especially when it comes to dosing and treatment duration,” said study presenter Mia Steyn, MD, dermatology registrar, St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, Guy’s and St. Thomas’s Hospital, London.

These results, she said, demonstrate that “an optimal treatment modality either is not known or agreed upon” and that studies are required to determine treatment efficacy, cost, and safety “in a range of skin types.”

Dr. Steyn said that what is needed first is a set of consensus treatment guidelines, “hopefully leading to a randomized controlled trial” that would compare the various treatment options.

The research was presented at the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) 2022 Annual Meeting on July 7.

Session co-chair Adam Fityan, MD, a consultant dermatologist at University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, U.K., commented that the study was “fascinating” and “really helpful.”

Dr. Fityan, who was not involved with the survey, told this news organization that, “clearly, what we’ve seen is that there is a huge variation in the way everyone uses the different modalities of phototherapy.”

“Having that sort of knowledge will hopefully help us to think a bit more clearly about the regimens and protocols that we use and to maybe find the evidence that everyone needs to have the most effective protocol.”

The data from the study are also useful on an individual level, Dr. Fityan continued, as “you have no idea what anyone is doing” and whether “you are an outlier.”

Dr. Steyn said that phototherapy is commonly used for the treatment of atopic eczema, but the evidence for its efficacy, its impact on quality on life, its cost-effectiveness, and short- and long-term safety is “weak,” particularly in relation to real-life use.

Electronic survey

In lieu of a well-designed randomized controlled trial to answer these questions, the researchers set up a task force to assess how phototherapy is currently being used to treat atopic eczema across the United Kingdom and Europe so as to guide further research.

An electronic survey was devised, and 144 members of phototherapy groups from 27 European countries submitted their responses during 2020. Most responses came from the Netherlands (20), Italy (16), the United Kingdom (14), France (11), and Germany (10).

The results showed that NB-UVB was the most widely used modality of phototherapy, chosen by 96% of respondents. In addition, 17% of respondents said they also prescribed home-based NB-UVB, which was available in eight of the 27 countries.

When asked how they used NB-UVB, the majority (68%) of respondents said they had an age cutoff for use in children, which was set at an average age of 9 years and older, although the range was age 2 years to 16 years.

NBUVB was used as a second-line therapy instead of systemic treatments in up to 93% of adults and in 69% of children. It was used concomitantly with systemic treatment in up to 58% of adults and 11% of children, according to the survey responses.

For about 70% of respondents, the use of NB-UVB was determined by assessing the Fitzpatrick skin type, although almost 40% relied on clinical experience.
 

Frequency of treatment

NB-UVB was prescribed three times a week by 59% of respondents; 31% of respondents prescribed it twice a week; 7%, five times per week; and 2%, four times a week. The typical number of treatments was 21-30 for 53% of respondents, 0-20 treatments for 24%, and 31-40 treatments for 20%.

The dose was typically increased in 10% increments, although there were wide variations in how the treatment was stepped up. Dose was increased after each treatment by almost 50% of respondents, after every two treatments by almost 25%, and after every three treatments by approximately 15%.

For the majority (53%) of respondents, response to NBUVB was assessed after 7-15 treatments, while 43% waited until after 16-30 treatments. Success was defined as a 75% reduction in eczema from baseline by 56% of respondents, while 54% looked to patient satisfaction, and 47% relied on quality of life to determine success of treatment.

Maintenance NB-UVB was never used by 54% of respondents, but 44% said they used it occasionally, and 83% said they did not follow a weaning schedule at the end of treatment.

The most commonly reported adverse effects of NB-UVB were significant erythema, hyperpigmentation, and eczema flare, while the most commonly cited absolute contraindications included a history of melanoma, a history of squamous cell carcinoma, the use of photosensitizing medications, and claustrophobia.
 

Use of PUVA, UVA1

The next most commonly used phototherapy for atopic eczema was PUVA. Although it was available to 83% of respondents, only 52% of respondents had personally prescribed the treatment for adults, and only 7% prescribed it for children.

Of the respondents, 71% said they would switch from NB-UVB to PUVA if desired treatment outcomes were not achieved with the former, and 44% said they would “sometimes consider” PUVA as second-line therapy instead of systemic treatments. Only 13% said they would use it concomitantly with systemic treatment.

Ultraviolet A1 (UVA1) phototherapy was not widely available, with 66% of respondents declaring that they did not have access to this option and just 29% saying they prescribed it.

But when it was used, UVA1 was cited as being used often in adults by 24% of respondents, while 33% used it was used sometimes, and 43% said it was used rarely. It was used for children by 26% of respondents. In addition, 29% said they favored using UVA1 for chronic atopic eczema, and 33% favored using it for acute eczema while 38% had no preference over whether to use it for chronic versus acute atopic eczema.

Similarly to NB-UVB, there were wide variations in the use of PUVA and UVA1 by respondents in terms of dosing schedules, duration of treatment, and how response to treatment was measured.

No funding for the study has been reported. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cognitive impairment is a good predictor of physical disability progression in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), new research suggests. In an analysis of more than 1,600 patients with secondary-progressive MS (SPMS), the likelihood of needing a wheelchair was almost doubled in those who had the worst scores on cognitive testing measures, compared with their counterparts who had the best scores.

“These findings should change our world view of MS,” study investigator Gavin Giovannoni, PhD, professor of neurology, Blizard Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, told attendees at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology.

Expand data

Cognitive impairment occurs very early in the course of MS and is part of the disease, although to a greater or lesser degree depending on the patient, Dr. Giovannoni noted. Such impairment has a significant impact on quality of life for patients dealing with this disease, he added.

EXPAND was a phase 3 study of siponimod. Results showed the now-approved oral selective sphingosine 1–phosphate receptor modulator significantly reduced the risk for disability progression in patients with SPMS.

Using the EXPAND clinical trial database, the current researchers assessed 1,628 participants for an association between cognitive processing speed, as measured with the Symbol Digit Modality Test (SDMT), and physical disability progression, as measured with the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). A score of 7 or more on the EDSS indicates wheelchair dependence.

Dr. Giovannoni noted that cognitive processing speed is considered an indirect measure of thalamic network efficiency and functional brain reserve.

Investigators looked at both the core study, in which all patients continued on treatment or placebo for up to 37 months, and the core plus extension part, in which patients received treatment for up to 5 years.

They separated SDMT scores into quartiles: from worst (n = 435) to two intermediate quartiles (n = 808) to the best quartile (n = 385).
 

Wheelchair dependence

In addition, the researchers examined the predictive value by baseline SDMT, adjusting for treatment, age, gender, baseline EDSS score, baseline SCMT quartile, and treatment-by-baseline SCMT quartile interaction. On-study SDMT change (month 0-24) was also assessed after adjusting for treatment, age, gender, baseline EDS, baseline SCMT, and on-study change in SCMT quartile.

In the core study, those in the worst SDMT quartile at baseline were numerically more likely to reach deterioration to EDSS 7 or greater (wheelchair dependent), compared with patients in the best SDMT quartile (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, .72-2.38; P = .371).

The short-term predictive value of baseline SDMT for reaching sustained EDSS of at least 7 was more obvious in the placebo arm than in the treatment arm.

Dr. Giovannoni said this is likely due to the treatment effect of siponimod preventing relatively more events in the worse quartile, and so reducing the risk for wheelchair dependency.

In the core plus extension part, there was an almost twofold increased risk for wheelchair dependence in the worse versus best SDMT groups (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.17-2.78; P = .007).

Both baseline SDMT (HR, 1.81; P = .007) and on-study change in SDMT (HR, 1.73; P = .046) predicted wheelchair dependence in the long-term.
 

‘More important than a walking stick’

Measuring cognitive change over time “may be a more important predictor than a walking stick in terms of quality of life and outcomes, and it affects clinical decisionmaking,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

The findings are not novel, as post hoc analyses of other studies showed similar results. However, this new analysis adds more evidence to the importance of cognition in MS, Dr. Giovannoni noted.

“I have patients with EDSS of 0 or 1 who are profoundly disabled because of cognition. You shouldn’t just assume someone is not disabled because they don’t have physical disability,” he said.

However, Dr. Giovannoni noted that the study found an association and does not necessarily indicate a cause.
 

‘Valuable’ insights

Antonia Lefter, MD, of NeuroHope, Monza Oncologic Hospital, Bucharest, Romania, cochaired the session highlighting the research. Commenting on the study, she called this analysis from the “renowned” EXPAND study “valuable.”

In addition, it “underscores” the importance of assessing cognitive processing speed, as it may predict long-term disability progression in patients with SPMS, Dr. Lefter said.

The study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Dr. Giovannoni, a steering committee member of the EXPAND trial, reported receiving consulting fees from AbbVie, Actelion, Atara Bio, Biogen, Celgene, Sanofi-Genzyme, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Reva. He has also received compensation for research from Biogen, Roche, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Takeda. Dr. Lefter has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cognitive impairment is a good predictor of physical disability progression in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), new research suggests. In an analysis of more than 1,600 patients with secondary-progressive MS (SPMS), the likelihood of needing a wheelchair was almost doubled in those who had the worst scores on cognitive testing measures, compared with their counterparts who had the best scores.

“These findings should change our world view of MS,” study investigator Gavin Giovannoni, PhD, professor of neurology, Blizard Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, told attendees at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology.

Expand data

Cognitive impairment occurs very early in the course of MS and is part of the disease, although to a greater or lesser degree depending on the patient, Dr. Giovannoni noted. Such impairment has a significant impact on quality of life for patients dealing with this disease, he added.

EXPAND was a phase 3 study of siponimod. Results showed the now-approved oral selective sphingosine 1–phosphate receptor modulator significantly reduced the risk for disability progression in patients with SPMS.

Using the EXPAND clinical trial database, the current researchers assessed 1,628 participants for an association between cognitive processing speed, as measured with the Symbol Digit Modality Test (SDMT), and physical disability progression, as measured with the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). A score of 7 or more on the EDSS indicates wheelchair dependence.

Dr. Giovannoni noted that cognitive processing speed is considered an indirect measure of thalamic network efficiency and functional brain reserve.

Investigators looked at both the core study, in which all patients continued on treatment or placebo for up to 37 months, and the core plus extension part, in which patients received treatment for up to 5 years.

They separated SDMT scores into quartiles: from worst (n = 435) to two intermediate quartiles (n = 808) to the best quartile (n = 385).
 

Wheelchair dependence

In addition, the researchers examined the predictive value by baseline SDMT, adjusting for treatment, age, gender, baseline EDSS score, baseline SCMT quartile, and treatment-by-baseline SCMT quartile interaction. On-study SDMT change (month 0-24) was also assessed after adjusting for treatment, age, gender, baseline EDS, baseline SCMT, and on-study change in SCMT quartile.

In the core study, those in the worst SDMT quartile at baseline were numerically more likely to reach deterioration to EDSS 7 or greater (wheelchair dependent), compared with patients in the best SDMT quartile (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, .72-2.38; P = .371).

The short-term predictive value of baseline SDMT for reaching sustained EDSS of at least 7 was more obvious in the placebo arm than in the treatment arm.

Dr. Giovannoni said this is likely due to the treatment effect of siponimod preventing relatively more events in the worse quartile, and so reducing the risk for wheelchair dependency.

In the core plus extension part, there was an almost twofold increased risk for wheelchair dependence in the worse versus best SDMT groups (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.17-2.78; P = .007).

Both baseline SDMT (HR, 1.81; P = .007) and on-study change in SDMT (HR, 1.73; P = .046) predicted wheelchair dependence in the long-term.
 

‘More important than a walking stick’

Measuring cognitive change over time “may be a more important predictor than a walking stick in terms of quality of life and outcomes, and it affects clinical decisionmaking,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

The findings are not novel, as post hoc analyses of other studies showed similar results. However, this new analysis adds more evidence to the importance of cognition in MS, Dr. Giovannoni noted.

“I have patients with EDSS of 0 or 1 who are profoundly disabled because of cognition. You shouldn’t just assume someone is not disabled because they don’t have physical disability,” he said.

However, Dr. Giovannoni noted that the study found an association and does not necessarily indicate a cause.
 

‘Valuable’ insights

Antonia Lefter, MD, of NeuroHope, Monza Oncologic Hospital, Bucharest, Romania, cochaired the session highlighting the research. Commenting on the study, she called this analysis from the “renowned” EXPAND study “valuable.”

In addition, it “underscores” the importance of assessing cognitive processing speed, as it may predict long-term disability progression in patients with SPMS, Dr. Lefter said.

The study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Dr. Giovannoni, a steering committee member of the EXPAND trial, reported receiving consulting fees from AbbVie, Actelion, Atara Bio, Biogen, Celgene, Sanofi-Genzyme, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Reva. He has also received compensation for research from Biogen, Roche, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Takeda. Dr. Lefter has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Cognitive impairment is a good predictor of physical disability progression in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS), new research suggests. In an analysis of more than 1,600 patients with secondary-progressive MS (SPMS), the likelihood of needing a wheelchair was almost doubled in those who had the worst scores on cognitive testing measures, compared with their counterparts who had the best scores.

“These findings should change our world view of MS,” study investigator Gavin Giovannoni, PhD, professor of neurology, Blizard Institute, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, told attendees at the Congress of the European Academy of Neurology.

Expand data

Cognitive impairment occurs very early in the course of MS and is part of the disease, although to a greater or lesser degree depending on the patient, Dr. Giovannoni noted. Such impairment has a significant impact on quality of life for patients dealing with this disease, he added.

EXPAND was a phase 3 study of siponimod. Results showed the now-approved oral selective sphingosine 1–phosphate receptor modulator significantly reduced the risk for disability progression in patients with SPMS.

Using the EXPAND clinical trial database, the current researchers assessed 1,628 participants for an association between cognitive processing speed, as measured with the Symbol Digit Modality Test (SDMT), and physical disability progression, as measured with the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS). A score of 7 or more on the EDSS indicates wheelchair dependence.

Dr. Giovannoni noted that cognitive processing speed is considered an indirect measure of thalamic network efficiency and functional brain reserve.

Investigators looked at both the core study, in which all patients continued on treatment or placebo for up to 37 months, and the core plus extension part, in which patients received treatment for up to 5 years.

They separated SDMT scores into quartiles: from worst (n = 435) to two intermediate quartiles (n = 808) to the best quartile (n = 385).
 

Wheelchair dependence

In addition, the researchers examined the predictive value by baseline SDMT, adjusting for treatment, age, gender, baseline EDSS score, baseline SCMT quartile, and treatment-by-baseline SCMT quartile interaction. On-study SDMT change (month 0-24) was also assessed after adjusting for treatment, age, gender, baseline EDS, baseline SCMT, and on-study change in SCMT quartile.

In the core study, those in the worst SDMT quartile at baseline were numerically more likely to reach deterioration to EDSS 7 or greater (wheelchair dependent), compared with patients in the best SDMT quartile (hazard ratio, 1.31; 95% confidence interval, .72-2.38; P = .371).

The short-term predictive value of baseline SDMT for reaching sustained EDSS of at least 7 was more obvious in the placebo arm than in the treatment arm.

Dr. Giovannoni said this is likely due to the treatment effect of siponimod preventing relatively more events in the worse quartile, and so reducing the risk for wheelchair dependency.

In the core plus extension part, there was an almost twofold increased risk for wheelchair dependence in the worse versus best SDMT groups (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.17-2.78; P = .007).

Both baseline SDMT (HR, 1.81; P = .007) and on-study change in SDMT (HR, 1.73; P = .046) predicted wheelchair dependence in the long-term.
 

‘More important than a walking stick’

Measuring cognitive change over time “may be a more important predictor than a walking stick in terms of quality of life and outcomes, and it affects clinical decisionmaking,” said Dr. Giovannoni.

The findings are not novel, as post hoc analyses of other studies showed similar results. However, this new analysis adds more evidence to the importance of cognition in MS, Dr. Giovannoni noted.

“I have patients with EDSS of 0 or 1 who are profoundly disabled because of cognition. You shouldn’t just assume someone is not disabled because they don’t have physical disability,” he said.

However, Dr. Giovannoni noted that the study found an association and does not necessarily indicate a cause.
 

‘Valuable’ insights

Antonia Lefter, MD, of NeuroHope, Monza Oncologic Hospital, Bucharest, Romania, cochaired the session highlighting the research. Commenting on the study, she called this analysis from the “renowned” EXPAND study “valuable.”

In addition, it “underscores” the importance of assessing cognitive processing speed, as it may predict long-term disability progression in patients with SPMS, Dr. Lefter said.

The study was funded by Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland. Dr. Giovannoni, a steering committee member of the EXPAND trial, reported receiving consulting fees from AbbVie, Actelion, Atara Bio, Biogen, Celgene, Sanofi-Genzyme, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Roche, and Reva. He has also received compensation for research from Biogen, Roche, Merck-Serono, Novartis, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Takeda. Dr. Lefter has reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among transgender youth who receive puberty-delaying or gender-affirming hormone therapy, bone mineral density (BMD) is lower relative to age-based norms, and this is true regardless of gender assignment at birth.

The problem worsens as the time during which these patients receive sex steroid hormones increases. So far, the “bone mineral density effects of these therapies are understudied,” warned Natalie Nokoff, MD, who presented a cross-sectional study at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The study of bone density is part of a larger body of research being conducted by Dr. Nokoff and her co-investigators on the long-term health effects of gender-affirming therapy in children and adolescents. In one of several recent studies, transgender youths taking gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, which effectively block puberty, were shown to be at greater risk of adverse changes in body composition and markers of cardiometabolic health than youths who were not taking them.

“We need more information on the optimal length of treatment with puberty-delaying medications before either discontinuation or introduction of gender-affirming hormones,” said Dr. Nokoff, an assistant professor of pediatrics and endocrinology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.

In this study, 56 transgender youth underwent total body dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). The patients ranged in age from 10 years to almost 20 years. Just over half (53%) were assigned female sex at birth.

The mean Z scores, signifying deviation from age-matched norms, were lower regardless of current use or past use of GnRH agonists in both transgender males or transgender females, relative to age-matched norms.

Asked to comment, Michele A. O’Connell, MBBCh, department of endocrinology and diabetes, Royal Children’s Hospital, Victoria, Australia, said the risk of bone loss is real.

“Monitoring of bone health is recommended for all transgender-diverse adolescents treated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists,” said Dr. O’Connell. He referred to multiple guidelines, including those issued by the World Professional Association of Transgender Health in 2012 and those from the Endocrine Society that were issued in 2017.
 

Inverse correlation between duration of GnRH agonist therapy and Z scores

In Dr. Nokoff’s study, for transgender males, the BMD Z score was reduced 0.2 relative to male norms and by 0.4 relative to female norms. For transgender females, the scores were reduced by 0.4 relative to male norms and by 0.2 relative to female norms.

Among transgender males who were taking testosterone and who had previously been exposed to GnRH agonists, the Z score was significantly lower than those taking testosterone alone (P = .004). There were no differences in Z score for transgender females taking estradiol alone relative to estradiol with current or past use of GnRH agonists.

There was a significant inverse correlation for duration of GnRH agonist therapy and Z scores for transgender females relative to male norms (P = .005) or female norms (P = .029). However, Z scores were unrelated to length of time receiving testosterone or estradiol therapy or to sex steroid concentrations.

The number of children and adolescents taking puberty-delaying or gender-affirming therapies is increasing. Although reliable data are limited, the exploration of gender identify appears to have become more common with the growing social acceptance of gender dysphoria. That term refers to a sense of unease among individuals who feel that their biological sex does not match their gender identity, according to Dr. Nokoff.

“It is now estimated that 2% of youths identify as transgender,” she said.

Findings from studies investigating the relationship between gender-affirming therapy and bone loss among adults have not been consistent. In a single-center study that followed 543 transgender men and 711 transgender women who had undergone DEXA scanning at baseline prior to starting hormone therapy, there did not appear to be any substantial negative effects on lumbar bone density over time (J Bone Min Res. 2018 Dec;34:447-54).

For adolescents, there is growing evidence of the risk of bone loss in relation to gender-affirming therapy, but there is limited agreement on clinical risks and how they can be avoided. Relevant variables include genetics and diet, as well as the types, doses, and length of time receiving gender-affirming therapy.
 

Monitor bone in transgender youth; Use vitamin D and weight-bearing exercise

Dr. O’Connell is the first author of a recent summary of the pharmacologic management of trans and gender-diverse adolescents. That summary covered multiple topics in addition to risk of bone loss, including the impact on growth, cognition, and mental health (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022 Jan;107:241-257).

Overall, she believes that bone health should be monitored for children receiving puberty-delaying or gender-affirming therapies but agrees with Dr. Nokoff that the clinical impact remains poorly defined.

“Long-term follow-up studies will be required to assess the impact, if any, on functional outcomes such as fracture risk,” she reported. Still, she encouraged use of standard ways of improving bone health, including adequate vitamin D intake and weight-bearing exercise.

Dr. Nokoff and Dr. O’Connell have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among transgender youth who receive puberty-delaying or gender-affirming hormone therapy, bone mineral density (BMD) is lower relative to age-based norms, and this is true regardless of gender assignment at birth.

The problem worsens as the time during which these patients receive sex steroid hormones increases. So far, the “bone mineral density effects of these therapies are understudied,” warned Natalie Nokoff, MD, who presented a cross-sectional study at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The study of bone density is part of a larger body of research being conducted by Dr. Nokoff and her co-investigators on the long-term health effects of gender-affirming therapy in children and adolescents. In one of several recent studies, transgender youths taking gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, which effectively block puberty, were shown to be at greater risk of adverse changes in body composition and markers of cardiometabolic health than youths who were not taking them.

“We need more information on the optimal length of treatment with puberty-delaying medications before either discontinuation or introduction of gender-affirming hormones,” said Dr. Nokoff, an assistant professor of pediatrics and endocrinology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.

In this study, 56 transgender youth underwent total body dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). The patients ranged in age from 10 years to almost 20 years. Just over half (53%) were assigned female sex at birth.

The mean Z scores, signifying deviation from age-matched norms, were lower regardless of current use or past use of GnRH agonists in both transgender males or transgender females, relative to age-matched norms.

Asked to comment, Michele A. O’Connell, MBBCh, department of endocrinology and diabetes, Royal Children’s Hospital, Victoria, Australia, said the risk of bone loss is real.

“Monitoring of bone health is recommended for all transgender-diverse adolescents treated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists,” said Dr. O’Connell. He referred to multiple guidelines, including those issued by the World Professional Association of Transgender Health in 2012 and those from the Endocrine Society that were issued in 2017.
 

Inverse correlation between duration of GnRH agonist therapy and Z scores

In Dr. Nokoff’s study, for transgender males, the BMD Z score was reduced 0.2 relative to male norms and by 0.4 relative to female norms. For transgender females, the scores were reduced by 0.4 relative to male norms and by 0.2 relative to female norms.

Among transgender males who were taking testosterone and who had previously been exposed to GnRH agonists, the Z score was significantly lower than those taking testosterone alone (P = .004). There were no differences in Z score for transgender females taking estradiol alone relative to estradiol with current or past use of GnRH agonists.

There was a significant inverse correlation for duration of GnRH agonist therapy and Z scores for transgender females relative to male norms (P = .005) or female norms (P = .029). However, Z scores were unrelated to length of time receiving testosterone or estradiol therapy or to sex steroid concentrations.

The number of children and adolescents taking puberty-delaying or gender-affirming therapies is increasing. Although reliable data are limited, the exploration of gender identify appears to have become more common with the growing social acceptance of gender dysphoria. That term refers to a sense of unease among individuals who feel that their biological sex does not match their gender identity, according to Dr. Nokoff.

“It is now estimated that 2% of youths identify as transgender,” she said.

Findings from studies investigating the relationship between gender-affirming therapy and bone loss among adults have not been consistent. In a single-center study that followed 543 transgender men and 711 transgender women who had undergone DEXA scanning at baseline prior to starting hormone therapy, there did not appear to be any substantial negative effects on lumbar bone density over time (J Bone Min Res. 2018 Dec;34:447-54).

For adolescents, there is growing evidence of the risk of bone loss in relation to gender-affirming therapy, but there is limited agreement on clinical risks and how they can be avoided. Relevant variables include genetics and diet, as well as the types, doses, and length of time receiving gender-affirming therapy.
 

Monitor bone in transgender youth; Use vitamin D and weight-bearing exercise

Dr. O’Connell is the first author of a recent summary of the pharmacologic management of trans and gender-diverse adolescents. That summary covered multiple topics in addition to risk of bone loss, including the impact on growth, cognition, and mental health (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022 Jan;107:241-257).

Overall, she believes that bone health should be monitored for children receiving puberty-delaying or gender-affirming therapies but agrees with Dr. Nokoff that the clinical impact remains poorly defined.

“Long-term follow-up studies will be required to assess the impact, if any, on functional outcomes such as fracture risk,” she reported. Still, she encouraged use of standard ways of improving bone health, including adequate vitamin D intake and weight-bearing exercise.

Dr. Nokoff and Dr. O’Connell have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Among transgender youth who receive puberty-delaying or gender-affirming hormone therapy, bone mineral density (BMD) is lower relative to age-based norms, and this is true regardless of gender assignment at birth.

The problem worsens as the time during which these patients receive sex steroid hormones increases. So far, the “bone mineral density effects of these therapies are understudied,” warned Natalie Nokoff, MD, who presented a cross-sectional study at the annual meeting of the Endocrine Society.

The study of bone density is part of a larger body of research being conducted by Dr. Nokoff and her co-investigators on the long-term health effects of gender-affirming therapy in children and adolescents. In one of several recent studies, transgender youths taking gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists, which effectively block puberty, were shown to be at greater risk of adverse changes in body composition and markers of cardiometabolic health than youths who were not taking them.

“We need more information on the optimal length of treatment with puberty-delaying medications before either discontinuation or introduction of gender-affirming hormones,” said Dr. Nokoff, an assistant professor of pediatrics and endocrinology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora.

In this study, 56 transgender youth underwent total body dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DEXA). The patients ranged in age from 10 years to almost 20 years. Just over half (53%) were assigned female sex at birth.

The mean Z scores, signifying deviation from age-matched norms, were lower regardless of current use or past use of GnRH agonists in both transgender males or transgender females, relative to age-matched norms.

Asked to comment, Michele A. O’Connell, MBBCh, department of endocrinology and diabetes, Royal Children’s Hospital, Victoria, Australia, said the risk of bone loss is real.

“Monitoring of bone health is recommended for all transgender-diverse adolescents treated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists,” said Dr. O’Connell. He referred to multiple guidelines, including those issued by the World Professional Association of Transgender Health in 2012 and those from the Endocrine Society that were issued in 2017.
 

Inverse correlation between duration of GnRH agonist therapy and Z scores

In Dr. Nokoff’s study, for transgender males, the BMD Z score was reduced 0.2 relative to male norms and by 0.4 relative to female norms. For transgender females, the scores were reduced by 0.4 relative to male norms and by 0.2 relative to female norms.

Among transgender males who were taking testosterone and who had previously been exposed to GnRH agonists, the Z score was significantly lower than those taking testosterone alone (P = .004). There were no differences in Z score for transgender females taking estradiol alone relative to estradiol with current or past use of GnRH agonists.

There was a significant inverse correlation for duration of GnRH agonist therapy and Z scores for transgender females relative to male norms (P = .005) or female norms (P = .029). However, Z scores were unrelated to length of time receiving testosterone or estradiol therapy or to sex steroid concentrations.

The number of children and adolescents taking puberty-delaying or gender-affirming therapies is increasing. Although reliable data are limited, the exploration of gender identify appears to have become more common with the growing social acceptance of gender dysphoria. That term refers to a sense of unease among individuals who feel that their biological sex does not match their gender identity, according to Dr. Nokoff.

“It is now estimated that 2% of youths identify as transgender,” she said.

Findings from studies investigating the relationship between gender-affirming therapy and bone loss among adults have not been consistent. In a single-center study that followed 543 transgender men and 711 transgender women who had undergone DEXA scanning at baseline prior to starting hormone therapy, there did not appear to be any substantial negative effects on lumbar bone density over time (J Bone Min Res. 2018 Dec;34:447-54).

For adolescents, there is growing evidence of the risk of bone loss in relation to gender-affirming therapy, but there is limited agreement on clinical risks and how they can be avoided. Relevant variables include genetics and diet, as well as the types, doses, and length of time receiving gender-affirming therapy.
 

Monitor bone in transgender youth; Use vitamin D and weight-bearing exercise

Dr. O’Connell is the first author of a recent summary of the pharmacologic management of trans and gender-diverse adolescents. That summary covered multiple topics in addition to risk of bone loss, including the impact on growth, cognition, and mental health (J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2022 Jan;107:241-257).

Overall, she believes that bone health should be monitored for children receiving puberty-delaying or gender-affirming therapies but agrees with Dr. Nokoff that the clinical impact remains poorly defined.

“Long-term follow-up studies will be required to assess the impact, if any, on functional outcomes such as fracture risk,” she reported. Still, she encouraged use of standard ways of improving bone health, including adequate vitamin D intake and weight-bearing exercise.

Dr. Nokoff and Dr. O’Connell have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

GLASGOW – Individuals given COVID-19 vaccination may experience a wide range of dermatologic reactions, some of which may be life-threatening, reveals a prospective Indian study that suggests histopathological assessment is key to understanding the cause.

Studying more than 130 patients who presented with vaccine-related dermatologic reactions, the researchers found that the most common acute adverse events were acute urticaria, generalized pruritus, and maculopapular rash.

Dermal hypersensitivity reactions occurred within 3 days of vaccination, which suggests the culprit is an immediate type 1 hypersensitivity reaction, said study presenter Alpana Mohta, MD, department of dermatology, Sardar Patel Medical College, Bikaner, Rajasthan, India. Most of the patients had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, she said.

The most common delayed events were pityriasis rosea and lichen planus, which occurred within 3-4 weeks of vaccination and could be a result of delayed hypersensitivity or a T cell–mediated skin reaction caused by “molecular mimicry with a viral epitope,” Dr. Mohta said.

The research was presented at the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) 2022 Annual Meeting on July 5.

Dr. Mohta said that, given the “surge” in the number of people who have been vaccinated, it is “imperative as dermatologists” to maintain a “very high index of suspicion to differentiate reactions caused by vaccination” from other causes, and a proper assessment should be performed in “every patient” who presents with a possible reaction.

She also emphasized that “since so many clinical [COVID-19] variants are being encountered,” histopathological assessment could “help in better understanding the underlying pathophysiology” of every reaction.

Dr. Mohta began her presentation by explaining that India is running one of the “world’s largest vaccination drives” for COVID-19, with almost 90% of adults fully vaccinated.

She added that studies have indicated that the incidence of cutaneous adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination ranges from 1.0% to 1.9% and that dermatologists have encountered a “plethora” of related reactions.

Dr. Mohta emphasized that the “myriad presentations” of these reactions means that correlating clinical and pathological findings is “key” to understanding the underlying pathophysiology.

She and her colleagues therefore conducted a prospective, hospital-based study of patients who self-reported mucocutaneous adverse reactions from April to December 2021, within 4 weeks of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

They gathered information on the patients’ signs and symptoms, as well as the date of vaccine administration and the type of vaccine given, alongside a detailed medical history, including previous allergies, prior COVID-19 infection, and any comorbidities.

The patients also underwent a clinical examination and laboratory investigations, and their cases were assessed by two senior dermatologists to determine whether the association between the adverse event and COVID-19 vaccination was likely causal.

Dr. Mohta said that 132 adult patients, with an average age of 38.2 years, were identified as having vaccine-related reactions.

This included 84 (63.6%) patients with a mild reaction, defined as resolving with symptomatic treatment; 43 (32.6%) patients with a moderate reaction, defined as extensive and lasting for more than 4 weeks; and five (3.8%) patients with severe reactions, defined as systemic and potentially life-threatening.

The mild group included 21 patients with acute urticaria, with a mean onset of 1.2 days following vaccination, as well as 20 cases of maculopapular rash, with a mean onset of 2.4 days; 18 cases of pityriasis rosea, with a mean onset of 17.4 days; and nine cases of eruptive pseudoangioma, with a mean onset of 3.5 days.

There were 16 cases of lichen planus in the moderate group, with a mean onset of 22.7 days after COVID-19 vaccination; nine cases of herpes zoster, with a mean onset of 15.3 days; and one case of pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta (PLEVA), among others.

The severe group included two cases of erythroderma, with a mean onset of 9 days after vaccination; one case of drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), with a mean onset of 20 days; and one case each of subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) and bullous pemphigoid, with mean onsets of 15 days and 14 days, respectively.

Turning to the histopathological results, Dr. Mohta explained that only 57 patients from their cohort agreed to have a skin biopsy.

Results of those skin biopsies showed that 21 (36.8%) patients had vaccine-related eruption of papules and plaques, predominantly spongiotic dermatitis. This correlated with the clinical diagnoses of pityriasis rosea, maculopapular and papulosquamous rash, and DRESS.

Lichenoid and interface dermatitis were seen in 13 (22.8%) patients, which correlated with the clinical diagnoses of lichen planus, PLEVA, and SCLE. Eleven (19.3%) patients had a dermal hypersensitivity reaction, equated to the clinical diagnoses of urticaria, and eruptive pseudoangioma.

Dr. Mohta acknowledged that the study was limited by the inability to calculate the “true prevalence of vaccine-associated reactions,” and because immunohistochemistry was not performed.

Session chair Saleem Taibjee, MD, department of dermatology, Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Dorchester, United Kingdom, congratulated Dr. Mohta on her “very interesting” presentation, highlighting their “extensive experience in such a large cohort of patients.”

He asked what type of COVID-19 vaccines the patients had received, and whether Dr. Mohta could provide any “insights into which patients you can safely give the vaccine again to, and those [to whom] you may avoid giving further doses.”

Dr. Mohta said that the majority of the patients in the study received the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, as that was the one most commonly used in India at the time, with around 30 patients receiving the Indian Covishield version of the AstraZeneca vaccine. (The two-dose AstraZeneca vaccine, which is cheaper to manufacture and easier to store at typical refrigerated temperatures than mRNA-based vaccines, has been authorized by the World Health Organization, the European Medicines Agency, and over 50 countries but has not been authorized in the United States.)

She added that none of the patients in the study with mild-to-moderate skin reactions were advised against receiving further doses” but that those with severe reactions “were advised not to take any further doses.”

Consequently, in the case of mild reactions, “further doses are not a contraindication,” Dr. Mohta said, but patients with more severe reactions should be considered on a “case by case basis.”

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

GLASGOW – Individuals given COVID-19 vaccination may experience a wide range of dermatologic reactions, some of which may be life-threatening, reveals a prospective Indian study that suggests histopathological assessment is key to understanding the cause.

Studying more than 130 patients who presented with vaccine-related dermatologic reactions, the researchers found that the most common acute adverse events were acute urticaria, generalized pruritus, and maculopapular rash.

Dermal hypersensitivity reactions occurred within 3 days of vaccination, which suggests the culprit is an immediate type 1 hypersensitivity reaction, said study presenter Alpana Mohta, MD, department of dermatology, Sardar Patel Medical College, Bikaner, Rajasthan, India. Most of the patients had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, she said.

The most common delayed events were pityriasis rosea and lichen planus, which occurred within 3-4 weeks of vaccination and could be a result of delayed hypersensitivity or a T cell–mediated skin reaction caused by “molecular mimicry with a viral epitope,” Dr. Mohta said.

The research was presented at the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) 2022 Annual Meeting on July 5.

Dr. Mohta said that, given the “surge” in the number of people who have been vaccinated, it is “imperative as dermatologists” to maintain a “very high index of suspicion to differentiate reactions caused by vaccination” from other causes, and a proper assessment should be performed in “every patient” who presents with a possible reaction.

She also emphasized that “since so many clinical [COVID-19] variants are being encountered,” histopathological assessment could “help in better understanding the underlying pathophysiology” of every reaction.

Dr. Mohta began her presentation by explaining that India is running one of the “world’s largest vaccination drives” for COVID-19, with almost 90% of adults fully vaccinated.

She added that studies have indicated that the incidence of cutaneous adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination ranges from 1.0% to 1.9% and that dermatologists have encountered a “plethora” of related reactions.

Dr. Mohta emphasized that the “myriad presentations” of these reactions means that correlating clinical and pathological findings is “key” to understanding the underlying pathophysiology.

She and her colleagues therefore conducted a prospective, hospital-based study of patients who self-reported mucocutaneous adverse reactions from April to December 2021, within 4 weeks of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

They gathered information on the patients’ signs and symptoms, as well as the date of vaccine administration and the type of vaccine given, alongside a detailed medical history, including previous allergies, prior COVID-19 infection, and any comorbidities.

The patients also underwent a clinical examination and laboratory investigations, and their cases were assessed by two senior dermatologists to determine whether the association between the adverse event and COVID-19 vaccination was likely causal.

Dr. Mohta said that 132 adult patients, with an average age of 38.2 years, were identified as having vaccine-related reactions.

This included 84 (63.6%) patients with a mild reaction, defined as resolving with symptomatic treatment; 43 (32.6%) patients with a moderate reaction, defined as extensive and lasting for more than 4 weeks; and five (3.8%) patients with severe reactions, defined as systemic and potentially life-threatening.

The mild group included 21 patients with acute urticaria, with a mean onset of 1.2 days following vaccination, as well as 20 cases of maculopapular rash, with a mean onset of 2.4 days; 18 cases of pityriasis rosea, with a mean onset of 17.4 days; and nine cases of eruptive pseudoangioma, with a mean onset of 3.5 days.

There were 16 cases of lichen planus in the moderate group, with a mean onset of 22.7 days after COVID-19 vaccination; nine cases of herpes zoster, with a mean onset of 15.3 days; and one case of pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta (PLEVA), among others.

The severe group included two cases of erythroderma, with a mean onset of 9 days after vaccination; one case of drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), with a mean onset of 20 days; and one case each of subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) and bullous pemphigoid, with mean onsets of 15 days and 14 days, respectively.

Turning to the histopathological results, Dr. Mohta explained that only 57 patients from their cohort agreed to have a skin biopsy.

Results of those skin biopsies showed that 21 (36.8%) patients had vaccine-related eruption of papules and plaques, predominantly spongiotic dermatitis. This correlated with the clinical diagnoses of pityriasis rosea, maculopapular and papulosquamous rash, and DRESS.

Lichenoid and interface dermatitis were seen in 13 (22.8%) patients, which correlated with the clinical diagnoses of lichen planus, PLEVA, and SCLE. Eleven (19.3%) patients had a dermal hypersensitivity reaction, equated to the clinical diagnoses of urticaria, and eruptive pseudoangioma.

Dr. Mohta acknowledged that the study was limited by the inability to calculate the “true prevalence of vaccine-associated reactions,” and because immunohistochemistry was not performed.

Session chair Saleem Taibjee, MD, department of dermatology, Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Dorchester, United Kingdom, congratulated Dr. Mohta on her “very interesting” presentation, highlighting their “extensive experience in such a large cohort of patients.”

He asked what type of COVID-19 vaccines the patients had received, and whether Dr. Mohta could provide any “insights into which patients you can safely give the vaccine again to, and those [to whom] you may avoid giving further doses.”

Dr. Mohta said that the majority of the patients in the study received the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, as that was the one most commonly used in India at the time, with around 30 patients receiving the Indian Covishield version of the AstraZeneca vaccine. (The two-dose AstraZeneca vaccine, which is cheaper to manufacture and easier to store at typical refrigerated temperatures than mRNA-based vaccines, has been authorized by the World Health Organization, the European Medicines Agency, and over 50 countries but has not been authorized in the United States.)

She added that none of the patients in the study with mild-to-moderate skin reactions were advised against receiving further doses” but that those with severe reactions “were advised not to take any further doses.”

Consequently, in the case of mild reactions, “further doses are not a contraindication,” Dr. Mohta said, but patients with more severe reactions should be considered on a “case by case basis.”

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

GLASGOW – Individuals given COVID-19 vaccination may experience a wide range of dermatologic reactions, some of which may be life-threatening, reveals a prospective Indian study that suggests histopathological assessment is key to understanding the cause.

Studying more than 130 patients who presented with vaccine-related dermatologic reactions, the researchers found that the most common acute adverse events were acute urticaria, generalized pruritus, and maculopapular rash.

Dermal hypersensitivity reactions occurred within 3 days of vaccination, which suggests the culprit is an immediate type 1 hypersensitivity reaction, said study presenter Alpana Mohta, MD, department of dermatology, Sardar Patel Medical College, Bikaner, Rajasthan, India. Most of the patients had received the AstraZeneca vaccine, she said.

The most common delayed events were pityriasis rosea and lichen planus, which occurred within 3-4 weeks of vaccination and could be a result of delayed hypersensitivity or a T cell–mediated skin reaction caused by “molecular mimicry with a viral epitope,” Dr. Mohta said.

The research was presented at the British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) 2022 Annual Meeting on July 5.

Dr. Mohta said that, given the “surge” in the number of people who have been vaccinated, it is “imperative as dermatologists” to maintain a “very high index of suspicion to differentiate reactions caused by vaccination” from other causes, and a proper assessment should be performed in “every patient” who presents with a possible reaction.

She also emphasized that “since so many clinical [COVID-19] variants are being encountered,” histopathological assessment could “help in better understanding the underlying pathophysiology” of every reaction.

Dr. Mohta began her presentation by explaining that India is running one of the “world’s largest vaccination drives” for COVID-19, with almost 90% of adults fully vaccinated.

She added that studies have indicated that the incidence of cutaneous adverse reactions following COVID-19 vaccination ranges from 1.0% to 1.9% and that dermatologists have encountered a “plethora” of related reactions.

Dr. Mohta emphasized that the “myriad presentations” of these reactions means that correlating clinical and pathological findings is “key” to understanding the underlying pathophysiology.

She and her colleagues therefore conducted a prospective, hospital-based study of patients who self-reported mucocutaneous adverse reactions from April to December 2021, within 4 weeks of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine.

They gathered information on the patients’ signs and symptoms, as well as the date of vaccine administration and the type of vaccine given, alongside a detailed medical history, including previous allergies, prior COVID-19 infection, and any comorbidities.

The patients also underwent a clinical examination and laboratory investigations, and their cases were assessed by two senior dermatologists to determine whether the association between the adverse event and COVID-19 vaccination was likely causal.

Dr. Mohta said that 132 adult patients, with an average age of 38.2 years, were identified as having vaccine-related reactions.

This included 84 (63.6%) patients with a mild reaction, defined as resolving with symptomatic treatment; 43 (32.6%) patients with a moderate reaction, defined as extensive and lasting for more than 4 weeks; and five (3.8%) patients with severe reactions, defined as systemic and potentially life-threatening.

The mild group included 21 patients with acute urticaria, with a mean onset of 1.2 days following vaccination, as well as 20 cases of maculopapular rash, with a mean onset of 2.4 days; 18 cases of pityriasis rosea, with a mean onset of 17.4 days; and nine cases of eruptive pseudoangioma, with a mean onset of 3.5 days.

There were 16 cases of lichen planus in the moderate group, with a mean onset of 22.7 days after COVID-19 vaccination; nine cases of herpes zoster, with a mean onset of 15.3 days; and one case of pityriasis lichenoides et varioliformis acuta (PLEVA), among others.

The severe group included two cases of erythroderma, with a mean onset of 9 days after vaccination; one case of drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), with a mean onset of 20 days; and one case each of subacute cutaneous lupus erythematosus (SCLE) and bullous pemphigoid, with mean onsets of 15 days and 14 days, respectively.

Turning to the histopathological results, Dr. Mohta explained that only 57 patients from their cohort agreed to have a skin biopsy.

Results of those skin biopsies showed that 21 (36.8%) patients had vaccine-related eruption of papules and plaques, predominantly spongiotic dermatitis. This correlated with the clinical diagnoses of pityriasis rosea, maculopapular and papulosquamous rash, and DRESS.

Lichenoid and interface dermatitis were seen in 13 (22.8%) patients, which correlated with the clinical diagnoses of lichen planus, PLEVA, and SCLE. Eleven (19.3%) patients had a dermal hypersensitivity reaction, equated to the clinical diagnoses of urticaria, and eruptive pseudoangioma.

Dr. Mohta acknowledged that the study was limited by the inability to calculate the “true prevalence of vaccine-associated reactions,” and because immunohistochemistry was not performed.

Session chair Saleem Taibjee, MD, department of dermatology, Dorset County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Dorchester, United Kingdom, congratulated Dr. Mohta on her “very interesting” presentation, highlighting their “extensive experience in such a large cohort of patients.”

He asked what type of COVID-19 vaccines the patients had received, and whether Dr. Mohta could provide any “insights into which patients you can safely give the vaccine again to, and those [to whom] you may avoid giving further doses.”

Dr. Mohta said that the majority of the patients in the study received the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, as that was the one most commonly used in India at the time, with around 30 patients receiving the Indian Covishield version of the AstraZeneca vaccine. (The two-dose AstraZeneca vaccine, which is cheaper to manufacture and easier to store at typical refrigerated temperatures than mRNA-based vaccines, has been authorized by the World Health Organization, the European Medicines Agency, and over 50 countries but has not been authorized in the United States.)

She added that none of the patients in the study with mild-to-moderate skin reactions were advised against receiving further doses” but that those with severe reactions “were advised not to take any further doses.”

Consequently, in the case of mild reactions, “further doses are not a contraindication,” Dr. Mohta said, but patients with more severe reactions should be considered on a “case by case basis.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No funding or relevant financial relationships were declared.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INDIANAPOLIS – Adolescents with nonsegmental vitiligo achieved substantial repigmentation with ruxolitinib cream, compared with those in a vehicle group at week 24, and a higher proportion responded at week 52, results from a pooled analysis of phase 3 data showed.

Currently, there is no treatment approved by the Food and Drug Administration to repigment patients with vitiligo, but the cream formulation of the Janus kinase inhibitor ruxolitinib was shown to be effective and have a favorable safety profile in patients aged 12 years and up in the phase 3 clinical trials, TRuE-V1 and TruE-V2. “We know that about half of patients will develop vitiligo by the age of 20, so there is a significant need to have treatments available for the pediatric population,” lead study author David Rosmarin, MD, told this news organization in advance of the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

In September 2021, topical ruxolitinib (Opzelura) was approved by the FDA for treating atopic dermatitis in nonimmunocompromised patients aged 12 years and older. The manufacturer, Incyte, has submitted an application for approval to the agency for treating vitiligo in patients ages 12 years and older based on 24-week results; the FDA is expected to make a decision by July 18.

For the current study, presented during a poster session at the meeting, Dr. Rosmarin, of the department of dermatology at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues pooled efficacy and safety data for adolescent patients aged 12-17 years from the TRuE-V studies, which enrolled patients 12 years of age and older diagnosed with nonsegmental vitiligo with depigmentation covering up to 10% of total body surface area (BSA), including facial and total Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (F-VASI/T-VASI) scores of ≥ 0.5/≥ 3. Investigators randomized patients 2:1 to twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle for 24 weeks, after which all patients could apply 1.5% ruxolitinib cream through week 52. Efficacy endpoints included the proportions of patients who achieved at least 75%, 50%, and 90% improvement from baseline in F-VASI scores (F-VASI75, F-VASI50, F-VASI90); the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 50% improvement from baseline in T-VASI (T-VASI50); the proportion of patients who achieved a Vitiligo Noticeability Scale (VNS) rating of 4 or 5; and percentage change from baseline in facial BSA (F-BSA). Safety and tolerability were also assessed.

For the pooled analysis, Dr. Rosmarin and colleagues reported results on 72 adolescents: 55 who received ruxolitinib cream and 17 who received vehicle. At week 24, 32.1% of adolescents treated with ruxolitinib cream achieved F-VASI75, compared with none of those in the vehicle group. Further, response rates at week 52 for patients who applied ruxolitinib cream from day 1 were as follows: F-VASI75, 48.0%; F-VASI50, 70.0%; F-VASI90, 24.0%; T-VASI50, 60.0%; VNS score of 4/5, 56.0%; and F-BSA mean percentage change from baseline, –41.9%.

Efficacy at week 52 among crossover patients (after 28 weeks of ruxolitinib cream) was consistent with week 24 data in patients who applied ruxolitinib cream from day 1.

“As we know that repigmentation takes time, about half of the patients achieved the F-VASI75 at the 52-week endpoint,” said Dr. Rosmarin, who is also vice-chair for research and education at Tufts Medical Center, Boston. “Particularly remarkable is that 60% of adolescents achieved a T-VASI50 [50% or more repigmentation of the whole body at the year mark] and over half the patients described their vitiligo as a lot less noticeable or no longer noticeable at the year mark.”

In terms of safety, treatment-related adverse events occurred in 12.9% of patients treated with ruxolitinib (no information was available on the specific events). Serious adverse events occurred in 1.4% of patients; none were considered related to treatment.

“Overall, these results are quite impressive,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “While it can be very challenging to repigment patients with vitiligo, ruxolitinib cream provides an effective option which can help many of my patients.” He acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the fact that the TRuE-V studies were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, “which may have contributed to patients being lost to follow-up. Also, the majority of the patients had skin phototypes 1-3.”

Carrie C. Coughlin, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, said that patients with vitiligo need treatment options that are well-studied and covered by insurance. “This study is a great step forward in developing medications for this underserved patient population,” said Dr. Coughlin, who directs the section of pediatric dermatology at Washington University/St. Louis Children’s Hospital.

However, she continued, “the authors mention approximately 13% of patients had a treatment-related adverse reaction, but the abstract does not delineate these reactions.” In addition, the study was limited to children who had less than or equal to 10% body surface area involvement of vitiligo, she noted, adding that “more work is needed to learn about safety of application to larger surface areas.”

Going forward, “it will be important to learn the durability of response,” said Dr. Coughlin, who is also assistant professor of dermatology at Washington University in St. Louis. “Does the vitiligo return if patients stop applying the ruxolitinib cream?”

Dr. Rosmarin disclosed that he has received honoraria as a consultant for Incyte, AbbVie, Abcuro, AltruBio, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Concert, CSL Behring, Dermavant, Dermira, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Revolo Biotherapeutics, Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and VielaBio. He has also received research support from Incyte, AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermira, Galderma, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Regeneron; and has served as a paid speaker for Incyte, AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Incyte, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. Coughlin is on the board of the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance and the International Immunosuppression and Transplant Skin Cancer Collaborative.

INDIANAPOLIS – Adolescents with nonsegmental vitiligo achieved substantial repigmentation with ruxolitinib cream, compared with those in a vehicle group at week 24, and a higher proportion responded at week 52, results from a pooled analysis of phase 3 data showed.

Currently, there is no treatment approved by the Food and Drug Administration to repigment patients with vitiligo, but the cream formulation of the Janus kinase inhibitor ruxolitinib was shown to be effective and have a favorable safety profile in patients aged 12 years and up in the phase 3 clinical trials, TRuE-V1 and TruE-V2. “We know that about half of patients will develop vitiligo by the age of 20, so there is a significant need to have treatments available for the pediatric population,” lead study author David Rosmarin, MD, told this news organization in advance of the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

In September 2021, topical ruxolitinib (Opzelura) was approved by the FDA for treating atopic dermatitis in nonimmunocompromised patients aged 12 years and older. The manufacturer, Incyte, has submitted an application for approval to the agency for treating vitiligo in patients ages 12 years and older based on 24-week results; the FDA is expected to make a decision by July 18.

For the current study, presented during a poster session at the meeting, Dr. Rosmarin, of the department of dermatology at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues pooled efficacy and safety data for adolescent patients aged 12-17 years from the TRuE-V studies, which enrolled patients 12 years of age and older diagnosed with nonsegmental vitiligo with depigmentation covering up to 10% of total body surface area (BSA), including facial and total Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (F-VASI/T-VASI) scores of ≥ 0.5/≥ 3. Investigators randomized patients 2:1 to twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle for 24 weeks, after which all patients could apply 1.5% ruxolitinib cream through week 52. Efficacy endpoints included the proportions of patients who achieved at least 75%, 50%, and 90% improvement from baseline in F-VASI scores (F-VASI75, F-VASI50, F-VASI90); the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 50% improvement from baseline in T-VASI (T-VASI50); the proportion of patients who achieved a Vitiligo Noticeability Scale (VNS) rating of 4 or 5; and percentage change from baseline in facial BSA (F-BSA). Safety and tolerability were also assessed.

For the pooled analysis, Dr. Rosmarin and colleagues reported results on 72 adolescents: 55 who received ruxolitinib cream and 17 who received vehicle. At week 24, 32.1% of adolescents treated with ruxolitinib cream achieved F-VASI75, compared with none of those in the vehicle group. Further, response rates at week 52 for patients who applied ruxolitinib cream from day 1 were as follows: F-VASI75, 48.0%; F-VASI50, 70.0%; F-VASI90, 24.0%; T-VASI50, 60.0%; VNS score of 4/5, 56.0%; and F-BSA mean percentage change from baseline, –41.9%.

Efficacy at week 52 among crossover patients (after 28 weeks of ruxolitinib cream) was consistent with week 24 data in patients who applied ruxolitinib cream from day 1.

“As we know that repigmentation takes time, about half of the patients achieved the F-VASI75 at the 52-week endpoint,” said Dr. Rosmarin, who is also vice-chair for research and education at Tufts Medical Center, Boston. “Particularly remarkable is that 60% of adolescents achieved a T-VASI50 [50% or more repigmentation of the whole body at the year mark] and over half the patients described their vitiligo as a lot less noticeable or no longer noticeable at the year mark.”

In terms of safety, treatment-related adverse events occurred in 12.9% of patients treated with ruxolitinib (no information was available on the specific events). Serious adverse events occurred in 1.4% of patients; none were considered related to treatment.

“Overall, these results are quite impressive,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “While it can be very challenging to repigment patients with vitiligo, ruxolitinib cream provides an effective option which can help many of my patients.” He acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the fact that the TRuE-V studies were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, “which may have contributed to patients being lost to follow-up. Also, the majority of the patients had skin phototypes 1-3.”

Carrie C. Coughlin, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, said that patients with vitiligo need treatment options that are well-studied and covered by insurance. “This study is a great step forward in developing medications for this underserved patient population,” said Dr. Coughlin, who directs the section of pediatric dermatology at Washington University/St. Louis Children’s Hospital.

However, she continued, “the authors mention approximately 13% of patients had a treatment-related adverse reaction, but the abstract does not delineate these reactions.” In addition, the study was limited to children who had less than or equal to 10% body surface area involvement of vitiligo, she noted, adding that “more work is needed to learn about safety of application to larger surface areas.”

Going forward, “it will be important to learn the durability of response,” said Dr. Coughlin, who is also assistant professor of dermatology at Washington University in St. Louis. “Does the vitiligo return if patients stop applying the ruxolitinib cream?”

Dr. Rosmarin disclosed that he has received honoraria as a consultant for Incyte, AbbVie, Abcuro, AltruBio, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Concert, CSL Behring, Dermavant, Dermira, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Revolo Biotherapeutics, Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and VielaBio. He has also received research support from Incyte, AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermira, Galderma, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Regeneron; and has served as a paid speaker for Incyte, AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Incyte, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. Coughlin is on the board of the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance and the International Immunosuppression and Transplant Skin Cancer Collaborative.

INDIANAPOLIS – Adolescents with nonsegmental vitiligo achieved substantial repigmentation with ruxolitinib cream, compared with those in a vehicle group at week 24, and a higher proportion responded at week 52, results from a pooled analysis of phase 3 data showed.

Currently, there is no treatment approved by the Food and Drug Administration to repigment patients with vitiligo, but the cream formulation of the Janus kinase inhibitor ruxolitinib was shown to be effective and have a favorable safety profile in patients aged 12 years and up in the phase 3 clinical trials, TRuE-V1 and TruE-V2. “We know that about half of patients will develop vitiligo by the age of 20, so there is a significant need to have treatments available for the pediatric population,” lead study author David Rosmarin, MD, told this news organization in advance of the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

In September 2021, topical ruxolitinib (Opzelura) was approved by the FDA for treating atopic dermatitis in nonimmunocompromised patients aged 12 years and older. The manufacturer, Incyte, has submitted an application for approval to the agency for treating vitiligo in patients ages 12 years and older based on 24-week results; the FDA is expected to make a decision by July 18.

For the current study, presented during a poster session at the meeting, Dr. Rosmarin, of the department of dermatology at Tufts Medical Center, Boston, and colleagues pooled efficacy and safety data for adolescent patients aged 12-17 years from the TRuE-V studies, which enrolled patients 12 years of age and older diagnosed with nonsegmental vitiligo with depigmentation covering up to 10% of total body surface area (BSA), including facial and total Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (F-VASI/T-VASI) scores of ≥ 0.5/≥ 3. Investigators randomized patients 2:1 to twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle for 24 weeks, after which all patients could apply 1.5% ruxolitinib cream through week 52. Efficacy endpoints included the proportions of patients who achieved at least 75%, 50%, and 90% improvement from baseline in F-VASI scores (F-VASI75, F-VASI50, F-VASI90); the proportion of patients who achieved at least a 50% improvement from baseline in T-VASI (T-VASI50); the proportion of patients who achieved a Vitiligo Noticeability Scale (VNS) rating of 4 or 5; and percentage change from baseline in facial BSA (F-BSA). Safety and tolerability were also assessed.

For the pooled analysis, Dr. Rosmarin and colleagues reported results on 72 adolescents: 55 who received ruxolitinib cream and 17 who received vehicle. At week 24, 32.1% of adolescents treated with ruxolitinib cream achieved F-VASI75, compared with none of those in the vehicle group. Further, response rates at week 52 for patients who applied ruxolitinib cream from day 1 were as follows: F-VASI75, 48.0%; F-VASI50, 70.0%; F-VASI90, 24.0%; T-VASI50, 60.0%; VNS score of 4/5, 56.0%; and F-BSA mean percentage change from baseline, –41.9%.

Efficacy at week 52 among crossover patients (after 28 weeks of ruxolitinib cream) was consistent with week 24 data in patients who applied ruxolitinib cream from day 1.

“As we know that repigmentation takes time, about half of the patients achieved the F-VASI75 at the 52-week endpoint,” said Dr. Rosmarin, who is also vice-chair for research and education at Tufts Medical Center, Boston. “Particularly remarkable is that 60% of adolescents achieved a T-VASI50 [50% or more repigmentation of the whole body at the year mark] and over half the patients described their vitiligo as a lot less noticeable or no longer noticeable at the year mark.”

In terms of safety, treatment-related adverse events occurred in 12.9% of patients treated with ruxolitinib (no information was available on the specific events). Serious adverse events occurred in 1.4% of patients; none were considered related to treatment.

“Overall, these results are quite impressive,” Dr. Rosmarin said. “While it can be very challenging to repigment patients with vitiligo, ruxolitinib cream provides an effective option which can help many of my patients.” He acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the fact that the TRuE-V studies were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, “which may have contributed to patients being lost to follow-up. Also, the majority of the patients had skin phototypes 1-3.”

Carrie C. Coughlin, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, said that patients with vitiligo need treatment options that are well-studied and covered by insurance. “This study is a great step forward in developing medications for this underserved patient population,” said Dr. Coughlin, who directs the section of pediatric dermatology at Washington University/St. Louis Children’s Hospital.

However, she continued, “the authors mention approximately 13% of patients had a treatment-related adverse reaction, but the abstract does not delineate these reactions.” In addition, the study was limited to children who had less than or equal to 10% body surface area involvement of vitiligo, she noted, adding that “more work is needed to learn about safety of application to larger surface areas.”

Going forward, “it will be important to learn the durability of response,” said Dr. Coughlin, who is also assistant professor of dermatology at Washington University in St. Louis. “Does the vitiligo return if patients stop applying the ruxolitinib cream?”

Dr. Rosmarin disclosed that he has received honoraria as a consultant for Incyte, AbbVie, Abcuro, AltruBio, Arena, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Meyers Squibb, Celgene, Concert, CSL Behring, Dermavant, Dermira, Janssen, Kyowa Kirin, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, Revolo Biotherapeutics, Sanofi, Sun Pharmaceuticals, UCB, and VielaBio. He has also received research support from Incyte, AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Dermira, Galderma, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Regeneron; and has served as a paid speaker for Incyte, AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Incyte, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi. Dr. Coughlin is on the board of the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance and the International Immunosuppression and Transplant Skin Cancer Collaborative.

DENVER – In a debate over whether headache trials are representative of patients, one neurologist declared that they tend to leave out a variety of subjects with many types of headaches – the young, the old, the pregnant, and those without migraines, among others. But her counterpart defended migraine trials in particular, arguing that they’re evolving to become more valuable as researchers address their limitations.

At the core of the debate at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society were sharp divisions over how much the limitations of headache clinical trials matter. Both neurologists – Jan Brandes, MD, of Nashville (Tenn.) Neuroscience Group, and Amy Gelfand, MD, of the University of California at San Francisco, agree that they exist. But they diverged on how much they matter.
 

Exclusion/inclusion criteria are good

Dr. Brandes argued that randomized controlled trials “remain the single best study design,” and she said migraine headache trials have improved over the past couple of decades.

Eligibility criteria, for example, have expanded to allow patients with more subtypes of migraines to participate, she said. “Another change has been the establishment of guidelines or inclusion criteria that allow patients who have stable and treated hypertension, stable depression, and stable anxiety disorders that are controlled and treated and not interfering with the disease you’re studying.”

In essence, she said, “the exclusion/inclusion criteria are good.”

It’s also a positive change that longer patient-reported outcomes are included in trials, she said.
 

Exclusion/inclusion criteria are too restrictive

But Dr. Gelfand criticized the inclusion criteria in migraine trials, noting it includes “a lot of amazing complexity.” Trials often will limit participation to subjects aged 18-65, even though people have high rates of headaches, she said, and they frequently overrepresent men. Pregnant and lactating women are often omitted, too, even if a trial is examining a behavioral intervention. In some cases, lactating women may be breastfeeding for a year or two, she noted.

“The vast majority of births in the United States, 92%, are to females who are between the ages of 20 and 39. That is also the age range where migraine is most prevalent,” she said. Yes, certain new agents shouldn’t be tested for the first time in pregnant women because of the risk, she said, “but we need to grapple with the fact that migraine is affecting people who are also going to be pregnant and lactating.”

Many other criteria limit the subjects in headache trials, she said. The studies are “almost exclusively” of drugs for migraines, leaving out many people with other types such as adolescents with new persistent headaches. “Where are the trials for them?” she asked.

Other groups that are left out include those whose headaches that are due to a head injury, a viral infection such as COVID-19, or even vaccination against COVID-19, she said. “There are an infinite number of questions here that we are currently not even attempting to answer.”

Non-Whites are also poorly represented in trials, she said, and studies often don’t include data about non-Whites. “Race data exists. Where do we get off not even reporting it?”
 

Room for improvement

For her part, Dr. Brandes said less-common headache disorders are best studied in pragmatic trials until they can be better understood. “We need to understand pathophysiology better for some of these other disorders, particularly things like continuous headache and posttraumatic headache. Then we can begin to expand that.”

She added that randomized clinical trials are now underway regarding secondary headache related to COVID-19.

Dr. Brandes did not report disclosures. Dr. Gelfand had no disclosures.

DENVER – In a debate over whether headache trials are representative of patients, one neurologist declared that they tend to leave out a variety of subjects with many types of headaches – the young, the old, the pregnant, and those without migraines, among others. But her counterpart defended migraine trials in particular, arguing that they’re evolving to become more valuable as researchers address their limitations.

At the core of the debate at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society were sharp divisions over how much the limitations of headache clinical trials matter. Both neurologists – Jan Brandes, MD, of Nashville (Tenn.) Neuroscience Group, and Amy Gelfand, MD, of the University of California at San Francisco, agree that they exist. But they diverged on how much they matter.
 

Exclusion/inclusion criteria are good

Dr. Brandes argued that randomized controlled trials “remain the single best study design,” and she said migraine headache trials have improved over the past couple of decades.

Eligibility criteria, for example, have expanded to allow patients with more subtypes of migraines to participate, she said. “Another change has been the establishment of guidelines or inclusion criteria that allow patients who have stable and treated hypertension, stable depression, and stable anxiety disorders that are controlled and treated and not interfering with the disease you’re studying.”

In essence, she said, “the exclusion/inclusion criteria are good.”

It’s also a positive change that longer patient-reported outcomes are included in trials, she said.
 

Exclusion/inclusion criteria are too restrictive

But Dr. Gelfand criticized the inclusion criteria in migraine trials, noting it includes “a lot of amazing complexity.” Trials often will limit participation to subjects aged 18-65, even though people have high rates of headaches, she said, and they frequently overrepresent men. Pregnant and lactating women are often omitted, too, even if a trial is examining a behavioral intervention. In some cases, lactating women may be breastfeeding for a year or two, she noted.

“The vast majority of births in the United States, 92%, are to females who are between the ages of 20 and 39. That is also the age range where migraine is most prevalent,” she said. Yes, certain new agents shouldn’t be tested for the first time in pregnant women because of the risk, she said, “but we need to grapple with the fact that migraine is affecting people who are also going to be pregnant and lactating.”

Many other criteria limit the subjects in headache trials, she said. The studies are “almost exclusively” of drugs for migraines, leaving out many people with other types such as adolescents with new persistent headaches. “Where are the trials for them?” she asked.

Other groups that are left out include those whose headaches that are due to a head injury, a viral infection such as COVID-19, or even vaccination against COVID-19, she said. “There are an infinite number of questions here that we are currently not even attempting to answer.”

Non-Whites are also poorly represented in trials, she said, and studies often don’t include data about non-Whites. “Race data exists. Where do we get off not even reporting it?”
 

Room for improvement

For her part, Dr. Brandes said less-common headache disorders are best studied in pragmatic trials until they can be better understood. “We need to understand pathophysiology better for some of these other disorders, particularly things like continuous headache and posttraumatic headache. Then we can begin to expand that.”

She added that randomized clinical trials are now underway regarding secondary headache related to COVID-19.

Dr. Brandes did not report disclosures. Dr. Gelfand had no disclosures.

DENVER – In a debate over whether headache trials are representative of patients, one neurologist declared that they tend to leave out a variety of subjects with many types of headaches – the young, the old, the pregnant, and those without migraines, among others. But her counterpart defended migraine trials in particular, arguing that they’re evolving to become more valuable as researchers address their limitations.

At the core of the debate at the annual meeting of the American Headache Society were sharp divisions over how much the limitations of headache clinical trials matter. Both neurologists – Jan Brandes, MD, of Nashville (Tenn.) Neuroscience Group, and Amy Gelfand, MD, of the University of California at San Francisco, agree that they exist. But they diverged on how much they matter.
 

Exclusion/inclusion criteria are good

Dr. Brandes argued that randomized controlled trials “remain the single best study design,” and she said migraine headache trials have improved over the past couple of decades.

Eligibility criteria, for example, have expanded to allow patients with more subtypes of migraines to participate, she said. “Another change has been the establishment of guidelines or inclusion criteria that allow patients who have stable and treated hypertension, stable depression, and stable anxiety disorders that are controlled and treated and not interfering with the disease you’re studying.”

In essence, she said, “the exclusion/inclusion criteria are good.”

It’s also a positive change that longer patient-reported outcomes are included in trials, she said.
 

Exclusion/inclusion criteria are too restrictive

But Dr. Gelfand criticized the inclusion criteria in migraine trials, noting it includes “a lot of amazing complexity.” Trials often will limit participation to subjects aged 18-65, even though people have high rates of headaches, she said, and they frequently overrepresent men. Pregnant and lactating women are often omitted, too, even if a trial is examining a behavioral intervention. In some cases, lactating women may be breastfeeding for a year or two, she noted.

“The vast majority of births in the United States, 92%, are to females who are between the ages of 20 and 39. That is also the age range where migraine is most prevalent,” she said. Yes, certain new agents shouldn’t be tested for the first time in pregnant women because of the risk, she said, “but we need to grapple with the fact that migraine is affecting people who are also going to be pregnant and lactating.”

Many other criteria limit the subjects in headache trials, she said. The studies are “almost exclusively” of drugs for migraines, leaving out many people with other types such as adolescents with new persistent headaches. “Where are the trials for them?” she asked.

Other groups that are left out include those whose headaches that are due to a head injury, a viral infection such as COVID-19, or even vaccination against COVID-19, she said. “There are an infinite number of questions here that we are currently not even attempting to answer.”

Non-Whites are also poorly represented in trials, she said, and studies often don’t include data about non-Whites. “Race data exists. Where do we get off not even reporting it?”
 

Room for improvement

For her part, Dr. Brandes said less-common headache disorders are best studied in pragmatic trials until they can be better understood. “We need to understand pathophysiology better for some of these other disorders, particularly things like continuous headache and posttraumatic headache. Then we can begin to expand that.”

She added that randomized clinical trials are now underway regarding secondary headache related to COVID-19.

Dr. Brandes did not report disclosures. Dr. Gelfand had no disclosures.

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s important to remember and to think about the first time when patients with obesity come to see us: What have they faced? What have been their struggles? What shame and blame and bias have they faced?

One of the first things that I do when a patient comes to see me is invite them to share their weight journey with me. I ask them to tell me about their struggles, about what’s worked and what hasn’t worked, what they would like, and what their health goals are.

As they share their stories, I look for the opportunity to share with them that obesity is not their fault, but that it’s biology driving their body to carry extra weight and their body is super smart. Neither their body nor their brain want them to starve.

Our bodies evolved during a time where there was food scarcity and the potential of famine. We have a complex system that was designed to make sure that we always held on to extra weight, specifically extra fat, because that’s how we store energy. In the current obesogenic environment, what happens is our bodies carry extra weight, or specifically, extra fat.

Again, I say to them, this is biology. Your body’s doing exactly what it was designed to do. Your body’s very smart, but now we have to figure out how to help your body want to carry less fat because it is impacting your health. This is not your fault. Having obesity is not your fault any more than having diabetes or hypertension is anyone’s fault. Now it’s time for all of us to use highly effective tools that target the pathophysiology of obesity.

When a patient comes to me for weight management or to help them treat their obesity, I listen to them, and I look for clues as to what might help that specific patient. Every patient deserves to have individualized treatment. One medicine may be right for one person, another medicine may be right for another, and surgery may be right for another patient. I really try to listen and hear what that patient is telling me.

What we as providers really need is tools – different options – to be able to provide for our patients and basically present them with different options, and then guide them toward the best therapy for them. Whether it’s semaglutide or tirzepatide potentially in the future, these types of medications are excellent options for our patients. They’re highly effective tools with safe profiles.

A question that I often get from providers or patients is, “Well, Doctor, I’ve lost the weight now. How long should I take this medicine? Can I stop it now?”

Then, we have a conversation, and we actually usually have this conversation even before we start the medicine. Basically, we talk about the fact that obesity is a chronic disease. There’s no cure for obesity. Because it’s a chronic disease, we need to treat it like we would treat any other chronic disease.

The example that I often use is, if you have a patient who has hypertension and you start them on an antihypertensive medication, what happens? Their blood pressure goes down. It improves. Now, if their blood pressure is improved with a specific antihypertensive, would you stop that medicine? What would happen if you stopped that antihypertensive? Well, their blood pressure would go up, and we wouldn’t be surprised.

In the same way, if you have a patient who has obesity and you start that patient on an antiobesity medication, and their weight decreases, and their body fat mass at that point decreases, what would happen if you stop that medicine? They lost the weight, but you stop the medicine. Well, their weight gain comes back. They regain the weight.

We should not be surprised that weight gain occurs when we stop the treatment. That really underscores the fact that treatment needs to be continued. If a patient is started on an antiobesity medication and they lose weight, that medication needs to be continued to maintain that weight loss.

Basically, we eat food and our body responds by releasing these hormones. The hormones are made in our gut and in our pancreas and these hormones inform our brain. Are we hungry? Are we full? Where are we with our homeostatic set point of fat mass? Based on that, our brain is like the sensor or the thermostat.

Obesity is a chronic, treatable disease. We should treat obesity as we treat any other chronic disease, with effective and safe approaches that target underlying disease mechanisms. These results in the SURMOUNT-1 trial underscore that tirzepatide may be doing just that. Remarkably, 9 in 10 individuals with obesity lost weight while taking tirzepatide. These results are impressive. They’re an important step forward in potentially expanding effective therapeutic options for people with obesity.

Dr. Jastreboff is an associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of weight management and obesity prevention at Yale Stress Center. She reported conducting trials with Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals; serving on scientific advisory boards for Ely Lilly, Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, and WW; and consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim and Scholar Rock.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s important to remember and to think about the first time when patients with obesity come to see us: What have they faced? What have been their struggles? What shame and blame and bias have they faced?

One of the first things that I do when a patient comes to see me is invite them to share their weight journey with me. I ask them to tell me about their struggles, about what’s worked and what hasn’t worked, what they would like, and what their health goals are.

As they share their stories, I look for the opportunity to share with them that obesity is not their fault, but that it’s biology driving their body to carry extra weight and their body is super smart. Neither their body nor their brain want them to starve.

Our bodies evolved during a time where there was food scarcity and the potential of famine. We have a complex system that was designed to make sure that we always held on to extra weight, specifically extra fat, because that’s how we store energy. In the current obesogenic environment, what happens is our bodies carry extra weight, or specifically, extra fat.

Again, I say to them, this is biology. Your body’s doing exactly what it was designed to do. Your body’s very smart, but now we have to figure out how to help your body want to carry less fat because it is impacting your health. This is not your fault. Having obesity is not your fault any more than having diabetes or hypertension is anyone’s fault. Now it’s time for all of us to use highly effective tools that target the pathophysiology of obesity.

When a patient comes to me for weight management or to help them treat their obesity, I listen to them, and I look for clues as to what might help that specific patient. Every patient deserves to have individualized treatment. One medicine may be right for one person, another medicine may be right for another, and surgery may be right for another patient. I really try to listen and hear what that patient is telling me.

What we as providers really need is tools – different options – to be able to provide for our patients and basically present them with different options, and then guide them toward the best therapy for them. Whether it’s semaglutide or tirzepatide potentially in the future, these types of medications are excellent options for our patients. They’re highly effective tools with safe profiles.

A question that I often get from providers or patients is, “Well, Doctor, I’ve lost the weight now. How long should I take this medicine? Can I stop it now?”

Then, we have a conversation, and we actually usually have this conversation even before we start the medicine. Basically, we talk about the fact that obesity is a chronic disease. There’s no cure for obesity. Because it’s a chronic disease, we need to treat it like we would treat any other chronic disease.

The example that I often use is, if you have a patient who has hypertension and you start them on an antihypertensive medication, what happens? Their blood pressure goes down. It improves. Now, if their blood pressure is improved with a specific antihypertensive, would you stop that medicine? What would happen if you stopped that antihypertensive? Well, their blood pressure would go up, and we wouldn’t be surprised.

In the same way, if you have a patient who has obesity and you start that patient on an antiobesity medication, and their weight decreases, and their body fat mass at that point decreases, what would happen if you stop that medicine? They lost the weight, but you stop the medicine. Well, their weight gain comes back. They regain the weight.

We should not be surprised that weight gain occurs when we stop the treatment. That really underscores the fact that treatment needs to be continued. If a patient is started on an antiobesity medication and they lose weight, that medication needs to be continued to maintain that weight loss.

Basically, we eat food and our body responds by releasing these hormones. The hormones are made in our gut and in our pancreas and these hormones inform our brain. Are we hungry? Are we full? Where are we with our homeostatic set point of fat mass? Based on that, our brain is like the sensor or the thermostat.

Obesity is a chronic, treatable disease. We should treat obesity as we treat any other chronic disease, with effective and safe approaches that target underlying disease mechanisms. These results in the SURMOUNT-1 trial underscore that tirzepatide may be doing just that. Remarkably, 9 in 10 individuals with obesity lost weight while taking tirzepatide. These results are impressive. They’re an important step forward in potentially expanding effective therapeutic options for people with obesity.

Dr. Jastreboff is an associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of weight management and obesity prevention at Yale Stress Center. She reported conducting trials with Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals; serving on scientific advisory boards for Ely Lilly, Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, and WW; and consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim and Scholar Rock.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity.

It’s important to remember and to think about the first time when patients with obesity come to see us: What have they faced? What have been their struggles? What shame and blame and bias have they faced?

One of the first things that I do when a patient comes to see me is invite them to share their weight journey with me. I ask them to tell me about their struggles, about what’s worked and what hasn’t worked, what they would like, and what their health goals are.

As they share their stories, I look for the opportunity to share with them that obesity is not their fault, but that it’s biology driving their body to carry extra weight and their body is super smart. Neither their body nor their brain want them to starve.

Our bodies evolved during a time where there was food scarcity and the potential of famine. We have a complex system that was designed to make sure that we always held on to extra weight, specifically extra fat, because that’s how we store energy. In the current obesogenic environment, what happens is our bodies carry extra weight, or specifically, extra fat.

Again, I say to them, this is biology. Your body’s doing exactly what it was designed to do. Your body’s very smart, but now we have to figure out how to help your body want to carry less fat because it is impacting your health. This is not your fault. Having obesity is not your fault any more than having diabetes or hypertension is anyone’s fault. Now it’s time for all of us to use highly effective tools that target the pathophysiology of obesity.

When a patient comes to me for weight management or to help them treat their obesity, I listen to them, and I look for clues as to what might help that specific patient. Every patient deserves to have individualized treatment. One medicine may be right for one person, another medicine may be right for another, and surgery may be right for another patient. I really try to listen and hear what that patient is telling me.

What we as providers really need is tools – different options – to be able to provide for our patients and basically present them with different options, and then guide them toward the best therapy for them. Whether it’s semaglutide or tirzepatide potentially in the future, these types of medications are excellent options for our patients. They’re highly effective tools with safe profiles.

A question that I often get from providers or patients is, “Well, Doctor, I’ve lost the weight now. How long should I take this medicine? Can I stop it now?”

Then, we have a conversation, and we actually usually have this conversation even before we start the medicine. Basically, we talk about the fact that obesity is a chronic disease. There’s no cure for obesity. Because it’s a chronic disease, we need to treat it like we would treat any other chronic disease.

The example that I often use is, if you have a patient who has hypertension and you start them on an antihypertensive medication, what happens? Their blood pressure goes down. It improves. Now, if their blood pressure is improved with a specific antihypertensive, would you stop that medicine? What would happen if you stopped that antihypertensive? Well, their blood pressure would go up, and we wouldn’t be surprised.

In the same way, if you have a patient who has obesity and you start that patient on an antiobesity medication, and their weight decreases, and their body fat mass at that point decreases, what would happen if you stop that medicine? They lost the weight, but you stop the medicine. Well, their weight gain comes back. They regain the weight.

We should not be surprised that weight gain occurs when we stop the treatment. That really underscores the fact that treatment needs to be continued. If a patient is started on an antiobesity medication and they lose weight, that medication needs to be continued to maintain that weight loss.

Basically, we eat food and our body responds by releasing these hormones. The hormones are made in our gut and in our pancreas and these hormones inform our brain. Are we hungry? Are we full? Where are we with our homeostatic set point of fat mass? Based on that, our brain is like the sensor or the thermostat.

Obesity is a chronic, treatable disease. We should treat obesity as we treat any other chronic disease, with effective and safe approaches that target underlying disease mechanisms. These results in the SURMOUNT-1 trial underscore that tirzepatide may be doing just that. Remarkably, 9 in 10 individuals with obesity lost weight while taking tirzepatide. These results are impressive. They’re an important step forward in potentially expanding effective therapeutic options for people with obesity.

Dr. Jastreboff is an associate professor of medicine and pediatrics at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., and director of weight management and obesity prevention at Yale Stress Center. She reported conducting trials with Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Rhythm Pharmaceuticals; serving on scientific advisory boards for Ely Lilly, Intellihealth, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Rhythm Pharmaceuticals, and WW; and consulting for Boehringer Ingelheim and Scholar Rock.

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

Skin manifestations of COVID-19 were among the topics presented in several sessions at the 49th Congress of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. Specialists agreed that fewer skin changes associated with this virus have been seen with the latest variants of SARS-CoV-2. They highlighted the results of the most remarkable research on this topic that were presented in this forum.

In the study, which was carried out by Spanish dermatologists with the support of the AEDV, researchers analyzed skin reactions associated with the COVID-19 vaccine.

Study author Cristina Galván, MD, a dermatologist at the University Hospital of Móstoles, Madrid, said, “This is the first study that analyzes a significant number of cases assessed by dermatologists and illustrated with clinical images of the dermatological manifestations caused as a reaction to these vaccines.”

The study was carried out during the first months of COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Galván told this news organization. It was proposed as a continuation of a COVID skin study that was published in the British Journal of Dermatology. That study documented the first classification of skin lesions associated with COVID-19. Dr. Galván is the lead author of the latter study.

“The objectives of this study were to characterize and classify skin reactions after vaccination, identify their chronology, and analyze the associations with a series of antecedents: dermatological and allergic diseases, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and skin reactions associated with COVID-19,” said Dr. Galván. The study was a team effort, she added.

“It was conducted between Feb. 15 and May 12, 2021, and information was gathered on 405 reactions that appeared during the 21 days after any dose of the COVID-19 vaccines approved at that time in Spain: the Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines,” she added.

Dr. Galván explained that the study shows very clear patterns and investigators reached conclusions that match those of other groups that have investigated this topic. “Six reaction patterns were described according to their frequency. The first is the ‘COVID-19 arm,’ which consists of a local reaction at the injection site and occurs almost exclusively in women and in 70% of cases after inoculation with the Moderna serum. It is a manifestation that resolves well and does not always recur in subsequent doses. More than half are of delayed onset: biopsied patients show signs of a delayed hypersensitivity reaction. In line with all the publications in this regard, it was found that this reaction is not a reason to skip or delay a dose.”
 

Herpes zoster reactivation

The second pattern is urticarial, which, according to the specialist, occurs with equal frequency after the administration of all vaccines and is well controlled with antihistamines. “This is a very nonspecific pattern, which does not prevent it from still being frequent. It was not associated with drug intake.

“The morbilliform pattern is more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. It affects the trunk and extremities, and up to a quarter of the cases required systemic corticosteroids. The papulovesicular and pityriasis rosea–like patterns are equally frequent in all vaccines. The latter is found in a younger age group. Finally, there is the purpuric pattern, more localized in the extremities and more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. On biopsy, this pattern showed small-vessel vasculitis.”

Less frequently, reactivations or de novo onset of different dermatologic diseases were found. “Varicella-zoster virus reactivations were observed with a frequency of 13.8%, being more common after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine,” said Dr. Galván. “Other studies have corroborated this increase in herpes zoster, although it has been seen that the absolute number is low, so the benefits of the vaccine outweigh this eventual complication. At the same time and along the same lines, vaccination against herpes zoster is recommended for those over 50 years of age.”

Another fact revealed by the study is that these reactions were not significantly more severe in people with dermatologic diseases, those with previous infection, or those with skin manifestation associated with COVID-19.

Dr. Galván highlighted that, except for the COVID-19 arm, these patterns were among those associated with the disease, “which supports [the idea] that it does not demonstrate that the host’s immune reaction to the infection was playing a role.”
 

Women and young people

“As for pseudoperniosis, it is poorly represented in our series: 0.7% compared to 2% in the American registry. Although neither the SARS-CoV-2–pseudoperniosis association nor its pathophysiology is clear, the idea is that if this manifestation is related to the host’s immune response during infection, pseudoperniosis after vaccination could also be linked to the immune response to the vaccine,” said Dr. Galván.

Many of these reactions are more intense in women. “Before starting to use these vaccines, we already knew that messenger RNA vaccines (a powerful activator of innate immunity) induce frequent reactions, that adjuvants and excipients (polyethylene glycol and polysorbate) also generate them, and that other factors influence reactogenicity, among those of us of the same age and sex, reactions being more frequent in younger people and in women,” said Dr. Galván. “This may be one of the reasons why the COVID-19 arm is so much more prevalent in the female population and that 80% of all reactions that were collected were in women.”

In relation to the fact that manifestations differed, depending on the type of inoculated serum, Dr. Galván said, “Some reactions are just as common after any of the vaccines. However, others are not, as is the case with the COVID-19 arm for the Moderna vaccine or reactivations of the herpes virus, more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

“Undoubtedly, behind these differences are particularities in the immune reaction caused by each of the vaccines and their composition, including the excipients,” she said.

Regarding the fact that these reactions were the same throughout the vaccine regimen or that they varied in intensity, depending on the dose, Dr. Galván said, “In our study, as in those carried out by other groups, there were no significant differences in terms of frequency after the first and second doses. One thing to keep in mind is that, due to the temporary design of our study and the time at which it was conducted, it was not possible to collect reactions after second doses of AstraZeneca.

“Manifestations have generally been mild and well controlled. Many of them did not recur after the second dose, and the vast majority did not prevent completion of the vaccination scheme, but we must not lose sight of the fact that 20% of these manifestations were assessed by the dermatologist as serious or very serious,” Dr. Galván added.

Regarding the next steps planned for this line of research, Dr. Galván commented, “We are awaiting the evolution of the reported cases and the reactions that may arise, although for now, our group does not have any open studies. The most important thing now is to be alert and report the data observed in the pharmacovigilance systems, in open registries, and in scientific literature to generate evidence.”

Dr. Galván has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Skin manifestations of COVID-19 were among the topics presented in several sessions at the 49th Congress of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. Specialists agreed that fewer skin changes associated with this virus have been seen with the latest variants of SARS-CoV-2. They highlighted the results of the most remarkable research on this topic that were presented in this forum.

In the study, which was carried out by Spanish dermatologists with the support of the AEDV, researchers analyzed skin reactions associated with the COVID-19 vaccine.

Study author Cristina Galván, MD, a dermatologist at the University Hospital of Móstoles, Madrid, said, “This is the first study that analyzes a significant number of cases assessed by dermatologists and illustrated with clinical images of the dermatological manifestations caused as a reaction to these vaccines.”

The study was carried out during the first months of COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Galván told this news organization. It was proposed as a continuation of a COVID skin study that was published in the British Journal of Dermatology. That study documented the first classification of skin lesions associated with COVID-19. Dr. Galván is the lead author of the latter study.

“The objectives of this study were to characterize and classify skin reactions after vaccination, identify their chronology, and analyze the associations with a series of antecedents: dermatological and allergic diseases, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and skin reactions associated with COVID-19,” said Dr. Galván. The study was a team effort, she added.

“It was conducted between Feb. 15 and May 12, 2021, and information was gathered on 405 reactions that appeared during the 21 days after any dose of the COVID-19 vaccines approved at that time in Spain: the Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines,” she added.

Dr. Galván explained that the study shows very clear patterns and investigators reached conclusions that match those of other groups that have investigated this topic. “Six reaction patterns were described according to their frequency. The first is the ‘COVID-19 arm,’ which consists of a local reaction at the injection site and occurs almost exclusively in women and in 70% of cases after inoculation with the Moderna serum. It is a manifestation that resolves well and does not always recur in subsequent doses. More than half are of delayed onset: biopsied patients show signs of a delayed hypersensitivity reaction. In line with all the publications in this regard, it was found that this reaction is not a reason to skip or delay a dose.”
 

Herpes zoster reactivation

The second pattern is urticarial, which, according to the specialist, occurs with equal frequency after the administration of all vaccines and is well controlled with antihistamines. “This is a very nonspecific pattern, which does not prevent it from still being frequent. It was not associated with drug intake.

“The morbilliform pattern is more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. It affects the trunk and extremities, and up to a quarter of the cases required systemic corticosteroids. The papulovesicular and pityriasis rosea–like patterns are equally frequent in all vaccines. The latter is found in a younger age group. Finally, there is the purpuric pattern, more localized in the extremities and more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. On biopsy, this pattern showed small-vessel vasculitis.”

Less frequently, reactivations or de novo onset of different dermatologic diseases were found. “Varicella-zoster virus reactivations were observed with a frequency of 13.8%, being more common after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine,” said Dr. Galván. “Other studies have corroborated this increase in herpes zoster, although it has been seen that the absolute number is low, so the benefits of the vaccine outweigh this eventual complication. At the same time and along the same lines, vaccination against herpes zoster is recommended for those over 50 years of age.”

Another fact revealed by the study is that these reactions were not significantly more severe in people with dermatologic diseases, those with previous infection, or those with skin manifestation associated with COVID-19.

Dr. Galván highlighted that, except for the COVID-19 arm, these patterns were among those associated with the disease, “which supports [the idea] that it does not demonstrate that the host’s immune reaction to the infection was playing a role.”
 

Women and young people

“As for pseudoperniosis, it is poorly represented in our series: 0.7% compared to 2% in the American registry. Although neither the SARS-CoV-2–pseudoperniosis association nor its pathophysiology is clear, the idea is that if this manifestation is related to the host’s immune response during infection, pseudoperniosis after vaccination could also be linked to the immune response to the vaccine,” said Dr. Galván.

Many of these reactions are more intense in women. “Before starting to use these vaccines, we already knew that messenger RNA vaccines (a powerful activator of innate immunity) induce frequent reactions, that adjuvants and excipients (polyethylene glycol and polysorbate) also generate them, and that other factors influence reactogenicity, among those of us of the same age and sex, reactions being more frequent in younger people and in women,” said Dr. Galván. “This may be one of the reasons why the COVID-19 arm is so much more prevalent in the female population and that 80% of all reactions that were collected were in women.”

In relation to the fact that manifestations differed, depending on the type of inoculated serum, Dr. Galván said, “Some reactions are just as common after any of the vaccines. However, others are not, as is the case with the COVID-19 arm for the Moderna vaccine or reactivations of the herpes virus, more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

“Undoubtedly, behind these differences are particularities in the immune reaction caused by each of the vaccines and their composition, including the excipients,” she said.

Regarding the fact that these reactions were the same throughout the vaccine regimen or that they varied in intensity, depending on the dose, Dr. Galván said, “In our study, as in those carried out by other groups, there were no significant differences in terms of frequency after the first and second doses. One thing to keep in mind is that, due to the temporary design of our study and the time at which it was conducted, it was not possible to collect reactions after second doses of AstraZeneca.

“Manifestations have generally been mild and well controlled. Many of them did not recur after the second dose, and the vast majority did not prevent completion of the vaccination scheme, but we must not lose sight of the fact that 20% of these manifestations were assessed by the dermatologist as serious or very serious,” Dr. Galván added.

Regarding the next steps planned for this line of research, Dr. Galván commented, “We are awaiting the evolution of the reported cases and the reactions that may arise, although for now, our group does not have any open studies. The most important thing now is to be alert and report the data observed in the pharmacovigilance systems, in open registries, and in scientific literature to generate evidence.”

Dr. Galván has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Skin manifestations of COVID-19 were among the topics presented in several sessions at the 49th Congress of the Spanish Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. Specialists agreed that fewer skin changes associated with this virus have been seen with the latest variants of SARS-CoV-2. They highlighted the results of the most remarkable research on this topic that were presented in this forum.

In the study, which was carried out by Spanish dermatologists with the support of the AEDV, researchers analyzed skin reactions associated with the COVID-19 vaccine.

Study author Cristina Galván, MD, a dermatologist at the University Hospital of Móstoles, Madrid, said, “This is the first study that analyzes a significant number of cases assessed by dermatologists and illustrated with clinical images of the dermatological manifestations caused as a reaction to these vaccines.”

The study was carried out during the first months of COVID-19 vaccination, Dr. Galván told this news organization. It was proposed as a continuation of a COVID skin study that was published in the British Journal of Dermatology. That study documented the first classification of skin lesions associated with COVID-19. Dr. Galván is the lead author of the latter study.

“The objectives of this study were to characterize and classify skin reactions after vaccination, identify their chronology, and analyze the associations with a series of antecedents: dermatological and allergic diseases, previous SARS-CoV-2 infection, and skin reactions associated with COVID-19,” said Dr. Galván. The study was a team effort, she added.

“It was conducted between Feb. 15 and May 12, 2021, and information was gathered on 405 reactions that appeared during the 21 days after any dose of the COVID-19 vaccines approved at that time in Spain: the Pfizer/BioNTech, Moderna, and University of Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccines,” she added.

Dr. Galván explained that the study shows very clear patterns and investigators reached conclusions that match those of other groups that have investigated this topic. “Six reaction patterns were described according to their frequency. The first is the ‘COVID-19 arm,’ which consists of a local reaction at the injection site and occurs almost exclusively in women and in 70% of cases after inoculation with the Moderna serum. It is a manifestation that resolves well and does not always recur in subsequent doses. More than half are of delayed onset: biopsied patients show signs of a delayed hypersensitivity reaction. In line with all the publications in this regard, it was found that this reaction is not a reason to skip or delay a dose.”
 

Herpes zoster reactivation

The second pattern is urticarial, which, according to the specialist, occurs with equal frequency after the administration of all vaccines and is well controlled with antihistamines. “This is a very nonspecific pattern, which does not prevent it from still being frequent. It was not associated with drug intake.

“The morbilliform pattern is more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. It affects the trunk and extremities, and up to a quarter of the cases required systemic corticosteroids. The papulovesicular and pityriasis rosea–like patterns are equally frequent in all vaccines. The latter is found in a younger age group. Finally, there is the purpuric pattern, more localized in the extremities and more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech and AstraZeneca vaccines. On biopsy, this pattern showed small-vessel vasculitis.”

Less frequently, reactivations or de novo onset of different dermatologic diseases were found. “Varicella-zoster virus reactivations were observed with a frequency of 13.8%, being more common after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine,” said Dr. Galván. “Other studies have corroborated this increase in herpes zoster, although it has been seen that the absolute number is low, so the benefits of the vaccine outweigh this eventual complication. At the same time and along the same lines, vaccination against herpes zoster is recommended for those over 50 years of age.”

Another fact revealed by the study is that these reactions were not significantly more severe in people with dermatologic diseases, those with previous infection, or those with skin manifestation associated with COVID-19.

Dr. Galván highlighted that, except for the COVID-19 arm, these patterns were among those associated with the disease, “which supports [the idea] that it does not demonstrate that the host’s immune reaction to the infection was playing a role.”
 

Women and young people

“As for pseudoperniosis, it is poorly represented in our series: 0.7% compared to 2% in the American registry. Although neither the SARS-CoV-2–pseudoperniosis association nor its pathophysiology is clear, the idea is that if this manifestation is related to the host’s immune response during infection, pseudoperniosis after vaccination could also be linked to the immune response to the vaccine,” said Dr. Galván.

Many of these reactions are more intense in women. “Before starting to use these vaccines, we already knew that messenger RNA vaccines (a powerful activator of innate immunity) induce frequent reactions, that adjuvants and excipients (polyethylene glycol and polysorbate) also generate them, and that other factors influence reactogenicity, among those of us of the same age and sex, reactions being more frequent in younger people and in women,” said Dr. Galván. “This may be one of the reasons why the COVID-19 arm is so much more prevalent in the female population and that 80% of all reactions that were collected were in women.”

In relation to the fact that manifestations differed, depending on the type of inoculated serum, Dr. Galván said, “Some reactions are just as common after any of the vaccines. However, others are not, as is the case with the COVID-19 arm for the Moderna vaccine or reactivations of the herpes virus, more frequent after the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.

“Undoubtedly, behind these differences are particularities in the immune reaction caused by each of the vaccines and their composition, including the excipients,” she said.

Regarding the fact that these reactions were the same throughout the vaccine regimen or that they varied in intensity, depending on the dose, Dr. Galván said, “In our study, as in those carried out by other groups, there were no significant differences in terms of frequency after the first and second doses. One thing to keep in mind is that, due to the temporary design of our study and the time at which it was conducted, it was not possible to collect reactions after second doses of AstraZeneca.

“Manifestations have generally been mild and well controlled. Many of them did not recur after the second dose, and the vast majority did not prevent completion of the vaccination scheme, but we must not lose sight of the fact that 20% of these manifestations were assessed by the dermatologist as serious or very serious,” Dr. Galván added.

Regarding the next steps planned for this line of research, Dr. Galván commented, “We are awaiting the evolution of the reported cases and the reactions that may arise, although for now, our group does not have any open studies. The most important thing now is to be alert and report the data observed in the pharmacovigilance systems, in open registries, and in scientific literature to generate evidence.”

Dr. Galván has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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