User login
Light-based technologies emerging as promising acne treatments
such as Fernanda H. Sakamoto, MD, PhD.
“I love treating acne, because it can have a huge impact on our patients’ lives,” Dr. Sakamoto, a dermatologist at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “Acne is the most common disease in dermatology, affecting about 80% of our patients. Eleven percent of these patients have difficult-to-treat acne, and it is also the No. 1 cause of depression and suicide among teenagers and young adults. And, even though there’s no strong evidence that optical treatments work better than conventional acne treatments, people still spend a lot on those treatments: more than 220 million in 2019.”
Early results from a pilot study suggest that use of a novel laser system known as Accure in patients with mild to moderate acne resulted in an 80% reduction in acne lesions at 12 weeks. The laser prototype, which uses a 1,726 nm wavelength and is being developed by researchers at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, features a built-in thermal camera in the handpiece that allows the user to monitor the skin’s temperature during treatment.
In initial pilot studies of the device, Dr. Sakamoto and colleagues observed consistent damage of the sebaceous glands, with no damage to the epidermis, surrounding dermis, or other follicular structures. “But because the contrast of absorption of lipids and water is not very high, we needed to create a laser with features that we have never seen before,” she said. “One of them is a robust cooling system. The second prototype features a built-in thermal camera within the handpiece that allows us to see the temperature while we’re treating the patient. It also has built-in software that would shut down the laser if the temperature is too high. “This is the first laser with some safety features that will give the user direct feedback while treating the patient,” she said, noting that its “unique cooling system and real-time monitoring ... makes it different from any of the lasers we see on the market right now.”
Dr. Sakamoto and colleagues (Emil Tanghetti, MD, in San Diego, Roy Geronemus, MD, in New York, and Joel L. Cohen, MD, in Colorado) are conducting a clinical trial of the device, to evaluate whether Accure can selectively target sebaceous glands. As of Oct. 23, 2020, the study enrolled more than 50 patients, who are followed at 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks post treatment, she said.
To date, 16 patients have completed the study, and the researchers have observed an average lesion reduction of 80% at 12 weeks post treatment, after four treatment sessions. This amounted to more than 12,000 trigger pulls of the device, with no unexpected adverse events. Average visual analogue scale pain scores immediately after treatment have been 1.09 out of 10.
Histologic assessment of skin samples collected from the study participants have revealed selective damage of the sebaceous glands with a normal epidermis and surrounding dermis. “Because this laser is near infrared, it is not absorbed by melanin, making it possible for a safe treatment in darker skin tones,” Dr. Sakamoto said during the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine.
“We have shown that it is possible to create a selective laser for acne treatment at 1,726 nm. We have proven it mathematically as well as with histological samples,” she said. “Now we are moving on to a larger clinical trial for the FDA clearance.”
Another strategy being developed for acne treatment is to make nonselective lasers selective by adding gold microparticles into the hair follicle and sebaceous glands, to allow the lasers to be absorbed. In a study that used a free electron laser, Dr. Sakamoto and colleagues demonstrated that these microparticles can stay within the sebaceous glands for selective damage of the sebaceous glands. In a subsequent pilot clinical trial they showed that the addition of the gold microparticles followed by a diode laser treatment made it possible to reduce both inflammatory and noninflammatory lesions.
More recently, an open-label European study of acne treatment with light absorbing gold microparticles and optical pulses demonstrated that the treatment led to an 80%-90% reduction of inflammatory lesions at 12 weeks, with a reduction of Investigator’s Global Assessment scale from 2 to 4.
The Food and Drug Administration cleared the treatment, Sebacia Microparticles, for the treatment of mild to moderate acne in September of 2018, but according to Dr. Sakamoto, “the company has struggled, as they were only commercializing the device in California and Washington, DC.”
Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is also being studied as an acne treatment. “PDT uses a photosensitizer that needs to be activated by a light source,” she noted. “The combination of red light and aminolevulinic acid (ALA) or methyl ester ALA has been shown to damage the sebaceous glands”.
In a recent randomized controlled trial that compared PDT to adapalene gel plus oral doxycycline, PDT showed superiority. “Because PDT induces apoptosis of the sebaceous glands, it causes a lot of pain and side effects after treatment,” Dr. Sakamoto said. “However, it can clear 80%-90% of acne in 80%-90% of patients. But because of the side effects, PDT should be limited to those patients who cannot take conventional treatments.”
Dr. Sakamoto reported having received research funding and/or consulting fees from numerous device and pharmaceutical companies.
such as Fernanda H. Sakamoto, MD, PhD.
“I love treating acne, because it can have a huge impact on our patients’ lives,” Dr. Sakamoto, a dermatologist at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “Acne is the most common disease in dermatology, affecting about 80% of our patients. Eleven percent of these patients have difficult-to-treat acne, and it is also the No. 1 cause of depression and suicide among teenagers and young adults. And, even though there’s no strong evidence that optical treatments work better than conventional acne treatments, people still spend a lot on those treatments: more than 220 million in 2019.”
Early results from a pilot study suggest that use of a novel laser system known as Accure in patients with mild to moderate acne resulted in an 80% reduction in acne lesions at 12 weeks. The laser prototype, which uses a 1,726 nm wavelength and is being developed by researchers at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, features a built-in thermal camera in the handpiece that allows the user to monitor the skin’s temperature during treatment.
In initial pilot studies of the device, Dr. Sakamoto and colleagues observed consistent damage of the sebaceous glands, with no damage to the epidermis, surrounding dermis, or other follicular structures. “But because the contrast of absorption of lipids and water is not very high, we needed to create a laser with features that we have never seen before,” she said. “One of them is a robust cooling system. The second prototype features a built-in thermal camera within the handpiece that allows us to see the temperature while we’re treating the patient. It also has built-in software that would shut down the laser if the temperature is too high. “This is the first laser with some safety features that will give the user direct feedback while treating the patient,” she said, noting that its “unique cooling system and real-time monitoring ... makes it different from any of the lasers we see on the market right now.”
Dr. Sakamoto and colleagues (Emil Tanghetti, MD, in San Diego, Roy Geronemus, MD, in New York, and Joel L. Cohen, MD, in Colorado) are conducting a clinical trial of the device, to evaluate whether Accure can selectively target sebaceous glands. As of Oct. 23, 2020, the study enrolled more than 50 patients, who are followed at 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks post treatment, she said.
To date, 16 patients have completed the study, and the researchers have observed an average lesion reduction of 80% at 12 weeks post treatment, after four treatment sessions. This amounted to more than 12,000 trigger pulls of the device, with no unexpected adverse events. Average visual analogue scale pain scores immediately after treatment have been 1.09 out of 10.
Histologic assessment of skin samples collected from the study participants have revealed selective damage of the sebaceous glands with a normal epidermis and surrounding dermis. “Because this laser is near infrared, it is not absorbed by melanin, making it possible for a safe treatment in darker skin tones,” Dr. Sakamoto said during the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine.
“We have shown that it is possible to create a selective laser for acne treatment at 1,726 nm. We have proven it mathematically as well as with histological samples,” she said. “Now we are moving on to a larger clinical trial for the FDA clearance.”
Another strategy being developed for acne treatment is to make nonselective lasers selective by adding gold microparticles into the hair follicle and sebaceous glands, to allow the lasers to be absorbed. In a study that used a free electron laser, Dr. Sakamoto and colleagues demonstrated that these microparticles can stay within the sebaceous glands for selective damage of the sebaceous glands. In a subsequent pilot clinical trial they showed that the addition of the gold microparticles followed by a diode laser treatment made it possible to reduce both inflammatory and noninflammatory lesions.
More recently, an open-label European study of acne treatment with light absorbing gold microparticles and optical pulses demonstrated that the treatment led to an 80%-90% reduction of inflammatory lesions at 12 weeks, with a reduction of Investigator’s Global Assessment scale from 2 to 4.
The Food and Drug Administration cleared the treatment, Sebacia Microparticles, for the treatment of mild to moderate acne in September of 2018, but according to Dr. Sakamoto, “the company has struggled, as they were only commercializing the device in California and Washington, DC.”
Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is also being studied as an acne treatment. “PDT uses a photosensitizer that needs to be activated by a light source,” she noted. “The combination of red light and aminolevulinic acid (ALA) or methyl ester ALA has been shown to damage the sebaceous glands”.
In a recent randomized controlled trial that compared PDT to adapalene gel plus oral doxycycline, PDT showed superiority. “Because PDT induces apoptosis of the sebaceous glands, it causes a lot of pain and side effects after treatment,” Dr. Sakamoto said. “However, it can clear 80%-90% of acne in 80%-90% of patients. But because of the side effects, PDT should be limited to those patients who cannot take conventional treatments.”
Dr. Sakamoto reported having received research funding and/or consulting fees from numerous device and pharmaceutical companies.
such as Fernanda H. Sakamoto, MD, PhD.
“I love treating acne, because it can have a huge impact on our patients’ lives,” Dr. Sakamoto, a dermatologist at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “Acne is the most common disease in dermatology, affecting about 80% of our patients. Eleven percent of these patients have difficult-to-treat acne, and it is also the No. 1 cause of depression and suicide among teenagers and young adults. And, even though there’s no strong evidence that optical treatments work better than conventional acne treatments, people still spend a lot on those treatments: more than 220 million in 2019.”
Early results from a pilot study suggest that use of a novel laser system known as Accure in patients with mild to moderate acne resulted in an 80% reduction in acne lesions at 12 weeks. The laser prototype, which uses a 1,726 nm wavelength and is being developed by researchers at the Wellman Center for Photomedicine, features a built-in thermal camera in the handpiece that allows the user to monitor the skin’s temperature during treatment.
In initial pilot studies of the device, Dr. Sakamoto and colleagues observed consistent damage of the sebaceous glands, with no damage to the epidermis, surrounding dermis, or other follicular structures. “But because the contrast of absorption of lipids and water is not very high, we needed to create a laser with features that we have never seen before,” she said. “One of them is a robust cooling system. The second prototype features a built-in thermal camera within the handpiece that allows us to see the temperature while we’re treating the patient. It also has built-in software that would shut down the laser if the temperature is too high. “This is the first laser with some safety features that will give the user direct feedback while treating the patient,” she said, noting that its “unique cooling system and real-time monitoring ... makes it different from any of the lasers we see on the market right now.”
Dr. Sakamoto and colleagues (Emil Tanghetti, MD, in San Diego, Roy Geronemus, MD, in New York, and Joel L. Cohen, MD, in Colorado) are conducting a clinical trial of the device, to evaluate whether Accure can selectively target sebaceous glands. As of Oct. 23, 2020, the study enrolled more than 50 patients, who are followed at 4, 8, 12, and 24 weeks post treatment, she said.
To date, 16 patients have completed the study, and the researchers have observed an average lesion reduction of 80% at 12 weeks post treatment, after four treatment sessions. This amounted to more than 12,000 trigger pulls of the device, with no unexpected adverse events. Average visual analogue scale pain scores immediately after treatment have been 1.09 out of 10.
Histologic assessment of skin samples collected from the study participants have revealed selective damage of the sebaceous glands with a normal epidermis and surrounding dermis. “Because this laser is near infrared, it is not absorbed by melanin, making it possible for a safe treatment in darker skin tones,” Dr. Sakamoto said during the meeting, which was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine.
“We have shown that it is possible to create a selective laser for acne treatment at 1,726 nm. We have proven it mathematically as well as with histological samples,” she said. “Now we are moving on to a larger clinical trial for the FDA clearance.”
Another strategy being developed for acne treatment is to make nonselective lasers selective by adding gold microparticles into the hair follicle and sebaceous glands, to allow the lasers to be absorbed. In a study that used a free electron laser, Dr. Sakamoto and colleagues demonstrated that these microparticles can stay within the sebaceous glands for selective damage of the sebaceous glands. In a subsequent pilot clinical trial they showed that the addition of the gold microparticles followed by a diode laser treatment made it possible to reduce both inflammatory and noninflammatory lesions.
More recently, an open-label European study of acne treatment with light absorbing gold microparticles and optical pulses demonstrated that the treatment led to an 80%-90% reduction of inflammatory lesions at 12 weeks, with a reduction of Investigator’s Global Assessment scale from 2 to 4.
The Food and Drug Administration cleared the treatment, Sebacia Microparticles, for the treatment of mild to moderate acne in September of 2018, but according to Dr. Sakamoto, “the company has struggled, as they were only commercializing the device in California and Washington, DC.”
Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is also being studied as an acne treatment. “PDT uses a photosensitizer that needs to be activated by a light source,” she noted. “The combination of red light and aminolevulinic acid (ALA) or methyl ester ALA has been shown to damage the sebaceous glands”.
In a recent randomized controlled trial that compared PDT to adapalene gel plus oral doxycycline, PDT showed superiority. “Because PDT induces apoptosis of the sebaceous glands, it causes a lot of pain and side effects after treatment,” Dr. Sakamoto said. “However, it can clear 80%-90% of acne in 80%-90% of patients. But because of the side effects, PDT should be limited to those patients who cannot take conventional treatments.”
Dr. Sakamoto reported having received research funding and/or consulting fees from numerous device and pharmaceutical companies.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM A LASER & AESTHETIC SKIN THERAPY COURSE
More severe AD correlates with worse sleep health and attention problems in children
, results from a national survey demonstrated.
“We think it’s important for dermatologists and pediatricians to be monitoring children with AD for sleep and attention dysregulation,” Nina Y. Zhou said during a late-breaking research session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium. “It’s also important to highlight sleep hygiene habits to improve sleep health overall.”
In an effort to determine the impact of AD severity on these symptoms in young children with AD and characterize sleep health and attention regulation behaviors, Ms. Zhou, a medical student at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues drew from a national survey distributed via panel company OP4G and the National Eczema Association that was conducted with parents of 60 children with AD aged 1-5 years. Questionnaires included the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Early Childhood Sleep Health Measures to assess sleep health, the Peak Pruritus NRS to measure itch severity, and the Multidimensional Assessment Profile of Attention Regulation (MAPS-AR) to measure attention dysregulation related to inattention and hyperactivity. The researchers performed linear regression to determine the predictors of sleep health and attention dysregulation.
The mean age of 60 children was 3 years, 55% were male, 32% were black, 42% had severe disease, 42% had moderate disease, and 16% had mild disease. Children with more extensive AD were significantly more likely to report worse sleep disturbance. The proportion of children who reported sleep disturbance on at least 5 nights per week was 67% among those with severe AD, 24% among those with moderate AD, and 0% among those with mild AD.
In addition, 72% of parents of children with severe AD reported trouble paying attention at least 3 times per week “no matter what was going on,” compared with 24% of those with moderate AD and none of those with mild AD.
Parents of children with more severe AD reported more itch-related burden and significantly decreased quality of life for their children. For example, 76% of parents with children who had severe AD reported “because of itch, their child was frustrated,” compared to 44% of those with moderate AD and 10% with mild AD.
In fully adjusted linear regression analysis, the strongest predictors of sleep disturbance were AD severity (unstandardized beta value = 0.79, P less than .01) and being Black (unstandardized beta value = 3.89, P = .03). AD severity (unstandardized beta value = 1.22, P less than .01) and being Black (unstandardized beta value = 7.79, P less than .01) also predicted more attention dysregulation.
Household income appeared to differ significantly based on AD severity groups. “If you have mild AD, you are more likely to come from a higher income household,” Ms. Zhou said.
She concluded her presentation by calling for future studies with larger samples sizes to establish causality and directional effects between AD severity, itch, sleep, race, and attention.
The study was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Ms. Zhou reported having no financial disclosures.
, results from a national survey demonstrated.
“We think it’s important for dermatologists and pediatricians to be monitoring children with AD for sleep and attention dysregulation,” Nina Y. Zhou said during a late-breaking research session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium. “It’s also important to highlight sleep hygiene habits to improve sleep health overall.”
In an effort to determine the impact of AD severity on these symptoms in young children with AD and characterize sleep health and attention regulation behaviors, Ms. Zhou, a medical student at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues drew from a national survey distributed via panel company OP4G and the National Eczema Association that was conducted with parents of 60 children with AD aged 1-5 years. Questionnaires included the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Early Childhood Sleep Health Measures to assess sleep health, the Peak Pruritus NRS to measure itch severity, and the Multidimensional Assessment Profile of Attention Regulation (MAPS-AR) to measure attention dysregulation related to inattention and hyperactivity. The researchers performed linear regression to determine the predictors of sleep health and attention dysregulation.
The mean age of 60 children was 3 years, 55% were male, 32% were black, 42% had severe disease, 42% had moderate disease, and 16% had mild disease. Children with more extensive AD were significantly more likely to report worse sleep disturbance. The proportion of children who reported sleep disturbance on at least 5 nights per week was 67% among those with severe AD, 24% among those with moderate AD, and 0% among those with mild AD.
In addition, 72% of parents of children with severe AD reported trouble paying attention at least 3 times per week “no matter what was going on,” compared with 24% of those with moderate AD and none of those with mild AD.
Parents of children with more severe AD reported more itch-related burden and significantly decreased quality of life for their children. For example, 76% of parents with children who had severe AD reported “because of itch, their child was frustrated,” compared to 44% of those with moderate AD and 10% with mild AD.
In fully adjusted linear regression analysis, the strongest predictors of sleep disturbance were AD severity (unstandardized beta value = 0.79, P less than .01) and being Black (unstandardized beta value = 3.89, P = .03). AD severity (unstandardized beta value = 1.22, P less than .01) and being Black (unstandardized beta value = 7.79, P less than .01) also predicted more attention dysregulation.
Household income appeared to differ significantly based on AD severity groups. “If you have mild AD, you are more likely to come from a higher income household,” Ms. Zhou said.
She concluded her presentation by calling for future studies with larger samples sizes to establish causality and directional effects between AD severity, itch, sleep, race, and attention.
The study was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Ms. Zhou reported having no financial disclosures.
, results from a national survey demonstrated.
“We think it’s important for dermatologists and pediatricians to be monitoring children with AD for sleep and attention dysregulation,” Nina Y. Zhou said during a late-breaking research session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis virtual symposium. “It’s also important to highlight sleep hygiene habits to improve sleep health overall.”
In an effort to determine the impact of AD severity on these symptoms in young children with AD and characterize sleep health and attention regulation behaviors, Ms. Zhou, a medical student at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues drew from a national survey distributed via panel company OP4G and the National Eczema Association that was conducted with parents of 60 children with AD aged 1-5 years. Questionnaires included the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Early Childhood Sleep Health Measures to assess sleep health, the Peak Pruritus NRS to measure itch severity, and the Multidimensional Assessment Profile of Attention Regulation (MAPS-AR) to measure attention dysregulation related to inattention and hyperactivity. The researchers performed linear regression to determine the predictors of sleep health and attention dysregulation.
The mean age of 60 children was 3 years, 55% were male, 32% were black, 42% had severe disease, 42% had moderate disease, and 16% had mild disease. Children with more extensive AD were significantly more likely to report worse sleep disturbance. The proportion of children who reported sleep disturbance on at least 5 nights per week was 67% among those with severe AD, 24% among those with moderate AD, and 0% among those with mild AD.
In addition, 72% of parents of children with severe AD reported trouble paying attention at least 3 times per week “no matter what was going on,” compared with 24% of those with moderate AD and none of those with mild AD.
Parents of children with more severe AD reported more itch-related burden and significantly decreased quality of life for their children. For example, 76% of parents with children who had severe AD reported “because of itch, their child was frustrated,” compared to 44% of those with moderate AD and 10% with mild AD.
In fully adjusted linear regression analysis, the strongest predictors of sleep disturbance were AD severity (unstandardized beta value = 0.79, P less than .01) and being Black (unstandardized beta value = 3.89, P = .03). AD severity (unstandardized beta value = 1.22, P less than .01) and being Black (unstandardized beta value = 7.79, P less than .01) also predicted more attention dysregulation.
Household income appeared to differ significantly based on AD severity groups. “If you have mild AD, you are more likely to come from a higher income household,” Ms. Zhou said.
She concluded her presentation by calling for future studies with larger samples sizes to establish causality and directional effects between AD severity, itch, sleep, race, and attention.
The study was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Ms. Zhou reported having no financial disclosures.
FROM REVOLUTIONIZING AD 2020
Shortcomings identified in study of acne videos on TikTok
, according to an analysis of the top 100 videos using a consumer health validation tool.
The popularity of TikTok among adolescents in particular has implications for the dissemination of acne information, as some teens become “skinfluencers” and receive sponsorship from skin care brands in exchange for social media promotion, wrote David X. Zheng, BA, of the department of dermatology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and colleagues.
“However, the quality of dermatologic information found on TikTok is largely unknown,” they said.
In a brief report published in Pediatric Dermatology, the researchers identified the top 100 videos on TikTok on May 1, 2020, that were tagged with “#acne.” The information on each video included date of upload, type and gender of the individual uploading the video, physician specialty if applicable, and video category. These top 100 videos had 13,470,501 likes and 64,775 comments over a 7.6-month time period.
The researchers used the DISCERN criteria, a validated 1-5 scale designed to assess consumer health information, to evaluate the video content, with 1 (having “serious” or “extensive shortcomings”) and 5 (having “minimal shortcomings.”)
Overall, the average quality rating of the TikTok acne videos was 2.03. A total of 9 videos were produced by board-certified physicians in the United States, with an average DISCERN score of 2.41.
“Analysis of the DISCERN criteria dimensions suggested that major shortcomings common to both physician and nonphysician uploaders included failure to cite information sources, discuss treatment risks, and provide support for shared decision-making,” the researchers said.
Approximately one-third (34%) of the videos fell into the treatment-product advertisement category, while 26% were personal anecdotes, 20% presented information related to acne, 13% featured home remedy treatments, and 7% were classified as “other.” The researchers also identified the top 200 “#acne” videos on TikTok once a week from May 8, 2020 to June 5, 2020, to determine the evolution of acne content on the app and found a turnover rate of 10.9% per week.
Based on the high turnover and low quality based on DISCERN ratings, the authors suggested that patients seeking acne information should “view acne-related TikTok videos with caution and consult evidence-based resources whenever possible.”
The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size of physicians uploading videos, lack of information about the number of nonphysician medical professionals who uploaded videos, and lack of information about the number of video views and country of origin, the researchers noted. However, the results highlight the need for dermatologists to be aware that patients, especially teens, may be using TikTok for acne information that may be of poor quality, they said.
“Conversely, we understand that social media can be a powerful tool for advancing health literacy,” the researchers noted. “Therefore, we also recommend that health care professionals engaging on TikTok create thorough and perhaps standardized educational videos regarding acne, as well as correct any acne-related misinformation that may be present,” they concluded.
The other authors of the study were from the departments of dermatology at Case Western Reserve, University Hospitals Cleveland, and Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Zheng DX et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2020 Nov 28. doi: 10.1111/pde.14471.
, according to an analysis of the top 100 videos using a consumer health validation tool.
The popularity of TikTok among adolescents in particular has implications for the dissemination of acne information, as some teens become “skinfluencers” and receive sponsorship from skin care brands in exchange for social media promotion, wrote David X. Zheng, BA, of the department of dermatology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and colleagues.
“However, the quality of dermatologic information found on TikTok is largely unknown,” they said.
In a brief report published in Pediatric Dermatology, the researchers identified the top 100 videos on TikTok on May 1, 2020, that were tagged with “#acne.” The information on each video included date of upload, type and gender of the individual uploading the video, physician specialty if applicable, and video category. These top 100 videos had 13,470,501 likes and 64,775 comments over a 7.6-month time period.
The researchers used the DISCERN criteria, a validated 1-5 scale designed to assess consumer health information, to evaluate the video content, with 1 (having “serious” or “extensive shortcomings”) and 5 (having “minimal shortcomings.”)
Overall, the average quality rating of the TikTok acne videos was 2.03. A total of 9 videos were produced by board-certified physicians in the United States, with an average DISCERN score of 2.41.
“Analysis of the DISCERN criteria dimensions suggested that major shortcomings common to both physician and nonphysician uploaders included failure to cite information sources, discuss treatment risks, and provide support for shared decision-making,” the researchers said.
Approximately one-third (34%) of the videos fell into the treatment-product advertisement category, while 26% were personal anecdotes, 20% presented information related to acne, 13% featured home remedy treatments, and 7% were classified as “other.” The researchers also identified the top 200 “#acne” videos on TikTok once a week from May 8, 2020 to June 5, 2020, to determine the evolution of acne content on the app and found a turnover rate of 10.9% per week.
Based on the high turnover and low quality based on DISCERN ratings, the authors suggested that patients seeking acne information should “view acne-related TikTok videos with caution and consult evidence-based resources whenever possible.”
The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size of physicians uploading videos, lack of information about the number of nonphysician medical professionals who uploaded videos, and lack of information about the number of video views and country of origin, the researchers noted. However, the results highlight the need for dermatologists to be aware that patients, especially teens, may be using TikTok for acne information that may be of poor quality, they said.
“Conversely, we understand that social media can be a powerful tool for advancing health literacy,” the researchers noted. “Therefore, we also recommend that health care professionals engaging on TikTok create thorough and perhaps standardized educational videos regarding acne, as well as correct any acne-related misinformation that may be present,” they concluded.
The other authors of the study were from the departments of dermatology at Case Western Reserve, University Hospitals Cleveland, and Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Zheng DX et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2020 Nov 28. doi: 10.1111/pde.14471.
, according to an analysis of the top 100 videos using a consumer health validation tool.
The popularity of TikTok among adolescents in particular has implications for the dissemination of acne information, as some teens become “skinfluencers” and receive sponsorship from skin care brands in exchange for social media promotion, wrote David X. Zheng, BA, of the department of dermatology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and colleagues.
“However, the quality of dermatologic information found on TikTok is largely unknown,” they said.
In a brief report published in Pediatric Dermatology, the researchers identified the top 100 videos on TikTok on May 1, 2020, that were tagged with “#acne.” The information on each video included date of upload, type and gender of the individual uploading the video, physician specialty if applicable, and video category. These top 100 videos had 13,470,501 likes and 64,775 comments over a 7.6-month time period.
The researchers used the DISCERN criteria, a validated 1-5 scale designed to assess consumer health information, to evaluate the video content, with 1 (having “serious” or “extensive shortcomings”) and 5 (having “minimal shortcomings.”)
Overall, the average quality rating of the TikTok acne videos was 2.03. A total of 9 videos were produced by board-certified physicians in the United States, with an average DISCERN score of 2.41.
“Analysis of the DISCERN criteria dimensions suggested that major shortcomings common to both physician and nonphysician uploaders included failure to cite information sources, discuss treatment risks, and provide support for shared decision-making,” the researchers said.
Approximately one-third (34%) of the videos fell into the treatment-product advertisement category, while 26% were personal anecdotes, 20% presented information related to acne, 13% featured home remedy treatments, and 7% were classified as “other.” The researchers also identified the top 200 “#acne” videos on TikTok once a week from May 8, 2020 to June 5, 2020, to determine the evolution of acne content on the app and found a turnover rate of 10.9% per week.
Based on the high turnover and low quality based on DISCERN ratings, the authors suggested that patients seeking acne information should “view acne-related TikTok videos with caution and consult evidence-based resources whenever possible.”
The study findings were limited by several factors including the small sample size of physicians uploading videos, lack of information about the number of nonphysician medical professionals who uploaded videos, and lack of information about the number of video views and country of origin, the researchers noted. However, the results highlight the need for dermatologists to be aware that patients, especially teens, may be using TikTok for acne information that may be of poor quality, they said.
“Conversely, we understand that social media can be a powerful tool for advancing health literacy,” the researchers noted. “Therefore, we also recommend that health care professionals engaging on TikTok create thorough and perhaps standardized educational videos regarding acne, as well as correct any acne-related misinformation that may be present,” they concluded.
The other authors of the study were from the departments of dermatology at Case Western Reserve, University Hospitals Cleveland, and Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.
The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose.
SOURCE: Zheng DX et al. Pediatr Dermatol. 2020 Nov 28. doi: 10.1111/pde.14471.
FROM PEDIATRIC DERMATOLOGY
Food allergy testing for eczema in kids varies by specialty
Specialists vary on their opinion about the ordering of food allergy tests for children with eczema, a recent survey reveals.
A child with eczema is more likely to be given food allergy tests if seen by an allergist or a pediatrician and less likely to be given these tests if seen by a general practitioner or dermatologist.
“In our survey, we found evidence of variation in practice and a spectrum of opinion on what to do to treat eczema in children,” Matthew Ridd, MD, University of Bristol (England) said in an interview.
His clinician survey was sent to 155 health care providers. Findings were presented at the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Meeting–European Consortium on Application of Flow Cytometry in Allergy Congress, held virtually. They revealed big differences in the way physicians follow up on eczema. For a child with eczema with reported reactions to food, 20 of 22 (91%) allergists and 22 of 30 (73%) pediatricians always order food allergy tests.
But only 16 of 65 (25%) general practitioners and 3 of 12 (25%) dermatologists always order tests in the same situation.
A total of 155 health care practitioners responded to the survey, sent by a U.K. research team. Of those, 26 were unable to order allergy tests. Of the remaining 129, 65 (50%) specialized in general practice, 30 (23%) in pediatrics, 22 (17%) in the treatment of allergies, and 12 (9%) in dermatology.
Their opinions varied on when to order food allergy tests. For children with severe eczema who had no prior reaction to food, 8 of 22 (36%) practitioners specializing in allergy said they would order food allergy tests, as did 9 of 30 (30%) in pediatrics.
Of those surveyed, only 6 of 65 in general practice (9%) said they would request an allergy test for severe eczema for a patient with no allergy history, and no dermatologists (0%) would order the tests.
Only if a parent specifically requested a food allergy test would practitioners respond in a similar way. About two-thirds of all respondents said they would sometimes order the test if a parent asked (general practice, 75%; pediatrics, 63%; allergy, 68%; dermatology, 75%).
Dr. Ridd said in an interview that it’s not surprising there’s a wide variation in practice, inasmuch as the guidelines are quite convoluted and complex. “Eczema is a common problem, but we don’t have any good evidence to guide clinicians on when to consider food allergy as a possible cause.”
Current guidelines advise calling for allergy tests only when eczema is difficult to treat. “But this is a complex decision. We know that a third of children with eczema are at higher risk for food allergy,” Dr. Ridd said. A 2014 study published in Clinical and Experimental Allergy showed that infants with eczema are six times more likely to have egg allergy and 11 times more likely to have peanut allergy by 12 months than infants without eczema (Clin Exp Allergy. 2014;45:255-64).
Food allergy is a sticky subject, he said. “So we have to wonder, are general practitioners frightened to raise the question?
“We definitely see uncertainty around it.”
He suspects that parents may also be hesitant to bring it up. “They are likely thinking about it even if they don’t ask,” Dr. Ridd said. “I think it’s important to test for food allergy, to provide reassurance. Once we show it’s not an allergy, we can focus on topical treatment.”
Treating eczema with emollients may increase likelihood of food allergy
In a separate presentation at the FAAM-EUROBAT congress, Maeve Kelleher, MD, Imperial College London, said that, rather than help reduce eczema, emollients in infants probably cause an increase in the risk for skin infection and food allergy. Her research team performed a systematic review of 25,827 participants in randomized controlled trials of the use of skin care interventions in term infants for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy. The study focused especially on topical creams.
Dr. Kelleher reported that skin care interventions “probably don’t prevent eczema. They probably increase local skin infections and may increase food allergy.”
Other interventions need to be explored, she said. “Maybe prevention should be along the line of looking at the microbiome, or exposures on the skin when you’re younger.”
Dr. Ridd and Dr. Kelleher have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Specialists vary on their opinion about the ordering of food allergy tests for children with eczema, a recent survey reveals.
A child with eczema is more likely to be given food allergy tests if seen by an allergist or a pediatrician and less likely to be given these tests if seen by a general practitioner or dermatologist.
“In our survey, we found evidence of variation in practice and a spectrum of opinion on what to do to treat eczema in children,” Matthew Ridd, MD, University of Bristol (England) said in an interview.
His clinician survey was sent to 155 health care providers. Findings were presented at the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Meeting–European Consortium on Application of Flow Cytometry in Allergy Congress, held virtually. They revealed big differences in the way physicians follow up on eczema. For a child with eczema with reported reactions to food, 20 of 22 (91%) allergists and 22 of 30 (73%) pediatricians always order food allergy tests.
But only 16 of 65 (25%) general practitioners and 3 of 12 (25%) dermatologists always order tests in the same situation.
A total of 155 health care practitioners responded to the survey, sent by a U.K. research team. Of those, 26 were unable to order allergy tests. Of the remaining 129, 65 (50%) specialized in general practice, 30 (23%) in pediatrics, 22 (17%) in the treatment of allergies, and 12 (9%) in dermatology.
Their opinions varied on when to order food allergy tests. For children with severe eczema who had no prior reaction to food, 8 of 22 (36%) practitioners specializing in allergy said they would order food allergy tests, as did 9 of 30 (30%) in pediatrics.
Of those surveyed, only 6 of 65 in general practice (9%) said they would request an allergy test for severe eczema for a patient with no allergy history, and no dermatologists (0%) would order the tests.
Only if a parent specifically requested a food allergy test would practitioners respond in a similar way. About two-thirds of all respondents said they would sometimes order the test if a parent asked (general practice, 75%; pediatrics, 63%; allergy, 68%; dermatology, 75%).
Dr. Ridd said in an interview that it’s not surprising there’s a wide variation in practice, inasmuch as the guidelines are quite convoluted and complex. “Eczema is a common problem, but we don’t have any good evidence to guide clinicians on when to consider food allergy as a possible cause.”
Current guidelines advise calling for allergy tests only when eczema is difficult to treat. “But this is a complex decision. We know that a third of children with eczema are at higher risk for food allergy,” Dr. Ridd said. A 2014 study published in Clinical and Experimental Allergy showed that infants with eczema are six times more likely to have egg allergy and 11 times more likely to have peanut allergy by 12 months than infants without eczema (Clin Exp Allergy. 2014;45:255-64).
Food allergy is a sticky subject, he said. “So we have to wonder, are general practitioners frightened to raise the question?
“We definitely see uncertainty around it.”
He suspects that parents may also be hesitant to bring it up. “They are likely thinking about it even if they don’t ask,” Dr. Ridd said. “I think it’s important to test for food allergy, to provide reassurance. Once we show it’s not an allergy, we can focus on topical treatment.”
Treating eczema with emollients may increase likelihood of food allergy
In a separate presentation at the FAAM-EUROBAT congress, Maeve Kelleher, MD, Imperial College London, said that, rather than help reduce eczema, emollients in infants probably cause an increase in the risk for skin infection and food allergy. Her research team performed a systematic review of 25,827 participants in randomized controlled trials of the use of skin care interventions in term infants for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy. The study focused especially on topical creams.
Dr. Kelleher reported that skin care interventions “probably don’t prevent eczema. They probably increase local skin infections and may increase food allergy.”
Other interventions need to be explored, she said. “Maybe prevention should be along the line of looking at the microbiome, or exposures on the skin when you’re younger.”
Dr. Ridd and Dr. Kelleher have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Specialists vary on their opinion about the ordering of food allergy tests for children with eczema, a recent survey reveals.
A child with eczema is more likely to be given food allergy tests if seen by an allergist or a pediatrician and less likely to be given these tests if seen by a general practitioner or dermatologist.
“In our survey, we found evidence of variation in practice and a spectrum of opinion on what to do to treat eczema in children,” Matthew Ridd, MD, University of Bristol (England) said in an interview.
His clinician survey was sent to 155 health care providers. Findings were presented at the Food Allergy and Anaphylaxis Meeting–European Consortium on Application of Flow Cytometry in Allergy Congress, held virtually. They revealed big differences in the way physicians follow up on eczema. For a child with eczema with reported reactions to food, 20 of 22 (91%) allergists and 22 of 30 (73%) pediatricians always order food allergy tests.
But only 16 of 65 (25%) general practitioners and 3 of 12 (25%) dermatologists always order tests in the same situation.
A total of 155 health care practitioners responded to the survey, sent by a U.K. research team. Of those, 26 were unable to order allergy tests. Of the remaining 129, 65 (50%) specialized in general practice, 30 (23%) in pediatrics, 22 (17%) in the treatment of allergies, and 12 (9%) in dermatology.
Their opinions varied on when to order food allergy tests. For children with severe eczema who had no prior reaction to food, 8 of 22 (36%) practitioners specializing in allergy said they would order food allergy tests, as did 9 of 30 (30%) in pediatrics.
Of those surveyed, only 6 of 65 in general practice (9%) said they would request an allergy test for severe eczema for a patient with no allergy history, and no dermatologists (0%) would order the tests.
Only if a parent specifically requested a food allergy test would practitioners respond in a similar way. About two-thirds of all respondents said they would sometimes order the test if a parent asked (general practice, 75%; pediatrics, 63%; allergy, 68%; dermatology, 75%).
Dr. Ridd said in an interview that it’s not surprising there’s a wide variation in practice, inasmuch as the guidelines are quite convoluted and complex. “Eczema is a common problem, but we don’t have any good evidence to guide clinicians on when to consider food allergy as a possible cause.”
Current guidelines advise calling for allergy tests only when eczema is difficult to treat. “But this is a complex decision. We know that a third of children with eczema are at higher risk for food allergy,” Dr. Ridd said. A 2014 study published in Clinical and Experimental Allergy showed that infants with eczema are six times more likely to have egg allergy and 11 times more likely to have peanut allergy by 12 months than infants without eczema (Clin Exp Allergy. 2014;45:255-64).
Food allergy is a sticky subject, he said. “So we have to wonder, are general practitioners frightened to raise the question?
“We definitely see uncertainty around it.”
He suspects that parents may also be hesitant to bring it up. “They are likely thinking about it even if they don’t ask,” Dr. Ridd said. “I think it’s important to test for food allergy, to provide reassurance. Once we show it’s not an allergy, we can focus on topical treatment.”
Treating eczema with emollients may increase likelihood of food allergy
In a separate presentation at the FAAM-EUROBAT congress, Maeve Kelleher, MD, Imperial College London, said that, rather than help reduce eczema, emollients in infants probably cause an increase in the risk for skin infection and food allergy. Her research team performed a systematic review of 25,827 participants in randomized controlled trials of the use of skin care interventions in term infants for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy. The study focused especially on topical creams.
Dr. Kelleher reported that skin care interventions “probably don’t prevent eczema. They probably increase local skin infections and may increase food allergy.”
Other interventions need to be explored, she said. “Maybe prevention should be along the line of looking at the microbiome, or exposures on the skin when you’re younger.”
Dr. Ridd and Dr. Kelleher have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Generalized pustular eruption
The acute rash with minute pustules and associated leukocytosis with neutrophilia and eosinophilia led to a diagnosis of acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), which may have been triggered by azithromycin—the patient’s only recent medication. AGEP is a severe cutaneous eruption that may be associated with systemic involvement. Medications are usually implicated, and patients often seek urgent evaluation.
AGEP typically begins as an acute eruption in the intertriginous sites of the axilla, groin, and neck, but often becomes more generalized. The diagnosis is strongly suggested by the condition’s key features: fever (97% of cases) and leukocytosis (87%) with neutrophilia (91%) and eosinophilia (30%). Leukocytosis peaks 4 days after pustulosis occurs and lasts for about 12 days. Although common, fever is not always documented in patients with AGEP. (This patient was a case in point.)
In approximately 90% of AGEP cases, medications such as antibiotics and calcium channel blockers are implicated; however, the lack of such an association does not preclude the diagnosis. In cases of drug reactions, the eruption typically develops 1 to 2 days after a medication is begun, and the pustules typically resolve in fewer than 15 days. In 17% of patients, systemic involvement can occur and can include the liver, kidneys, bone marrow, and lungs. A physical exam, review of systems, and a laboratory evaluation can help rule out systemic involvement and guide additional testing.
AGEP has an incidence of 1 to 5 cases per million people per year, affecting women slightly more frequently than men. While the pathophysiology is not well understood, AGEP and its differential diagnoses are categorized as T cell-related inflammatory responses.
There are at least 4 severe cutaneous eruptions that might be confused with AGEP, all of which may be associated with fever. They include a drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and pustular psoriasis. The clinical features that may help differentiate these conditions from AGEP include timeline, mucocutaneous features, organ system involvement, and histopathologic findings.
Patients who have AGEP, including those with systemic involvement, generally improve after the offending drug is discontinued and treatment with topical corticosteroids is initiated. A brief course of systemic corticosteroids can also be considered for patients with severe skin involvement or systemic involvement.
This patient was prescribed topical corticosteroid wet dressing treatments twice daily for 2 weeks. At the 2-week follow-up visit, the rash had completely cleared and only minimal residual erythema was noted. The patient was instructed to avoid azithromycin.
This case was adapted from: Tolkachjov SN, Wetter DA, Sandefur BJ. Generalized pustular eruption. J Fam Pract. 2018;67:309-310,312.
The acute rash with minute pustules and associated leukocytosis with neutrophilia and eosinophilia led to a diagnosis of acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), which may have been triggered by azithromycin—the patient’s only recent medication. AGEP is a severe cutaneous eruption that may be associated with systemic involvement. Medications are usually implicated, and patients often seek urgent evaluation.
AGEP typically begins as an acute eruption in the intertriginous sites of the axilla, groin, and neck, but often becomes more generalized. The diagnosis is strongly suggested by the condition’s key features: fever (97% of cases) and leukocytosis (87%) with neutrophilia (91%) and eosinophilia (30%). Leukocytosis peaks 4 days after pustulosis occurs and lasts for about 12 days. Although common, fever is not always documented in patients with AGEP. (This patient was a case in point.)
In approximately 90% of AGEP cases, medications such as antibiotics and calcium channel blockers are implicated; however, the lack of such an association does not preclude the diagnosis. In cases of drug reactions, the eruption typically develops 1 to 2 days after a medication is begun, and the pustules typically resolve in fewer than 15 days. In 17% of patients, systemic involvement can occur and can include the liver, kidneys, bone marrow, and lungs. A physical exam, review of systems, and a laboratory evaluation can help rule out systemic involvement and guide additional testing.
AGEP has an incidence of 1 to 5 cases per million people per year, affecting women slightly more frequently than men. While the pathophysiology is not well understood, AGEP and its differential diagnoses are categorized as T cell-related inflammatory responses.
There are at least 4 severe cutaneous eruptions that might be confused with AGEP, all of which may be associated with fever. They include a drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and pustular psoriasis. The clinical features that may help differentiate these conditions from AGEP include timeline, mucocutaneous features, organ system involvement, and histopathologic findings.
Patients who have AGEP, including those with systemic involvement, generally improve after the offending drug is discontinued and treatment with topical corticosteroids is initiated. A brief course of systemic corticosteroids can also be considered for patients with severe skin involvement or systemic involvement.
This patient was prescribed topical corticosteroid wet dressing treatments twice daily for 2 weeks. At the 2-week follow-up visit, the rash had completely cleared and only minimal residual erythema was noted. The patient was instructed to avoid azithromycin.
This case was adapted from: Tolkachjov SN, Wetter DA, Sandefur BJ. Generalized pustular eruption. J Fam Pract. 2018;67:309-310,312.
The acute rash with minute pustules and associated leukocytosis with neutrophilia and eosinophilia led to a diagnosis of acute generalized exanthematous pustulosis (AGEP), which may have been triggered by azithromycin—the patient’s only recent medication. AGEP is a severe cutaneous eruption that may be associated with systemic involvement. Medications are usually implicated, and patients often seek urgent evaluation.
AGEP typically begins as an acute eruption in the intertriginous sites of the axilla, groin, and neck, but often becomes more generalized. The diagnosis is strongly suggested by the condition’s key features: fever (97% of cases) and leukocytosis (87%) with neutrophilia (91%) and eosinophilia (30%). Leukocytosis peaks 4 days after pustulosis occurs and lasts for about 12 days. Although common, fever is not always documented in patients with AGEP. (This patient was a case in point.)
In approximately 90% of AGEP cases, medications such as antibiotics and calcium channel blockers are implicated; however, the lack of such an association does not preclude the diagnosis. In cases of drug reactions, the eruption typically develops 1 to 2 days after a medication is begun, and the pustules typically resolve in fewer than 15 days. In 17% of patients, systemic involvement can occur and can include the liver, kidneys, bone marrow, and lungs. A physical exam, review of systems, and a laboratory evaluation can help rule out systemic involvement and guide additional testing.
AGEP has an incidence of 1 to 5 cases per million people per year, affecting women slightly more frequently than men. While the pathophysiology is not well understood, AGEP and its differential diagnoses are categorized as T cell-related inflammatory responses.
There are at least 4 severe cutaneous eruptions that might be confused with AGEP, all of which may be associated with fever. They include a drug reaction with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, toxic epidermal necrolysis, and pustular psoriasis. The clinical features that may help differentiate these conditions from AGEP include timeline, mucocutaneous features, organ system involvement, and histopathologic findings.
Patients who have AGEP, including those with systemic involvement, generally improve after the offending drug is discontinued and treatment with topical corticosteroids is initiated. A brief course of systemic corticosteroids can also be considered for patients with severe skin involvement or systemic involvement.
This patient was prescribed topical corticosteroid wet dressing treatments twice daily for 2 weeks. At the 2-week follow-up visit, the rash had completely cleared and only minimal residual erythema was noted. The patient was instructed to avoid azithromycin.
This case was adapted from: Tolkachjov SN, Wetter DA, Sandefur BJ. Generalized pustular eruption. J Fam Pract. 2018;67:309-310,312.
COVID-19 vaccines: Safe for immunocompromised patients?
Coronavirus vaccines have become a reality, as they are now being approved and authorized for use in a growing number of countries including the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just issued emergency authorization for the use of the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech. Close behind is the vaccine developed by Moderna, which has also applied to the FDA for emergency authorization.
The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, and the FDA has said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3%-97.6%. But as with many initial clinical trials, whether for drugs or vaccines, not all populations were represented in the trial cohort, including individuals who are immunocompromised. At the current time, it is largely unknown how safe or effective the vaccine may be in this large population, many of whom are at high risk for serious COVID-19 complications.
At a special session held during the recent annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, said that individuals with compromised immune systems, whether because of chemotherapy or a bone marrow transplant, should plan to be vaccinated when the opportunity arises.
In response to a question from ASH President Stephanie J. Lee, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Dr. Fauci emphasized that, despite being excluded from clinical trials, this population should get vaccinated. “I think we should recommend that they get vaccinated,” he said. “I mean, it is clear that, if you are on immunosuppressive agents, history tells us that you’re not going to have as robust a response as if you had an intact immune system that was not being compromised. But some degree of immunity is better than no degree of immunity.”
That does seem to be the consensus among experts who spoke in interviews: that as long as these are not live attenuated vaccines, they hold no specific risk to an immunocompromised patient, other than any factors specific to the individual that could be a contraindication.
“Patients, family members, friends, and work contacts should be encouraged to receive the vaccine,” said William Stohl, MD, PhD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Clinicians should advise patients to obtain the vaccine sooner rather than later.”
Kevin C. Wang, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed. “I am 100% with Dr. Fauci. Everyone should get the vaccine, even if it may not be as effective,” he said. “I would treat it exactly like the flu vaccines that we recommend folks get every year.”
Dr. Wang noted that he couldn’t think of any contraindications unless the immunosuppressed patients have a history of severe allergic reactions to prior vaccinations. “But I would even say patients with history of cancer, upon recommendation of their oncologists, are likely to be suitable candidates for the vaccine,” he added. “I would say clinicians should approach counseling the same way they counsel patients for the flu vaccine, and as far as I know, there are no concerns for systemic drugs commonly used in dermatology patients.”
However, guidance has not yet been issued from either the FDA or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding the use of the vaccine in immunocompromised individuals. Given the lack of data, the FDA has said that “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis,” and that individuals should consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has said that clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies. The CDC itself has not yet released its formal guidance on vaccine use.
COVID-19 vaccines
Vaccines typically require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic, but this year researchers embarked on a global effort to develop safe and effective coronavirus vaccines in record time. Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have only a few months of phase 3 clinical trial data, so much remains unknown about them, including their duration of effect and any long-term safety signals. In addition to excluding immunocompromised individuals, the clinical trials did not include children or pregnant women, so data are lacking for several population subgroups.
But these will not be the only vaccines available, as the pipeline is already becoming crowded. U.S. clinical trial data from a vaccine jointly being developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, could potentially be ready, along with a request for FDA emergency use authorization, by late January 2021.
In addition, China and Russia have released vaccines, and there are currently 61 vaccines being investigated in clinical trials and at least 85 preclinical products under active investigation.
The vaccine candidates are using both conventional and novel mechanisms of action to elicit an immune response in patients. Conventional methods include attenuated inactivated (killed) virus and recombinant viral protein vaccines to develop immunity. Novel approaches include replication-deficient, adenovirus vector-based vaccines that contain the viral protein, and mRNA-based vaccines, such as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, that encode for a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
“The special vaccine concern for immunocompromised individuals is introduction of a live virus,” Dr. Stohl said. “Neither the Moderna nor Pfizer vaccines are live viruses, so there should be no special contraindication for such individuals.”
Live vaccine should be avoided in immunocompromised patients, and currently, live SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are only being developed in India and Turkey.
It is not unusual for vaccine trials to begin with cohorts that exclude participants with various health conditions, including those who are immunocompromised. These groups are generally then evaluated in phase 4 trials, or postmarketing surveillance. While the precise number of immunosuppressed adults in the United States is not known, the numbers are believed to be rising because of increased life expectancy among immunosuppressed adults as a result of advances in treatment and new and wider indications for therapies that can affect the immune system.
According to data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 2.7% of U.S. adults are immunosuppressed. This population covers a broad array of health conditions and medical specialties; people living with inflammatory or autoimmune conditions, such as inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, lupus); inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis); psoriasis; multiple sclerosis; organ transplant recipients; patients undergoing chemotherapy; and life-long immunosuppression attributable to HIV infection.
As the vaccines begin to roll out and become available, how should clinicians advise their patients, in the absence of any clinical trial data?
Risk vs. benefit
Gilaad Kaplan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted that the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community has dealt with tremendous anxiety during the pandemic because many are immunocompromised because of the medications they use to treat their disease.
“For example, many patients with IBD are on biologics like anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapies, which are also used in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. “Understandably, individuals with IBD on immunosuppressive medications are concerned about the risk of severe complications due to COVID-19.”
The entire IBD community, along with the world, celebrated the announcement that multiple vaccines are protective against SARS-CoV-2, he noted. “Vaccines offer the potential to reduce the spread of COVID-19, allowing society to revert back to normalcy,” Dr. Kaplan said. “Moreover, for vulnerable populations, including those who are immunocompromised, vaccines offer the potential to directly protect them from the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.”
That said, even though the news of vaccines are extremely promising, some cautions must be raised regarding their use in immunocompromised populations, such as persons with IBD. “The current trials, to my knowledge, did not include immunocompromised individuals and thus, we can only extrapolate from what we know from other trials of different vaccines,” he explained. “We know from prior vaccines studies that the immune response following vaccination is less robust in those who are immunocompromised as compared to a healthy control population.”
Dr. Kaplan also pointed to recent reports of allergic reactions that have been reported in healthy individuals. “We don’t know whether side effects, like allergic reactions, may be different in unstudied populations,” he said. “Thus, the medical and scientific community should prioritize clinical studies of safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.”
So, what does this mean for an individual with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease like Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who is immunocompromised? Dr. Kaplan explained that it is a balance between the potential harm of being infected with COVID-19 and the uncertainty of receiving a vaccine in an understudied population. For those who are highly susceptible to dying from COVID-19, such as an older adult with IBD, or someone who faces high exposure, such as a health care worker, the potential protection of the vaccine greatly outweighs the uncertainty.
“However, for individuals who are at otherwise lower risk – for example, young and able to work from home – then waiting a few extra months for postmarketing surveillance studies in immunocompromised populations may be a reasonable approach, as long as these individuals are taking great care to avoid infection,” he said.
No waiting needed
Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, feels that the newly approved vaccine should be safe for most of his patients.
“Patients with psoriatic disease should get the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible based on eligibility as determined by the CDC and local public health officials,” he said. “It is not a live vaccine, and therefore patients on biologics or other immune-modulating or immune-suppressing treatment can receive it.”
However, the impact of psoriasis treatment on immune response to the mRNA-based vaccines is not known. Dr. Gelfand noted that, extrapolating from the vaccine literature, there is some evidence that methotrexate reduces response to the influenza vaccine. “However, the clinical significance of this finding is not clear,” he said. “Since the mRNA vaccine needs to be taken twice, a few weeks apart, I do not recommend interrupting or delaying treatment for psoriatic disease while undergoing vaccination for COVID-19.”
Given the reports of allergic reactions, he added that it is advisable for patients with a history of life-threatening allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis or who have been advised to carry an epinephrine autoinjector, to talk with their health care provider to determine if COVID-19 vaccination is medically appropriate.
The National Psoriasis Foundation has issued guidance on COVID-19, explained Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and social sciences & health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., who is also a member of the committee that is working on those guidelines and keeping them up to date. “We are in the process of updating the guidelines with information on COVID vaccines,” he said.
He agreed that there are no contraindications for psoriasis patients to receive the vaccine, regardless of whether they are on immunosuppressive treatment, even though definitive data are lacking. “Fortunately, there’s a lot of good data coming out of Italy that patients with psoriasis on biologics do not appear to be at increased risk of getting COVID or of having worse outcomes from COVID,” he said.
Patients are going to ask about the vaccines, and when counseling them, clinicians should discuss the available data, the residual uncertainty, and patients’ concerns should be considered, Dr. Feldman explained. “There may be some concern that steroids and cyclosporine would reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, but there is no concern that any of the drugs would cause increased risk from nonlive vaccines.”
He added that there is evidence that “patients on biologics who receive nonlive vaccines do develop antibody responses and are immunized.”
Boosting efficacy
Even prior to making their announcement, the American College of Rheumatology had said that they would endorse the vaccine for all patients, explained rheumatologist Brett Smith, DO, from Blount Memorial Physicians Group and East Tennessee Children’s Hospital, Alcoa. “The vaccine is safe for all patients, but the problem may be that it’s not as effective,” he said. “But we don’t know that because it hasn’t been tested.”
With other vaccines, biologic medicines are held for 2 weeks before and afterwards, to get the best response. “But some patients don’t want to stop the medication,” Dr. Smith said. “They are afraid that their symptoms will return.”
As for counseling patients as to whether they should receive this vaccine, he explained that he typically doesn’t try to sway patients one way or another until they are really high risk. “When I counsel, it really depends on the individual situation. And for this vaccine, we have to be open to the fact that many people have already made up their mind.”
There are a lot of questions regarding the vaccine. One is the short time frame of development. “Vaccines typically take 6-10 years to come on the market, and this one is now available after a 3-month study,” Dr. Smith said. “Some have already decided that it’s too new for them.”
The process is also new, and patients need to understand that it doesn’t contain an active virus and “you can’t catch coronavirus from it.”
Dr. Smith also explained that, because the vaccine may be less effective in a person using biologic therapies, there is currently no information available on repeat vaccination. “These are all unanswered questions,” he said. “If the antibodies wane in a short time, can we be revaccinated and in what time frame? We just don’t know that yet.”
Marcelo Bonomi, MD, a medical oncologist from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, explained that one way to ensure a more optimal response to the vaccine would be to wait until the patient has finished chemotherapy.* “The vaccine can be offered at that time, and in the meantime, they can take other steps to avoid infection,” he said. “If they are very immunosuppressed, it isn’t worth trying to give the vaccine.”
Cancer patients should be encouraged to stay as healthy as possible, and to wear masks and social distance. “It’s a comprehensive approach. Eat healthy, avoid alcohol and tobacco, and exercise. [These things] will help boost the immune system,” Dr. Bonomi said. “Family members should be encouraged to get vaccinated, which will help them avoid infection and exposing the patient.”
Jim Boonyaratanakornkit, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist who cares for cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, agreed. “Giving a vaccine right after a transplant is a futile endeavor,” he said. “We need to wait 6 months to have an immune response.”
He pointed out there may be a continuing higher number of cases, with high levels peaking in Washington in February and March. “Close friends and family should be vaccinated if possible,” he said, “which will help interrupt transmission.”
The vaccines are using new platforms that are totally different, and there is no clear data as to how long the antibodies will persist. “We know that they last for at least 4 months,” said Dr. Boonyaratanakornkit. “We don’t know what level of antibody will protect them from COVID-19 infection. Current studies are being conducted, but we don’t have that information for anyone yet.”
*Correction, 1/7/21: An earlier version of this article misattributed quotes from Dr. Marcelo Bonomi.
Coronavirus vaccines have become a reality, as they are now being approved and authorized for use in a growing number of countries including the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just issued emergency authorization for the use of the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech. Close behind is the vaccine developed by Moderna, which has also applied to the FDA for emergency authorization.
The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, and the FDA has said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3%-97.6%. But as with many initial clinical trials, whether for drugs or vaccines, not all populations were represented in the trial cohort, including individuals who are immunocompromised. At the current time, it is largely unknown how safe or effective the vaccine may be in this large population, many of whom are at high risk for serious COVID-19 complications.
At a special session held during the recent annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, said that individuals with compromised immune systems, whether because of chemotherapy or a bone marrow transplant, should plan to be vaccinated when the opportunity arises.
In response to a question from ASH President Stephanie J. Lee, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Dr. Fauci emphasized that, despite being excluded from clinical trials, this population should get vaccinated. “I think we should recommend that they get vaccinated,” he said. “I mean, it is clear that, if you are on immunosuppressive agents, history tells us that you’re not going to have as robust a response as if you had an intact immune system that was not being compromised. But some degree of immunity is better than no degree of immunity.”
That does seem to be the consensus among experts who spoke in interviews: that as long as these are not live attenuated vaccines, they hold no specific risk to an immunocompromised patient, other than any factors specific to the individual that could be a contraindication.
“Patients, family members, friends, and work contacts should be encouraged to receive the vaccine,” said William Stohl, MD, PhD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Clinicians should advise patients to obtain the vaccine sooner rather than later.”
Kevin C. Wang, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed. “I am 100% with Dr. Fauci. Everyone should get the vaccine, even if it may not be as effective,” he said. “I would treat it exactly like the flu vaccines that we recommend folks get every year.”
Dr. Wang noted that he couldn’t think of any contraindications unless the immunosuppressed patients have a history of severe allergic reactions to prior vaccinations. “But I would even say patients with history of cancer, upon recommendation of their oncologists, are likely to be suitable candidates for the vaccine,” he added. “I would say clinicians should approach counseling the same way they counsel patients for the flu vaccine, and as far as I know, there are no concerns for systemic drugs commonly used in dermatology patients.”
However, guidance has not yet been issued from either the FDA or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding the use of the vaccine in immunocompromised individuals. Given the lack of data, the FDA has said that “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis,” and that individuals should consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has said that clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies. The CDC itself has not yet released its formal guidance on vaccine use.
COVID-19 vaccines
Vaccines typically require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic, but this year researchers embarked on a global effort to develop safe and effective coronavirus vaccines in record time. Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have only a few months of phase 3 clinical trial data, so much remains unknown about them, including their duration of effect and any long-term safety signals. In addition to excluding immunocompromised individuals, the clinical trials did not include children or pregnant women, so data are lacking for several population subgroups.
But these will not be the only vaccines available, as the pipeline is already becoming crowded. U.S. clinical trial data from a vaccine jointly being developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, could potentially be ready, along with a request for FDA emergency use authorization, by late January 2021.
In addition, China and Russia have released vaccines, and there are currently 61 vaccines being investigated in clinical trials and at least 85 preclinical products under active investigation.
The vaccine candidates are using both conventional and novel mechanisms of action to elicit an immune response in patients. Conventional methods include attenuated inactivated (killed) virus and recombinant viral protein vaccines to develop immunity. Novel approaches include replication-deficient, adenovirus vector-based vaccines that contain the viral protein, and mRNA-based vaccines, such as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, that encode for a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
“The special vaccine concern for immunocompromised individuals is introduction of a live virus,” Dr. Stohl said. “Neither the Moderna nor Pfizer vaccines are live viruses, so there should be no special contraindication for such individuals.”
Live vaccine should be avoided in immunocompromised patients, and currently, live SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are only being developed in India and Turkey.
It is not unusual for vaccine trials to begin with cohorts that exclude participants with various health conditions, including those who are immunocompromised. These groups are generally then evaluated in phase 4 trials, or postmarketing surveillance. While the precise number of immunosuppressed adults in the United States is not known, the numbers are believed to be rising because of increased life expectancy among immunosuppressed adults as a result of advances in treatment and new and wider indications for therapies that can affect the immune system.
According to data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 2.7% of U.S. adults are immunosuppressed. This population covers a broad array of health conditions and medical specialties; people living with inflammatory or autoimmune conditions, such as inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, lupus); inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis); psoriasis; multiple sclerosis; organ transplant recipients; patients undergoing chemotherapy; and life-long immunosuppression attributable to HIV infection.
As the vaccines begin to roll out and become available, how should clinicians advise their patients, in the absence of any clinical trial data?
Risk vs. benefit
Gilaad Kaplan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted that the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community has dealt with tremendous anxiety during the pandemic because many are immunocompromised because of the medications they use to treat their disease.
“For example, many patients with IBD are on biologics like anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapies, which are also used in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. “Understandably, individuals with IBD on immunosuppressive medications are concerned about the risk of severe complications due to COVID-19.”
The entire IBD community, along with the world, celebrated the announcement that multiple vaccines are protective against SARS-CoV-2, he noted. “Vaccines offer the potential to reduce the spread of COVID-19, allowing society to revert back to normalcy,” Dr. Kaplan said. “Moreover, for vulnerable populations, including those who are immunocompromised, vaccines offer the potential to directly protect them from the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.”
That said, even though the news of vaccines are extremely promising, some cautions must be raised regarding their use in immunocompromised populations, such as persons with IBD. “The current trials, to my knowledge, did not include immunocompromised individuals and thus, we can only extrapolate from what we know from other trials of different vaccines,” he explained. “We know from prior vaccines studies that the immune response following vaccination is less robust in those who are immunocompromised as compared to a healthy control population.”
Dr. Kaplan also pointed to recent reports of allergic reactions that have been reported in healthy individuals. “We don’t know whether side effects, like allergic reactions, may be different in unstudied populations,” he said. “Thus, the medical and scientific community should prioritize clinical studies of safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.”
So, what does this mean for an individual with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease like Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who is immunocompromised? Dr. Kaplan explained that it is a balance between the potential harm of being infected with COVID-19 and the uncertainty of receiving a vaccine in an understudied population. For those who are highly susceptible to dying from COVID-19, such as an older adult with IBD, or someone who faces high exposure, such as a health care worker, the potential protection of the vaccine greatly outweighs the uncertainty.
“However, for individuals who are at otherwise lower risk – for example, young and able to work from home – then waiting a few extra months for postmarketing surveillance studies in immunocompromised populations may be a reasonable approach, as long as these individuals are taking great care to avoid infection,” he said.
No waiting needed
Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, feels that the newly approved vaccine should be safe for most of his patients.
“Patients with psoriatic disease should get the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible based on eligibility as determined by the CDC and local public health officials,” he said. “It is not a live vaccine, and therefore patients on biologics or other immune-modulating or immune-suppressing treatment can receive it.”
However, the impact of psoriasis treatment on immune response to the mRNA-based vaccines is not known. Dr. Gelfand noted that, extrapolating from the vaccine literature, there is some evidence that methotrexate reduces response to the influenza vaccine. “However, the clinical significance of this finding is not clear,” he said. “Since the mRNA vaccine needs to be taken twice, a few weeks apart, I do not recommend interrupting or delaying treatment for psoriatic disease while undergoing vaccination for COVID-19.”
Given the reports of allergic reactions, he added that it is advisable for patients with a history of life-threatening allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis or who have been advised to carry an epinephrine autoinjector, to talk with their health care provider to determine if COVID-19 vaccination is medically appropriate.
The National Psoriasis Foundation has issued guidance on COVID-19, explained Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and social sciences & health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., who is also a member of the committee that is working on those guidelines and keeping them up to date. “We are in the process of updating the guidelines with information on COVID vaccines,” he said.
He agreed that there are no contraindications for psoriasis patients to receive the vaccine, regardless of whether they are on immunosuppressive treatment, even though definitive data are lacking. “Fortunately, there’s a lot of good data coming out of Italy that patients with psoriasis on biologics do not appear to be at increased risk of getting COVID or of having worse outcomes from COVID,” he said.
Patients are going to ask about the vaccines, and when counseling them, clinicians should discuss the available data, the residual uncertainty, and patients’ concerns should be considered, Dr. Feldman explained. “There may be some concern that steroids and cyclosporine would reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, but there is no concern that any of the drugs would cause increased risk from nonlive vaccines.”
He added that there is evidence that “patients on biologics who receive nonlive vaccines do develop antibody responses and are immunized.”
Boosting efficacy
Even prior to making their announcement, the American College of Rheumatology had said that they would endorse the vaccine for all patients, explained rheumatologist Brett Smith, DO, from Blount Memorial Physicians Group and East Tennessee Children’s Hospital, Alcoa. “The vaccine is safe for all patients, but the problem may be that it’s not as effective,” he said. “But we don’t know that because it hasn’t been tested.”
With other vaccines, biologic medicines are held for 2 weeks before and afterwards, to get the best response. “But some patients don’t want to stop the medication,” Dr. Smith said. “They are afraid that their symptoms will return.”
As for counseling patients as to whether they should receive this vaccine, he explained that he typically doesn’t try to sway patients one way or another until they are really high risk. “When I counsel, it really depends on the individual situation. And for this vaccine, we have to be open to the fact that many people have already made up their mind.”
There are a lot of questions regarding the vaccine. One is the short time frame of development. “Vaccines typically take 6-10 years to come on the market, and this one is now available after a 3-month study,” Dr. Smith said. “Some have already decided that it’s too new for them.”
The process is also new, and patients need to understand that it doesn’t contain an active virus and “you can’t catch coronavirus from it.”
Dr. Smith also explained that, because the vaccine may be less effective in a person using biologic therapies, there is currently no information available on repeat vaccination. “These are all unanswered questions,” he said. “If the antibodies wane in a short time, can we be revaccinated and in what time frame? We just don’t know that yet.”
Marcelo Bonomi, MD, a medical oncologist from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, explained that one way to ensure a more optimal response to the vaccine would be to wait until the patient has finished chemotherapy.* “The vaccine can be offered at that time, and in the meantime, they can take other steps to avoid infection,” he said. “If they are very immunosuppressed, it isn’t worth trying to give the vaccine.”
Cancer patients should be encouraged to stay as healthy as possible, and to wear masks and social distance. “It’s a comprehensive approach. Eat healthy, avoid alcohol and tobacco, and exercise. [These things] will help boost the immune system,” Dr. Bonomi said. “Family members should be encouraged to get vaccinated, which will help them avoid infection and exposing the patient.”
Jim Boonyaratanakornkit, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist who cares for cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, agreed. “Giving a vaccine right after a transplant is a futile endeavor,” he said. “We need to wait 6 months to have an immune response.”
He pointed out there may be a continuing higher number of cases, with high levels peaking in Washington in February and March. “Close friends and family should be vaccinated if possible,” he said, “which will help interrupt transmission.”
The vaccines are using new platforms that are totally different, and there is no clear data as to how long the antibodies will persist. “We know that they last for at least 4 months,” said Dr. Boonyaratanakornkit. “We don’t know what level of antibody will protect them from COVID-19 infection. Current studies are being conducted, but we don’t have that information for anyone yet.”
*Correction, 1/7/21: An earlier version of this article misattributed quotes from Dr. Marcelo Bonomi.
Coronavirus vaccines have become a reality, as they are now being approved and authorized for use in a growing number of countries including the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has just issued emergency authorization for the use of the COVID-19 vaccine produced by Pfizer and BioNTech. Close behind is the vaccine developed by Moderna, which has also applied to the FDA for emergency authorization.
The efficacy of a two-dose administration of the vaccine has been pegged at 95.0%, and the FDA has said that the 95% credible interval for the vaccine efficacy was 90.3%-97.6%. But as with many initial clinical trials, whether for drugs or vaccines, not all populations were represented in the trial cohort, including individuals who are immunocompromised. At the current time, it is largely unknown how safe or effective the vaccine may be in this large population, many of whom are at high risk for serious COVID-19 complications.
At a special session held during the recent annual meeting of the American Society of Hematology, Anthony Fauci, MD, the nation’s leading infectious disease expert, said that individuals with compromised immune systems, whether because of chemotherapy or a bone marrow transplant, should plan to be vaccinated when the opportunity arises.
In response to a question from ASH President Stephanie J. Lee, MD, of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Seattle, Dr. Fauci emphasized that, despite being excluded from clinical trials, this population should get vaccinated. “I think we should recommend that they get vaccinated,” he said. “I mean, it is clear that, if you are on immunosuppressive agents, history tells us that you’re not going to have as robust a response as if you had an intact immune system that was not being compromised. But some degree of immunity is better than no degree of immunity.”
That does seem to be the consensus among experts who spoke in interviews: that as long as these are not live attenuated vaccines, they hold no specific risk to an immunocompromised patient, other than any factors specific to the individual that could be a contraindication.
“Patients, family members, friends, and work contacts should be encouraged to receive the vaccine,” said William Stohl, MD, PhD, chief of the division of rheumatology at the University of Southern California, Los Angeles. “Clinicians should advise patients to obtain the vaccine sooner rather than later.”
Kevin C. Wang, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, agreed. “I am 100% with Dr. Fauci. Everyone should get the vaccine, even if it may not be as effective,” he said. “I would treat it exactly like the flu vaccines that we recommend folks get every year.”
Dr. Wang noted that he couldn’t think of any contraindications unless the immunosuppressed patients have a history of severe allergic reactions to prior vaccinations. “But I would even say patients with history of cancer, upon recommendation of their oncologists, are likely to be suitable candidates for the vaccine,” he added. “I would say clinicians should approach counseling the same way they counsel patients for the flu vaccine, and as far as I know, there are no concerns for systemic drugs commonly used in dermatology patients.”
However, guidance has not yet been issued from either the FDA or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention regarding the use of the vaccine in immunocompromised individuals. Given the lack of data, the FDA has said that “it will be something that providers will need to consider on an individual basis,” and that individuals should consult with physicians to weigh the potential benefits and potential risks.
The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has said that clinicians need more guidance on whether to use the vaccine in pregnant or breastfeeding women, the immunocompromised, or those who have a history of allergies. The CDC itself has not yet released its formal guidance on vaccine use.
COVID-19 vaccines
Vaccines typically require years of research and testing before reaching the clinic, but this year researchers embarked on a global effort to develop safe and effective coronavirus vaccines in record time. Both the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines have only a few months of phase 3 clinical trial data, so much remains unknown about them, including their duration of effect and any long-term safety signals. In addition to excluding immunocompromised individuals, the clinical trials did not include children or pregnant women, so data are lacking for several population subgroups.
But these will not be the only vaccines available, as the pipeline is already becoming crowded. U.S. clinical trial data from a vaccine jointly being developed by Oxford-AstraZeneca, could potentially be ready, along with a request for FDA emergency use authorization, by late January 2021.
In addition, China and Russia have released vaccines, and there are currently 61 vaccines being investigated in clinical trials and at least 85 preclinical products under active investigation.
The vaccine candidates are using both conventional and novel mechanisms of action to elicit an immune response in patients. Conventional methods include attenuated inactivated (killed) virus and recombinant viral protein vaccines to develop immunity. Novel approaches include replication-deficient, adenovirus vector-based vaccines that contain the viral protein, and mRNA-based vaccines, such as the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, that encode for a SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
“The special vaccine concern for immunocompromised individuals is introduction of a live virus,” Dr. Stohl said. “Neither the Moderna nor Pfizer vaccines are live viruses, so there should be no special contraindication for such individuals.”
Live vaccine should be avoided in immunocompromised patients, and currently, live SARS-CoV-2 vaccines are only being developed in India and Turkey.
It is not unusual for vaccine trials to begin with cohorts that exclude participants with various health conditions, including those who are immunocompromised. These groups are generally then evaluated in phase 4 trials, or postmarketing surveillance. While the precise number of immunosuppressed adults in the United States is not known, the numbers are believed to be rising because of increased life expectancy among immunosuppressed adults as a result of advances in treatment and new and wider indications for therapies that can affect the immune system.
According to data from the 2013 National Health Interview Survey, an estimated 2.7% of U.S. adults are immunosuppressed. This population covers a broad array of health conditions and medical specialties; people living with inflammatory or autoimmune conditions, such as inflammatory rheumatic diseases (rheumatoid arthritis, axial spondyloarthritis, lupus); inflammatory bowel disease (Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis); psoriasis; multiple sclerosis; organ transplant recipients; patients undergoing chemotherapy; and life-long immunosuppression attributable to HIV infection.
As the vaccines begin to roll out and become available, how should clinicians advise their patients, in the absence of any clinical trial data?
Risk vs. benefit
Gilaad Kaplan, MD, MPH, a gastroenterologist and professor of medicine at the University of Calgary (Alta.), noted that the inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) community has dealt with tremendous anxiety during the pandemic because many are immunocompromised because of the medications they use to treat their disease.
“For example, many patients with IBD are on biologics like anti-TNF [tumor necrosis factor] therapies, which are also used in other immune-mediated inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis,” he said. “Understandably, individuals with IBD on immunosuppressive medications are concerned about the risk of severe complications due to COVID-19.”
The entire IBD community, along with the world, celebrated the announcement that multiple vaccines are protective against SARS-CoV-2, he noted. “Vaccines offer the potential to reduce the spread of COVID-19, allowing society to revert back to normalcy,” Dr. Kaplan said. “Moreover, for vulnerable populations, including those who are immunocompromised, vaccines offer the potential to directly protect them from the morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19.”
That said, even though the news of vaccines are extremely promising, some cautions must be raised regarding their use in immunocompromised populations, such as persons with IBD. “The current trials, to my knowledge, did not include immunocompromised individuals and thus, we can only extrapolate from what we know from other trials of different vaccines,” he explained. “We know from prior vaccines studies that the immune response following vaccination is less robust in those who are immunocompromised as compared to a healthy control population.”
Dr. Kaplan also pointed to recent reports of allergic reactions that have been reported in healthy individuals. “We don’t know whether side effects, like allergic reactions, may be different in unstudied populations,” he said. “Thus, the medical and scientific community should prioritize clinical studies of safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in immunocompromised populations.”
So, what does this mean for an individual with an immune-mediated inflammatory disease like Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis who is immunocompromised? Dr. Kaplan explained that it is a balance between the potential harm of being infected with COVID-19 and the uncertainty of receiving a vaccine in an understudied population. For those who are highly susceptible to dying from COVID-19, such as an older adult with IBD, or someone who faces high exposure, such as a health care worker, the potential protection of the vaccine greatly outweighs the uncertainty.
“However, for individuals who are at otherwise lower risk – for example, young and able to work from home – then waiting a few extra months for postmarketing surveillance studies in immunocompromised populations may be a reasonable approach, as long as these individuals are taking great care to avoid infection,” he said.
No waiting needed
Joel M. Gelfand, MD, MSCE, professor of dermatology and epidemiology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, feels that the newly approved vaccine should be safe for most of his patients.
“Patients with psoriatic disease should get the mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine as soon as possible based on eligibility as determined by the CDC and local public health officials,” he said. “It is not a live vaccine, and therefore patients on biologics or other immune-modulating or immune-suppressing treatment can receive it.”
However, the impact of psoriasis treatment on immune response to the mRNA-based vaccines is not known. Dr. Gelfand noted that, extrapolating from the vaccine literature, there is some evidence that methotrexate reduces response to the influenza vaccine. “However, the clinical significance of this finding is not clear,” he said. “Since the mRNA vaccine needs to be taken twice, a few weeks apart, I do not recommend interrupting or delaying treatment for psoriatic disease while undergoing vaccination for COVID-19.”
Given the reports of allergic reactions, he added that it is advisable for patients with a history of life-threatening allergic reactions such as anaphylaxis or who have been advised to carry an epinephrine autoinjector, to talk with their health care provider to determine if COVID-19 vaccination is medically appropriate.
The National Psoriasis Foundation has issued guidance on COVID-19, explained Steven R. Feldman, MD, PhD, professor of dermatology, pathology, and social sciences & health policy at Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C., who is also a member of the committee that is working on those guidelines and keeping them up to date. “We are in the process of updating the guidelines with information on COVID vaccines,” he said.
He agreed that there are no contraindications for psoriasis patients to receive the vaccine, regardless of whether they are on immunosuppressive treatment, even though definitive data are lacking. “Fortunately, there’s a lot of good data coming out of Italy that patients with psoriasis on biologics do not appear to be at increased risk of getting COVID or of having worse outcomes from COVID,” he said.
Patients are going to ask about the vaccines, and when counseling them, clinicians should discuss the available data, the residual uncertainty, and patients’ concerns should be considered, Dr. Feldman explained. “There may be some concern that steroids and cyclosporine would reduce the effectiveness of vaccines, but there is no concern that any of the drugs would cause increased risk from nonlive vaccines.”
He added that there is evidence that “patients on biologics who receive nonlive vaccines do develop antibody responses and are immunized.”
Boosting efficacy
Even prior to making their announcement, the American College of Rheumatology had said that they would endorse the vaccine for all patients, explained rheumatologist Brett Smith, DO, from Blount Memorial Physicians Group and East Tennessee Children’s Hospital, Alcoa. “The vaccine is safe for all patients, but the problem may be that it’s not as effective,” he said. “But we don’t know that because it hasn’t been tested.”
With other vaccines, biologic medicines are held for 2 weeks before and afterwards, to get the best response. “But some patients don’t want to stop the medication,” Dr. Smith said. “They are afraid that their symptoms will return.”
As for counseling patients as to whether they should receive this vaccine, he explained that he typically doesn’t try to sway patients one way or another until they are really high risk. “When I counsel, it really depends on the individual situation. And for this vaccine, we have to be open to the fact that many people have already made up their mind.”
There are a lot of questions regarding the vaccine. One is the short time frame of development. “Vaccines typically take 6-10 years to come on the market, and this one is now available after a 3-month study,” Dr. Smith said. “Some have already decided that it’s too new for them.”
The process is also new, and patients need to understand that it doesn’t contain an active virus and “you can’t catch coronavirus from it.”
Dr. Smith also explained that, because the vaccine may be less effective in a person using biologic therapies, there is currently no information available on repeat vaccination. “These are all unanswered questions,” he said. “If the antibodies wane in a short time, can we be revaccinated and in what time frame? We just don’t know that yet.”
Marcelo Bonomi, MD, a medical oncologist from The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Columbus, explained that one way to ensure a more optimal response to the vaccine would be to wait until the patient has finished chemotherapy.* “The vaccine can be offered at that time, and in the meantime, they can take other steps to avoid infection,” he said. “If they are very immunosuppressed, it isn’t worth trying to give the vaccine.”
Cancer patients should be encouraged to stay as healthy as possible, and to wear masks and social distance. “It’s a comprehensive approach. Eat healthy, avoid alcohol and tobacco, and exercise. [These things] will help boost the immune system,” Dr. Bonomi said. “Family members should be encouraged to get vaccinated, which will help them avoid infection and exposing the patient.”
Jim Boonyaratanakornkit, MD, PhD, an infectious disease specialist who cares for cancer patients at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, agreed. “Giving a vaccine right after a transplant is a futile endeavor,” he said. “We need to wait 6 months to have an immune response.”
He pointed out there may be a continuing higher number of cases, with high levels peaking in Washington in February and March. “Close friends and family should be vaccinated if possible,” he said, “which will help interrupt transmission.”
The vaccines are using new platforms that are totally different, and there is no clear data as to how long the antibodies will persist. “We know that they last for at least 4 months,” said Dr. Boonyaratanakornkit. “We don’t know what level of antibody will protect them from COVID-19 infection. Current studies are being conducted, but we don’t have that information for anyone yet.”
*Correction, 1/7/21: An earlier version of this article misattributed quotes from Dr. Marcelo Bonomi.
Preadolescent acne: Management from birth requires increasing vigilance
No treatment may be necessary for acne in the first few months of life, but the condition can leave scars in children as young as ages 3-6 months, said Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatric dermatology, Penn State University, Hershey, Penn., said in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s virtual Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.
Neonatal acne occurs in more than 20% of newborns aged 2 weeks to 3 months. “Typically we don’t need to treat it. But if you do, you could use a topical antifungal like clotrimazole cream twice a day,” but in most babies, “this will just improve over time and resolve without any scarring or sequelae,” she said.
Infantile acne begins about 3-6 months of age typically, or a little bit older, and lasts up to 2 years of age, Dr. Zaenglein said. “You will see comedones in infantile acne, so this is actually a true form of acne. It’s due to increased adrenal production of androgens.”
She added: “The scarring can be permanent. It’s important that you recognize infantile acne and treat it, even though it seems pretty mild.”
For infantile acne, she recommends performing a full-skin exam to rule out hyperandrogenic disorders such as Cushing syndrome, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, premature adrenarche, a gonadal/adrenal tumor and precocious puberty.
Treatments are similar to those in teenagers, she said, “but make sure you use baby-friendly formulations,” with lower concentrations of active ingredients – and avoid tetracyclines and benzoyl peroxide (BPO) washes. BPO can be used in leave-on formulations/creams at lower strengths (2.5%-5%).
One possible combination option is tretinoin 0.025% cream or adapalene 0.1% gel plus BPO 2.5% cream or clindamycin/BPO gel. Another combination is adapalene/BPO 2.5% gel.
Erythromycin can be appropriate at 30-50 mg/kg per day divided in two or three doses a day, but beware of possible gastrointestinal upset. Azithromycin at 5 mg/kg per day is another option.
“Rarely do we have to go to isotretinoin,” Dr. Zaenglein said. “I think in all my years, I’ve only treated one baby with isotretinoin for infantile acne. But severe forms can occur.”
Midchildhood and preadolescent acne conditions occur in children starting at ages 1 up to 10 years, Dr. Zaenglein said. In this population, she also recommends ruling out hyperandrogenism by looking for secondary sexual characteristics with full-body skin exams. “The workup can be broad and includes looking at adrenal androgens and total and free testosterone, as well as looking at growth charts and bone age. Typically, you’ll refer these kids to pediatric endocrinology.”
Keep in mind, she said, that early adrenarche starts at ages 6-7 years in girls and 7-8 years in boys. “That’s when we expect to start seeing that very early acne. You can see it even earlier in patients with elevated BMI, and it’s more common in Hispanic and Black children as well.”
She added that it’s important to remember that early adrenarche is a risk factor for polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). “So ask patients about their family history and look for other signs of PCOS as they move further into adolescence.”
Milder cases of acne in this age group can be treated with “salicylic acid wipes and things that are kind of a rite of passage. But if they have any more severe acne, you’re going to want to treat it more or less like you do adolescent acne.”
MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Zaenglein disclosed receiving consulting fees from Cassiopea, Dermata, and Regeneron and fees for contracted research support from Incyte.
No treatment may be necessary for acne in the first few months of life, but the condition can leave scars in children as young as ages 3-6 months, said Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatric dermatology, Penn State University, Hershey, Penn., said in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s virtual Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.
Neonatal acne occurs in more than 20% of newborns aged 2 weeks to 3 months. “Typically we don’t need to treat it. But if you do, you could use a topical antifungal like clotrimazole cream twice a day,” but in most babies, “this will just improve over time and resolve without any scarring or sequelae,” she said.
Infantile acne begins about 3-6 months of age typically, or a little bit older, and lasts up to 2 years of age, Dr. Zaenglein said. “You will see comedones in infantile acne, so this is actually a true form of acne. It’s due to increased adrenal production of androgens.”
She added: “The scarring can be permanent. It’s important that you recognize infantile acne and treat it, even though it seems pretty mild.”
For infantile acne, she recommends performing a full-skin exam to rule out hyperandrogenic disorders such as Cushing syndrome, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, premature adrenarche, a gonadal/adrenal tumor and precocious puberty.
Treatments are similar to those in teenagers, she said, “but make sure you use baby-friendly formulations,” with lower concentrations of active ingredients – and avoid tetracyclines and benzoyl peroxide (BPO) washes. BPO can be used in leave-on formulations/creams at lower strengths (2.5%-5%).
One possible combination option is tretinoin 0.025% cream or adapalene 0.1% gel plus BPO 2.5% cream or clindamycin/BPO gel. Another combination is adapalene/BPO 2.5% gel.
Erythromycin can be appropriate at 30-50 mg/kg per day divided in two or three doses a day, but beware of possible gastrointestinal upset. Azithromycin at 5 mg/kg per day is another option.
“Rarely do we have to go to isotretinoin,” Dr. Zaenglein said. “I think in all my years, I’ve only treated one baby with isotretinoin for infantile acne. But severe forms can occur.”
Midchildhood and preadolescent acne conditions occur in children starting at ages 1 up to 10 years, Dr. Zaenglein said. In this population, she also recommends ruling out hyperandrogenism by looking for secondary sexual characteristics with full-body skin exams. “The workup can be broad and includes looking at adrenal androgens and total and free testosterone, as well as looking at growth charts and bone age. Typically, you’ll refer these kids to pediatric endocrinology.”
Keep in mind, she said, that early adrenarche starts at ages 6-7 years in girls and 7-8 years in boys. “That’s when we expect to start seeing that very early acne. You can see it even earlier in patients with elevated BMI, and it’s more common in Hispanic and Black children as well.”
She added that it’s important to remember that early adrenarche is a risk factor for polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). “So ask patients about their family history and look for other signs of PCOS as they move further into adolescence.”
Milder cases of acne in this age group can be treated with “salicylic acid wipes and things that are kind of a rite of passage. But if they have any more severe acne, you’re going to want to treat it more or less like you do adolescent acne.”
MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Zaenglein disclosed receiving consulting fees from Cassiopea, Dermata, and Regeneron and fees for contracted research support from Incyte.
No treatment may be necessary for acne in the first few months of life, but the condition can leave scars in children as young as ages 3-6 months, said Andrea L. Zaenglein, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatric dermatology, Penn State University, Hershey, Penn., said in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s virtual Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.
Neonatal acne occurs in more than 20% of newborns aged 2 weeks to 3 months. “Typically we don’t need to treat it. But if you do, you could use a topical antifungal like clotrimazole cream twice a day,” but in most babies, “this will just improve over time and resolve without any scarring or sequelae,” she said.
Infantile acne begins about 3-6 months of age typically, or a little bit older, and lasts up to 2 years of age, Dr. Zaenglein said. “You will see comedones in infantile acne, so this is actually a true form of acne. It’s due to increased adrenal production of androgens.”
She added: “The scarring can be permanent. It’s important that you recognize infantile acne and treat it, even though it seems pretty mild.”
For infantile acne, she recommends performing a full-skin exam to rule out hyperandrogenic disorders such as Cushing syndrome, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, premature adrenarche, a gonadal/adrenal tumor and precocious puberty.
Treatments are similar to those in teenagers, she said, “but make sure you use baby-friendly formulations,” with lower concentrations of active ingredients – and avoid tetracyclines and benzoyl peroxide (BPO) washes. BPO can be used in leave-on formulations/creams at lower strengths (2.5%-5%).
One possible combination option is tretinoin 0.025% cream or adapalene 0.1% gel plus BPO 2.5% cream or clindamycin/BPO gel. Another combination is adapalene/BPO 2.5% gel.
Erythromycin can be appropriate at 30-50 mg/kg per day divided in two or three doses a day, but beware of possible gastrointestinal upset. Azithromycin at 5 mg/kg per day is another option.
“Rarely do we have to go to isotretinoin,” Dr. Zaenglein said. “I think in all my years, I’ve only treated one baby with isotretinoin for infantile acne. But severe forms can occur.”
Midchildhood and preadolescent acne conditions occur in children starting at ages 1 up to 10 years, Dr. Zaenglein said. In this population, she also recommends ruling out hyperandrogenism by looking for secondary sexual characteristics with full-body skin exams. “The workup can be broad and includes looking at adrenal androgens and total and free testosterone, as well as looking at growth charts and bone age. Typically, you’ll refer these kids to pediatric endocrinology.”
Keep in mind, she said, that early adrenarche starts at ages 6-7 years in girls and 7-8 years in boys. “That’s when we expect to start seeing that very early acne. You can see it even earlier in patients with elevated BMI, and it’s more common in Hispanic and Black children as well.”
She added that it’s important to remember that early adrenarche is a risk factor for polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). “So ask patients about their family history and look for other signs of PCOS as they move further into adolescence.”
Milder cases of acne in this age group can be treated with “salicylic acid wipes and things that are kind of a rite of passage. But if they have any more severe acne, you’re going to want to treat it more or less like you do adolescent acne.”
MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company. Dr. Zaenglein disclosed receiving consulting fees from Cassiopea, Dermata, and Regeneron and fees for contracted research support from Incyte.
FROM MEDSCAPELIVE WOMEN’S & PEDIATRIC DERMATOLOGY SEMINAR
Beware a pair of dermatologic emergencies in children
in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s virtual Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.
Eczema herpeticum is a condition in which a herpes simplex virus (HSV-1 or HSV-2) is superimposed over preexisting eczema. “The infection may be primary and sustained from a close contact or result in some of our older patients from reactivation and spread through autoinoculation,” said Dr. Hightower, of Rady Children’s Hospital and the University of California, both in San Diego.
Signs, he said, include acute worsening of atopic dermatitis with new-onset vesicles, pustules, and “punched-out” hemorrhagic crusted erosions. “Presentation ranges from mild to transient to life threatening.”
Potential complications include meningitis, encephalitis, hepatitis, and chronic conjunctivitis. “That’s why immediate ophthalmological evaluation is needed when there’s involvement on the face near the eye,” he said.
As for management and care, “where I have concern for HSV patients, I get HSV [polymerase chain reaction] as well as a bacterial culture,” he said. But even before the results are available, empiric treatment with acyclovir can be appropriate. “It’s got to be systemic for these kids with severe involvement,” he said, and they should also be started on medication for staphylococci and streptococci.
During his presentation, Dr. Hightower also highlighted staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome. Patients with the disease commonly have concurrent skin pain (which can appear to be fussiness), fever, irritability, malaise, and poor feeding. Examination may reveal widespread erythema with accentuation at folds/peeling at hands and large sheets of superficial peeling scale with diffuse erythema.
Widespread skin involvement “results not from the presence of staph throughout the skin, but the exotoxin that it produces that becomes systemic,” he said. “Clinical diagnosis is supported by presence of S. aureus on bacterial culture, but the presence of staph is not necessary to make the diagnosis. When in doubt, histopathology is helpful. But again, it’s not necessary to make the diagnosis.”
Cases can be managed with a first- or second-generation cephalosporin, he said. Alternative therapies include antistaphylococcus penicillinase-resistant penicillins (oxacillin or nafcillin) or vancomycin.
While Dr. Hightower doesn’t use clindamycin in these patients, he said it’s an option that some dermatologists consider because of its antistaphylococcus activity. “Historically, people thought it may decrease exotoxin production. The big concern if you are going to use clindamycin is that there are high rates of community resistance,” he said. “So you want to be careful that you know your resistance patterns wherever you are. Follow up on culture to make sure that you have adequate coverage for the bug that the kiddo in front of you has.”
Dr. Hightower reported no relevant disclosures. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s virtual Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.
Eczema herpeticum is a condition in which a herpes simplex virus (HSV-1 or HSV-2) is superimposed over preexisting eczema. “The infection may be primary and sustained from a close contact or result in some of our older patients from reactivation and spread through autoinoculation,” said Dr. Hightower, of Rady Children’s Hospital and the University of California, both in San Diego.
Signs, he said, include acute worsening of atopic dermatitis with new-onset vesicles, pustules, and “punched-out” hemorrhagic crusted erosions. “Presentation ranges from mild to transient to life threatening.”
Potential complications include meningitis, encephalitis, hepatitis, and chronic conjunctivitis. “That’s why immediate ophthalmological evaluation is needed when there’s involvement on the face near the eye,” he said.
As for management and care, “where I have concern for HSV patients, I get HSV [polymerase chain reaction] as well as a bacterial culture,” he said. But even before the results are available, empiric treatment with acyclovir can be appropriate. “It’s got to be systemic for these kids with severe involvement,” he said, and they should also be started on medication for staphylococci and streptococci.
During his presentation, Dr. Hightower also highlighted staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome. Patients with the disease commonly have concurrent skin pain (which can appear to be fussiness), fever, irritability, malaise, and poor feeding. Examination may reveal widespread erythema with accentuation at folds/peeling at hands and large sheets of superficial peeling scale with diffuse erythema.
Widespread skin involvement “results not from the presence of staph throughout the skin, but the exotoxin that it produces that becomes systemic,” he said. “Clinical diagnosis is supported by presence of S. aureus on bacterial culture, but the presence of staph is not necessary to make the diagnosis. When in doubt, histopathology is helpful. But again, it’s not necessary to make the diagnosis.”
Cases can be managed with a first- or second-generation cephalosporin, he said. Alternative therapies include antistaphylococcus penicillinase-resistant penicillins (oxacillin or nafcillin) or vancomycin.
While Dr. Hightower doesn’t use clindamycin in these patients, he said it’s an option that some dermatologists consider because of its antistaphylococcus activity. “Historically, people thought it may decrease exotoxin production. The big concern if you are going to use clindamycin is that there are high rates of community resistance,” he said. “So you want to be careful that you know your resistance patterns wherever you are. Follow up on culture to make sure that you have adequate coverage for the bug that the kiddo in front of you has.”
Dr. Hightower reported no relevant disclosures. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
in a presentation at MedscapeLive’s virtual Women’s & Pediatric Dermatology Seminar.
Eczema herpeticum is a condition in which a herpes simplex virus (HSV-1 or HSV-2) is superimposed over preexisting eczema. “The infection may be primary and sustained from a close contact or result in some of our older patients from reactivation and spread through autoinoculation,” said Dr. Hightower, of Rady Children’s Hospital and the University of California, both in San Diego.
Signs, he said, include acute worsening of atopic dermatitis with new-onset vesicles, pustules, and “punched-out” hemorrhagic crusted erosions. “Presentation ranges from mild to transient to life threatening.”
Potential complications include meningitis, encephalitis, hepatitis, and chronic conjunctivitis. “That’s why immediate ophthalmological evaluation is needed when there’s involvement on the face near the eye,” he said.
As for management and care, “where I have concern for HSV patients, I get HSV [polymerase chain reaction] as well as a bacterial culture,” he said. But even before the results are available, empiric treatment with acyclovir can be appropriate. “It’s got to be systemic for these kids with severe involvement,” he said, and they should also be started on medication for staphylococci and streptococci.
During his presentation, Dr. Hightower also highlighted staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome. Patients with the disease commonly have concurrent skin pain (which can appear to be fussiness), fever, irritability, malaise, and poor feeding. Examination may reveal widespread erythema with accentuation at folds/peeling at hands and large sheets of superficial peeling scale with diffuse erythema.
Widespread skin involvement “results not from the presence of staph throughout the skin, but the exotoxin that it produces that becomes systemic,” he said. “Clinical diagnosis is supported by presence of S. aureus on bacterial culture, but the presence of staph is not necessary to make the diagnosis. When in doubt, histopathology is helpful. But again, it’s not necessary to make the diagnosis.”
Cases can be managed with a first- or second-generation cephalosporin, he said. Alternative therapies include antistaphylococcus penicillinase-resistant penicillins (oxacillin or nafcillin) or vancomycin.
While Dr. Hightower doesn’t use clindamycin in these patients, he said it’s an option that some dermatologists consider because of its antistaphylococcus activity. “Historically, people thought it may decrease exotoxin production. The big concern if you are going to use clindamycin is that there are high rates of community resistance,” he said. “So you want to be careful that you know your resistance patterns wherever you are. Follow up on culture to make sure that you have adequate coverage for the bug that the kiddo in front of you has.”
Dr. Hightower reported no relevant disclosures. MedscapeLive and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.
FROM MEDSCAPELIVE WOMEN’S & PEDIATRIC DERMATOLOGY SEMINAR
A girl presents with blotchy, slightly itchy spots on her chest, back
On close evaluation of the picture on her chest, she has pale macules and patches surrounded by erythematous ill-defined patches consistent with nevus anemicus. The findings of the picture raise the suspicion for neurofibromatosis, and it was recommended for her to be evaluated in person.
She comes several days later to the clinic. The caretaker, who is her aunt, reports she does not know much of the girl’s medical history as she recently moved from South America to live with her. The girl is a very nice and pleasant 8-year-old. She reports noticing the spots on her chest for about a year and that they seem to get a little itchier and more noticeable when she is hot or when she is running. She also reports increasing headaches for several months. She is being home schooled, and according to her aunt she is at par with her cousins who are about the same age. There is no history of seizures. She has had back surgery in the past. There is no history of hypertension. There is no family history of any genetic disorder or similar lesions.
On physical exam, her vital signs are normal, but her head circumference is over the 90th percentile. She is pleasant and interactive. On skin examination, she has slightly noticeable pale macules and patches on the chest and back that become more apparent after rubbing her skin. She has multiple light brown macules and oval patches on the chest, back, and neck. She has no axillary or inguinal freckling. She has scars on the back from her prior surgery.
As she was having worsening headaches, an MRI of the brain was ordered, which showed a left optic glioma. She was then referred to ophthalmology, neurology, and genetics.
Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is a common genetic autosomal dominant disorder cause by mutations on the NF1 gene on chromosome 17, which encodes for the protein neurofibromin. This protein works in the Ras-mitogen–activated protein kinase pathway as a negative regulator. Based on the National Institute of Health criteria, children need two or more of the following to be diagnosed with NF1: more than six café au lait macules larger than 5 mm in prepubescent children and 2.5 cm after puberty; axillary or inguinal freckling; two or more Lisch nodules; optic gliomas; two or more neurofibromas or one plexiform neurofibroma; or a first degree relative with a diagnosis of NF1. With these criteria, about 70% of the children can be diagnosed before the age of 1 year.1
Nevus anemicus is an uncommon birthmark, sometimes overlooked, that is characterized by pale, hypopigmented, well-defined macules and patches that do not turn red after trauma or changes in temperature. Nevus anemicus is usually localized on the torso but can be seen on the face, neck, and extremities. These lesions are present in 1%-2% of the general population. They are thought to occur because of increased sensitivity of the affected blood vessels to catecholamines, which causes permanent vasoconstriction, which leads to hypopigmentation on the area.2 These lesions are usually present at birth and have been described in patients with tuberous sclerosis, neurofibromatosis, and phakomatosis pigmentovascularis.
Recent studies of patients with neurofibromatosis and other RASopathies have noticed that nevus anemicus is present in about 8.8%-51% of the patients studied with a diagnosis NF1, compared with only 2% of the controls.3,4 The studies failed to report any cases of nevus anemicus in patients with other RASopathies associated with café au lait macules. Bulteel and colleagues recently reported two cases of non-NF1 RASopathies also associated with nevus anemicus in a patient with Legius syndrome and a patient with Noonan syndrome with multiple lentigines.5 The nevus anemicus was reported to occur most commonly on the anterior chest and be multiple, as seen in our patient.
The authors of the published studies advocate for the introduction of nevus anemicus as part of the diagnostic criteria for NF1, especially because it can be an early finding seen in babies, which can aid in early diagnosis of NF1.
Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Matiz at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Pediatrics. 2000 Mar. doi: 10.1542/peds.105.3.608.
2. Nevus Anemicus. StatPearls [Internet] (Treasure Island, Fla.: StatPearls Publishing; 2020 Jan).
3. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2013.06.039.
4. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015 May-Jun. doi: 10.1111/pde.12525.
5. JAAD Case Rep. 2018 Apr 5. doi: 10.1016/j.jdcr.2017.09.037.
On close evaluation of the picture on her chest, she has pale macules and patches surrounded by erythematous ill-defined patches consistent with nevus anemicus. The findings of the picture raise the suspicion for neurofibromatosis, and it was recommended for her to be evaluated in person.
She comes several days later to the clinic. The caretaker, who is her aunt, reports she does not know much of the girl’s medical history as she recently moved from South America to live with her. The girl is a very nice and pleasant 8-year-old. She reports noticing the spots on her chest for about a year and that they seem to get a little itchier and more noticeable when she is hot or when she is running. She also reports increasing headaches for several months. She is being home schooled, and according to her aunt she is at par with her cousins who are about the same age. There is no history of seizures. She has had back surgery in the past. There is no history of hypertension. There is no family history of any genetic disorder or similar lesions.
On physical exam, her vital signs are normal, but her head circumference is over the 90th percentile. She is pleasant and interactive. On skin examination, she has slightly noticeable pale macules and patches on the chest and back that become more apparent after rubbing her skin. She has multiple light brown macules and oval patches on the chest, back, and neck. She has no axillary or inguinal freckling. She has scars on the back from her prior surgery.
As she was having worsening headaches, an MRI of the brain was ordered, which showed a left optic glioma. She was then referred to ophthalmology, neurology, and genetics.
Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is a common genetic autosomal dominant disorder cause by mutations on the NF1 gene on chromosome 17, which encodes for the protein neurofibromin. This protein works in the Ras-mitogen–activated protein kinase pathway as a negative regulator. Based on the National Institute of Health criteria, children need two or more of the following to be diagnosed with NF1: more than six café au lait macules larger than 5 mm in prepubescent children and 2.5 cm after puberty; axillary or inguinal freckling; two or more Lisch nodules; optic gliomas; two or more neurofibromas or one plexiform neurofibroma; or a first degree relative with a diagnosis of NF1. With these criteria, about 70% of the children can be diagnosed before the age of 1 year.1
Nevus anemicus is an uncommon birthmark, sometimes overlooked, that is characterized by pale, hypopigmented, well-defined macules and patches that do not turn red after trauma or changes in temperature. Nevus anemicus is usually localized on the torso but can be seen on the face, neck, and extremities. These lesions are present in 1%-2% of the general population. They are thought to occur because of increased sensitivity of the affected blood vessels to catecholamines, which causes permanent vasoconstriction, which leads to hypopigmentation on the area.2 These lesions are usually present at birth and have been described in patients with tuberous sclerosis, neurofibromatosis, and phakomatosis pigmentovascularis.
Recent studies of patients with neurofibromatosis and other RASopathies have noticed that nevus anemicus is present in about 8.8%-51% of the patients studied with a diagnosis NF1, compared with only 2% of the controls.3,4 The studies failed to report any cases of nevus anemicus in patients with other RASopathies associated with café au lait macules. Bulteel and colleagues recently reported two cases of non-NF1 RASopathies also associated with nevus anemicus in a patient with Legius syndrome and a patient with Noonan syndrome with multiple lentigines.5 The nevus anemicus was reported to occur most commonly on the anterior chest and be multiple, as seen in our patient.
The authors of the published studies advocate for the introduction of nevus anemicus as part of the diagnostic criteria for NF1, especially because it can be an early finding seen in babies, which can aid in early diagnosis of NF1.
Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Matiz at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Pediatrics. 2000 Mar. doi: 10.1542/peds.105.3.608.
2. Nevus Anemicus. StatPearls [Internet] (Treasure Island, Fla.: StatPearls Publishing; 2020 Jan).
3. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2013.06.039.
4. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015 May-Jun. doi: 10.1111/pde.12525.
5. JAAD Case Rep. 2018 Apr 5. doi: 10.1016/j.jdcr.2017.09.037.
On close evaluation of the picture on her chest, she has pale macules and patches surrounded by erythematous ill-defined patches consistent with nevus anemicus. The findings of the picture raise the suspicion for neurofibromatosis, and it was recommended for her to be evaluated in person.
She comes several days later to the clinic. The caretaker, who is her aunt, reports she does not know much of the girl’s medical history as she recently moved from South America to live with her. The girl is a very nice and pleasant 8-year-old. She reports noticing the spots on her chest for about a year and that they seem to get a little itchier and more noticeable when she is hot or when she is running. She also reports increasing headaches for several months. She is being home schooled, and according to her aunt she is at par with her cousins who are about the same age. There is no history of seizures. She has had back surgery in the past. There is no history of hypertension. There is no family history of any genetic disorder or similar lesions.
On physical exam, her vital signs are normal, but her head circumference is over the 90th percentile. She is pleasant and interactive. On skin examination, she has slightly noticeable pale macules and patches on the chest and back that become more apparent after rubbing her skin. She has multiple light brown macules and oval patches on the chest, back, and neck. She has no axillary or inguinal freckling. She has scars on the back from her prior surgery.
As she was having worsening headaches, an MRI of the brain was ordered, which showed a left optic glioma. She was then referred to ophthalmology, neurology, and genetics.
Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is a common genetic autosomal dominant disorder cause by mutations on the NF1 gene on chromosome 17, which encodes for the protein neurofibromin. This protein works in the Ras-mitogen–activated protein kinase pathway as a negative regulator. Based on the National Institute of Health criteria, children need two or more of the following to be diagnosed with NF1: more than six café au lait macules larger than 5 mm in prepubescent children and 2.5 cm after puberty; axillary or inguinal freckling; two or more Lisch nodules; optic gliomas; two or more neurofibromas or one plexiform neurofibroma; or a first degree relative with a diagnosis of NF1. With these criteria, about 70% of the children can be diagnosed before the age of 1 year.1
Nevus anemicus is an uncommon birthmark, sometimes overlooked, that is characterized by pale, hypopigmented, well-defined macules and patches that do not turn red after trauma or changes in temperature. Nevus anemicus is usually localized on the torso but can be seen on the face, neck, and extremities. These lesions are present in 1%-2% of the general population. They are thought to occur because of increased sensitivity of the affected blood vessels to catecholamines, which causes permanent vasoconstriction, which leads to hypopigmentation on the area.2 These lesions are usually present at birth and have been described in patients with tuberous sclerosis, neurofibromatosis, and phakomatosis pigmentovascularis.
Recent studies of patients with neurofibromatosis and other RASopathies have noticed that nevus anemicus is present in about 8.8%-51% of the patients studied with a diagnosis NF1, compared with only 2% of the controls.3,4 The studies failed to report any cases of nevus anemicus in patients with other RASopathies associated with café au lait macules. Bulteel and colleagues recently reported two cases of non-NF1 RASopathies also associated with nevus anemicus in a patient with Legius syndrome and a patient with Noonan syndrome with multiple lentigines.5 The nevus anemicus was reported to occur most commonly on the anterior chest and be multiple, as seen in our patient.
The authors of the published studies advocate for the introduction of nevus anemicus as part of the diagnostic criteria for NF1, especially because it can be an early finding seen in babies, which can aid in early diagnosis of NF1.
Dr. Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego. She has no relevant financial disclosures. Email Dr. Matiz at pdnews@mdedge.com.
References
1. Pediatrics. 2000 Mar. doi: 10.1542/peds.105.3.608.
2. Nevus Anemicus. StatPearls [Internet] (Treasure Island, Fla.: StatPearls Publishing; 2020 Jan).
3. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2013 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jaad.2013.06.039.
4. Pediatr Dermatol. 2015 May-Jun. doi: 10.1111/pde.12525.
5. JAAD Case Rep. 2018 Apr 5. doi: 10.1016/j.jdcr.2017.09.037.
Worsening skin lesions but no diagnosis
A 50-year-old woman presented to her family physician for a urinary tract infection (UTI) and an itchy rash. She said the rash had developed 2 years earlier and had gotten worse, with additional lesions emerging on her skin as time went on. She noted that other physicians had evaluated the rash but provided no clear diagnosis and had done no testing.
A physical exam revealed scattered erythematous papules with white centers on the patient’s trunk, arms, and legs (FIGURE 1). The patient’s medical history was significant for asthma, obstructive sleep apnea, obesity, gastroesophageal reflux disease, urinary incontinence, and depression. Her medications included montelukast, inhaled fluticasone, albuterol, tolterodine, omeprazole, and fluoxetine.
The patient was prescribed nitrofurantoin, 100 mg twice daily for 5 days, to treat her UTI, and a punch biopsy was performed on one of the patient’s lesions to determine the cause of the rash.
WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?
Diagnosis: Atrophic papulosis
Pathology suggested a diagnosis of atrophic papulosis. A consultation with a dermatologist and additional biopsies confirmed the diagnosis. The biopsies showed wedge-shaped areas of superficial dermal sclerosis with thinning of the overlying epidermis. The superficial dermal vessels contained scattered, small thrombi at the periphery of the areas of sclerosis.
Atrophic papulosis (also known as Degos disease or Kölmeier-Degos disease) is a vasculopathy characterized by thrombotic occlusion of small arteries.1 Although rare—with fewer than 200 published case reports in the literature—it is likely underdiagnosed.1 Atrophic papulosis can be distinguished by hallmark skin findings, including 0.5- to 1-cm papular skin lesions with central porcelain-white atrophy and an erythematous, telangiectatic rim.1 It usually manifests between ages 20 to 50 but can occur in infants and children.1 The etiology is unknown, but case evidence suggests the condition is sometimes familial.1,2
Easy to confuse with common conditions
Clinical presentation of atrophic papulosis can vary, but evaluation should rule out systemic lupus erythematosus and other connective tissue diseases.1 In addition, the lesions can easily be confused with other common conditions such as molluscum contagiosum or insect bites.
The hallmark finding of molluscum contagiosum is raised papules with central umbilication, whereas atrophic papulosis lesions are characterized by white centers. While insect bites typically disappear within weeks, atrophic papulosis lesions persist for years or are even lifelong.1
Is it benign or malignant?
Benign atrophic papulosis is limited to the skin.1 The probability of a patient having benign atrophic papulosis is about 70% at the onset of skin lesions and 97% after 7 years without other symptoms.2
Malignant atrophic papulosis—although less common—is systemic and life-threatening. About 30% of patients with atrophic papulosis develop lesions manifesting both on the skin and in internal organs.1,2 Systemic involvement can develop at any time, sometimes years after the appearance of skin lesions, but the risk declines over time.2 In a case series, systemic signs were shown to develop, on average, 1 year after skin lesions.2 Some evidence suggests a mortality rate of 50% within 2 to 3 years of the onset of systemic involvement, making regular follow-up necessary.1
Continue to: Patients with malignant atrophic papulosis...
Patients with malignant atrophic papulosis may have systemic involvement in multiple organ systems. Gastrointestinal (GI) involvement can cause bowel perforation. Central nervous system (CNS) involvement may put the patient at risk for stroke, intracranial bleeding, meningitis, and encephalitis.1,3 There can also be cardiopulmonary involvement that causes pleuritis and pericarditis.1 Ocular involvement can affect the eyelids, conjunctiva, retina, sclera, and choroid plexus.1 Renal involvement has been noted in a few cases.2
In a prospective, single-center cohort study of 39 patients with atrophic papulosis, systemic involvement (malignant atrophic papulosis) was reported in 29% (n = 11) of the patients.2 In these patients, involved organ systems included the GI tract (73%; n = 8), CNS (64%; n = 7), eye (18%; n = 2), heart (18%; n = 2), and lungs (9%; n = 1); 64% (n = 7) had multiorgan involvement. Mortality was reported in 73% of the patients with systemic disease.
Ongoing testing is required
For a patient presenting with atrophic papulosis, initial and follow-up visits should include evaluation for systemic manifestations through a full skin examination, fecal occult blood test, and ocular fundus examination.1,2 If the patient shows any symptoms that suggest systemic involvement, further testing is advised, including evaluation of renal function, colonoscopy, endoscopy, magnetic resonance imaging of the brain, an echocardiogram, and chest computed tomography.
Because internal organ involvement in malignant atrophic papulosis can develop within years of (benign) cutaneous manifestations, regular follow-up is recommended.1 Research suggests evaluation of patients with benign atrophic papulosis every 6 months for the first 7 years after disease onset and then yearly between 7 and 10 years after onset.2
Treatment options are limited
Antiplatelet agents (aspirin, pentoxifylline, dipyridamole, and ticlodipine) and anticoagulants (heparin) have led to partial regression of skin lesions in case reports.1 Some lesions seem to disappear after treatment, but due to limited evidence, it is difficult to determine whether treatment leads to a reduction of future lesions.
When it comes to malignant atrophic papulosis, there is no uniformly effective treatment. Antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants are often used as initial treatment, but efficacy has not been clearly demonstrated. In case reports, eculizumab and treprostinil have shown effectiveness in treating CNS involvement, but there are no uniform dosage recommendations.3,4
In this case, the patient had mild GI symptoms. A colonoscopy showed evidence of microscopic colitis, but there was no evidence of atrophic papulosis in the GI tract.
Additional laboratory work-up was ordered to evaluate for signs of organ involvement and to rule out any associated connective tissue disease or hypercoagulable state. Her results showed a mildly elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (29 mm/h) and a positive antinuclear antibodies assay (1:640, speckled pattern). She was referred to a rheumatologist, who found no evidence of a connective tissue disorder. A complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, urinalysis, and hypercoagulability work-up were all within normal limits. A complete eye exam was also normal.
The patient was started on aspirin 81 mg/d. Because she continued to develop new lesions, her dermatologist added pentoxifylline extended release and gradually increased the dose to 400 mg in the morning and 800 mg in the evening. About 4 years after onset of the rash, the patient showed no signs of systemic involvement, but her skin lesions were still present.
1. Theodoridis A, Makrantonaki E, Zouboulis CC, et al. Malignant atrophic papulosis (Köhlmeier-Degos disease)—a review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:10.
2. Theodoridis A, Konstantinidou A, Makrantonaki E, et al. Malignant and benign forms of atrophic papulosis (Köhlmeier-Degos disease): systemic involvement determines the prognosis. Br J Dermatol. 2014;170:110-115.
3. Huang YC, Wang JD, Lee FY, et al. Pediatric malignant atrophic papulosis. Pediatrics. 2018;141(suppl 5):S481-S484.
4. Shapiro LS, Toledo-Garcia AE, Farrell JF. Effective treatment of malignant atrophic papulosis (Köhlmeier-Degos disease) with treprostinil—early experience. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:52.
A 50-year-old woman presented to her family physician for a urinary tract infection (UTI) and an itchy rash. She said the rash had developed 2 years earlier and had gotten worse, with additional lesions emerging on her skin as time went on. She noted that other physicians had evaluated the rash but provided no clear diagnosis and had done no testing.
A physical exam revealed scattered erythematous papules with white centers on the patient’s trunk, arms, and legs (FIGURE 1). The patient’s medical history was significant for asthma, obstructive sleep apnea, obesity, gastroesophageal reflux disease, urinary incontinence, and depression. Her medications included montelukast, inhaled fluticasone, albuterol, tolterodine, omeprazole, and fluoxetine.
The patient was prescribed nitrofurantoin, 100 mg twice daily for 5 days, to treat her UTI, and a punch biopsy was performed on one of the patient’s lesions to determine the cause of the rash.
WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?
Diagnosis: Atrophic papulosis
Pathology suggested a diagnosis of atrophic papulosis. A consultation with a dermatologist and additional biopsies confirmed the diagnosis. The biopsies showed wedge-shaped areas of superficial dermal sclerosis with thinning of the overlying epidermis. The superficial dermal vessels contained scattered, small thrombi at the periphery of the areas of sclerosis.
Atrophic papulosis (also known as Degos disease or Kölmeier-Degos disease) is a vasculopathy characterized by thrombotic occlusion of small arteries.1 Although rare—with fewer than 200 published case reports in the literature—it is likely underdiagnosed.1 Atrophic papulosis can be distinguished by hallmark skin findings, including 0.5- to 1-cm papular skin lesions with central porcelain-white atrophy and an erythematous, telangiectatic rim.1 It usually manifests between ages 20 to 50 but can occur in infants and children.1 The etiology is unknown, but case evidence suggests the condition is sometimes familial.1,2
Easy to confuse with common conditions
Clinical presentation of atrophic papulosis can vary, but evaluation should rule out systemic lupus erythematosus and other connective tissue diseases.1 In addition, the lesions can easily be confused with other common conditions such as molluscum contagiosum or insect bites.
The hallmark finding of molluscum contagiosum is raised papules with central umbilication, whereas atrophic papulosis lesions are characterized by white centers. While insect bites typically disappear within weeks, atrophic papulosis lesions persist for years or are even lifelong.1
Is it benign or malignant?
Benign atrophic papulosis is limited to the skin.1 The probability of a patient having benign atrophic papulosis is about 70% at the onset of skin lesions and 97% after 7 years without other symptoms.2
Malignant atrophic papulosis—although less common—is systemic and life-threatening. About 30% of patients with atrophic papulosis develop lesions manifesting both on the skin and in internal organs.1,2 Systemic involvement can develop at any time, sometimes years after the appearance of skin lesions, but the risk declines over time.2 In a case series, systemic signs were shown to develop, on average, 1 year after skin lesions.2 Some evidence suggests a mortality rate of 50% within 2 to 3 years of the onset of systemic involvement, making regular follow-up necessary.1
Continue to: Patients with malignant atrophic papulosis...
Patients with malignant atrophic papulosis may have systemic involvement in multiple organ systems. Gastrointestinal (GI) involvement can cause bowel perforation. Central nervous system (CNS) involvement may put the patient at risk for stroke, intracranial bleeding, meningitis, and encephalitis.1,3 There can also be cardiopulmonary involvement that causes pleuritis and pericarditis.1 Ocular involvement can affect the eyelids, conjunctiva, retina, sclera, and choroid plexus.1 Renal involvement has been noted in a few cases.2
In a prospective, single-center cohort study of 39 patients with atrophic papulosis, systemic involvement (malignant atrophic papulosis) was reported in 29% (n = 11) of the patients.2 In these patients, involved organ systems included the GI tract (73%; n = 8), CNS (64%; n = 7), eye (18%; n = 2), heart (18%; n = 2), and lungs (9%; n = 1); 64% (n = 7) had multiorgan involvement. Mortality was reported in 73% of the patients with systemic disease.
Ongoing testing is required
For a patient presenting with atrophic papulosis, initial and follow-up visits should include evaluation for systemic manifestations through a full skin examination, fecal occult blood test, and ocular fundus examination.1,2 If the patient shows any symptoms that suggest systemic involvement, further testing is advised, including evaluation of renal function, colonoscopy, endoscopy, magnetic resonance imaging of the brain, an echocardiogram, and chest computed tomography.
Because internal organ involvement in malignant atrophic papulosis can develop within years of (benign) cutaneous manifestations, regular follow-up is recommended.1 Research suggests evaluation of patients with benign atrophic papulosis every 6 months for the first 7 years after disease onset and then yearly between 7 and 10 years after onset.2
Treatment options are limited
Antiplatelet agents (aspirin, pentoxifylline, dipyridamole, and ticlodipine) and anticoagulants (heparin) have led to partial regression of skin lesions in case reports.1 Some lesions seem to disappear after treatment, but due to limited evidence, it is difficult to determine whether treatment leads to a reduction of future lesions.
When it comes to malignant atrophic papulosis, there is no uniformly effective treatment. Antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants are often used as initial treatment, but efficacy has not been clearly demonstrated. In case reports, eculizumab and treprostinil have shown effectiveness in treating CNS involvement, but there are no uniform dosage recommendations.3,4
In this case, the patient had mild GI symptoms. A colonoscopy showed evidence of microscopic colitis, but there was no evidence of atrophic papulosis in the GI tract.
Additional laboratory work-up was ordered to evaluate for signs of organ involvement and to rule out any associated connective tissue disease or hypercoagulable state. Her results showed a mildly elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (29 mm/h) and a positive antinuclear antibodies assay (1:640, speckled pattern). She was referred to a rheumatologist, who found no evidence of a connective tissue disorder. A complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, urinalysis, and hypercoagulability work-up were all within normal limits. A complete eye exam was also normal.
The patient was started on aspirin 81 mg/d. Because she continued to develop new lesions, her dermatologist added pentoxifylline extended release and gradually increased the dose to 400 mg in the morning and 800 mg in the evening. About 4 years after onset of the rash, the patient showed no signs of systemic involvement, but her skin lesions were still present.
A 50-year-old woman presented to her family physician for a urinary tract infection (UTI) and an itchy rash. She said the rash had developed 2 years earlier and had gotten worse, with additional lesions emerging on her skin as time went on. She noted that other physicians had evaluated the rash but provided no clear diagnosis and had done no testing.
A physical exam revealed scattered erythematous papules with white centers on the patient’s trunk, arms, and legs (FIGURE 1). The patient’s medical history was significant for asthma, obstructive sleep apnea, obesity, gastroesophageal reflux disease, urinary incontinence, and depression. Her medications included montelukast, inhaled fluticasone, albuterol, tolterodine, omeprazole, and fluoxetine.
The patient was prescribed nitrofurantoin, 100 mg twice daily for 5 days, to treat her UTI, and a punch biopsy was performed on one of the patient’s lesions to determine the cause of the rash.
WHAT IS YOUR DIAGNOSIS?
HOW WOULD YOU TREAT THIS PATIENT?
Diagnosis: Atrophic papulosis
Pathology suggested a diagnosis of atrophic papulosis. A consultation with a dermatologist and additional biopsies confirmed the diagnosis. The biopsies showed wedge-shaped areas of superficial dermal sclerosis with thinning of the overlying epidermis. The superficial dermal vessels contained scattered, small thrombi at the periphery of the areas of sclerosis.
Atrophic papulosis (also known as Degos disease or Kölmeier-Degos disease) is a vasculopathy characterized by thrombotic occlusion of small arteries.1 Although rare—with fewer than 200 published case reports in the literature—it is likely underdiagnosed.1 Atrophic papulosis can be distinguished by hallmark skin findings, including 0.5- to 1-cm papular skin lesions with central porcelain-white atrophy and an erythematous, telangiectatic rim.1 It usually manifests between ages 20 to 50 but can occur in infants and children.1 The etiology is unknown, but case evidence suggests the condition is sometimes familial.1,2
Easy to confuse with common conditions
Clinical presentation of atrophic papulosis can vary, but evaluation should rule out systemic lupus erythematosus and other connective tissue diseases.1 In addition, the lesions can easily be confused with other common conditions such as molluscum contagiosum or insect bites.
The hallmark finding of molluscum contagiosum is raised papules with central umbilication, whereas atrophic papulosis lesions are characterized by white centers. While insect bites typically disappear within weeks, atrophic papulosis lesions persist for years or are even lifelong.1
Is it benign or malignant?
Benign atrophic papulosis is limited to the skin.1 The probability of a patient having benign atrophic papulosis is about 70% at the onset of skin lesions and 97% after 7 years without other symptoms.2
Malignant atrophic papulosis—although less common—is systemic and life-threatening. About 30% of patients with atrophic papulosis develop lesions manifesting both on the skin and in internal organs.1,2 Systemic involvement can develop at any time, sometimes years after the appearance of skin lesions, but the risk declines over time.2 In a case series, systemic signs were shown to develop, on average, 1 year after skin lesions.2 Some evidence suggests a mortality rate of 50% within 2 to 3 years of the onset of systemic involvement, making regular follow-up necessary.1
Continue to: Patients with malignant atrophic papulosis...
Patients with malignant atrophic papulosis may have systemic involvement in multiple organ systems. Gastrointestinal (GI) involvement can cause bowel perforation. Central nervous system (CNS) involvement may put the patient at risk for stroke, intracranial bleeding, meningitis, and encephalitis.1,3 There can also be cardiopulmonary involvement that causes pleuritis and pericarditis.1 Ocular involvement can affect the eyelids, conjunctiva, retina, sclera, and choroid plexus.1 Renal involvement has been noted in a few cases.2
In a prospective, single-center cohort study of 39 patients with atrophic papulosis, systemic involvement (malignant atrophic papulosis) was reported in 29% (n = 11) of the patients.2 In these patients, involved organ systems included the GI tract (73%; n = 8), CNS (64%; n = 7), eye (18%; n = 2), heart (18%; n = 2), and lungs (9%; n = 1); 64% (n = 7) had multiorgan involvement. Mortality was reported in 73% of the patients with systemic disease.
Ongoing testing is required
For a patient presenting with atrophic papulosis, initial and follow-up visits should include evaluation for systemic manifestations through a full skin examination, fecal occult blood test, and ocular fundus examination.1,2 If the patient shows any symptoms that suggest systemic involvement, further testing is advised, including evaluation of renal function, colonoscopy, endoscopy, magnetic resonance imaging of the brain, an echocardiogram, and chest computed tomography.
Because internal organ involvement in malignant atrophic papulosis can develop within years of (benign) cutaneous manifestations, regular follow-up is recommended.1 Research suggests evaluation of patients with benign atrophic papulosis every 6 months for the first 7 years after disease onset and then yearly between 7 and 10 years after onset.2
Treatment options are limited
Antiplatelet agents (aspirin, pentoxifylline, dipyridamole, and ticlodipine) and anticoagulants (heparin) have led to partial regression of skin lesions in case reports.1 Some lesions seem to disappear after treatment, but due to limited evidence, it is difficult to determine whether treatment leads to a reduction of future lesions.
When it comes to malignant atrophic papulosis, there is no uniformly effective treatment. Antiplatelet agents and anticoagulants are often used as initial treatment, but efficacy has not been clearly demonstrated. In case reports, eculizumab and treprostinil have shown effectiveness in treating CNS involvement, but there are no uniform dosage recommendations.3,4
In this case, the patient had mild GI symptoms. A colonoscopy showed evidence of microscopic colitis, but there was no evidence of atrophic papulosis in the GI tract.
Additional laboratory work-up was ordered to evaluate for signs of organ involvement and to rule out any associated connective tissue disease or hypercoagulable state. Her results showed a mildly elevated erythrocyte sedimentation rate (29 mm/h) and a positive antinuclear antibodies assay (1:640, speckled pattern). She was referred to a rheumatologist, who found no evidence of a connective tissue disorder. A complete blood count, comprehensive metabolic panel, urinalysis, and hypercoagulability work-up were all within normal limits. A complete eye exam was also normal.
The patient was started on aspirin 81 mg/d. Because she continued to develop new lesions, her dermatologist added pentoxifylline extended release and gradually increased the dose to 400 mg in the morning and 800 mg in the evening. About 4 years after onset of the rash, the patient showed no signs of systemic involvement, but her skin lesions were still present.
1. Theodoridis A, Makrantonaki E, Zouboulis CC, et al. Malignant atrophic papulosis (Köhlmeier-Degos disease)—a review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:10.
2. Theodoridis A, Konstantinidou A, Makrantonaki E, et al. Malignant and benign forms of atrophic papulosis (Köhlmeier-Degos disease): systemic involvement determines the prognosis. Br J Dermatol. 2014;170:110-115.
3. Huang YC, Wang JD, Lee FY, et al. Pediatric malignant atrophic papulosis. Pediatrics. 2018;141(suppl 5):S481-S484.
4. Shapiro LS, Toledo-Garcia AE, Farrell JF. Effective treatment of malignant atrophic papulosis (Köhlmeier-Degos disease) with treprostinil—early experience. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:52.
1. Theodoridis A, Makrantonaki E, Zouboulis CC, et al. Malignant atrophic papulosis (Köhlmeier-Degos disease)—a review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:10.
2. Theodoridis A, Konstantinidou A, Makrantonaki E, et al. Malignant and benign forms of atrophic papulosis (Köhlmeier-Degos disease): systemic involvement determines the prognosis. Br J Dermatol. 2014;170:110-115.
3. Huang YC, Wang JD, Lee FY, et al. Pediatric malignant atrophic papulosis. Pediatrics. 2018;141(suppl 5):S481-S484.
4. Shapiro LS, Toledo-Garcia AE, Farrell JF. Effective treatment of malignant atrophic papulosis (Köhlmeier-Degos disease) with treprostinil—early experience. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:52.
