MDedge Dermatology

Efficacy of the investigational drug lebrikizumab is maintained in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis for at least 1 year, according to new results from the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials.

“We’re focused on the responders,” said Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, as he presented the positive findings at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Responders were the 291 people whose atopic dermatitis greatly improved after an initial 16 weeks’ treatment with lebrikizumab in both trials and who were then randomly allocated to receive injections every 2 weeks (Q2W, n = 113) or every 4 weeks (Q4W, n = 118), or to receive placebo injections Q2W (n = 60).

“Very interestingly, for me, the Q4W maintenance dosing was just as good as the Q2W maintenance dosing,” said Dr. Blauvelt, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

“Another highlight of these data is that the patients who went on to placebo, about 50% of the patients maintained good responses, despite no treatment from week 16 to week 52,” he added.

Most patients did not require topical steroids, and “there were no surprises here” in terms of the safety profile. Lebrikizumab, a monoclonal antibody, binds to soluble interleukin-13 and blocks IL-13 signaling.

“So, the study really shows that specific targeting of IL-13 with lebrikizumab, either Q2W or Q4W, has high maintenance of efficacy and is reasonably tolerated and safe in adolescents and adults with atopic dermatitis,” Dr. Blauvelt concluded.

“We know now that IL-13 is a critical cytokine in AD [atopic dermatitis] pathogenesis. The unique features of this drug I want to highlight is that it has high binding affinity for IL-13,” he said.

“It has a slow dissociation off rate, meaning it binds IL-13 tightly, very potently, and stays blocking and stays hold of IL-13 in a strong manner,” he added. The drug has a half-life of 25 days.

These features could be very important for long-term dosing of the drug, he argued.
 

Lebrikizumab phase 3 trials

ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two of several phase 3 trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab for the treatment of atopic dermatitis.

These include the completed ADhere study, in which lebrikizumab was used in combination with topical steroids and showed positive results in skin improvement and relief of pruritus.

The ADore study, an open-label trial in adolescents, is yet to report. The ongoing ADjoin study, a long-term extension study, is actively recruiting.

ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two identically designed – multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group – monotherapy trials that initially pitched two dosing regimens of lebrikizumab (250 mg) against placebo with a double loading dose at baseline and week 2 and then one dose every 2 weeks. The pair of trials enrolled a total of 869 adolescents and adults.

After the 16-week induction period, all patients in the lebrikizumab arm who had responded to treatment were rerandomly assigned to receive lebrikizumab 250 mg Q2W or Q4W, or placebo Q2W during a 36-week long-term maintenance treatment period.

This brought the total treatment time to 52 weeks for those whose atopic dermatitis had initially responded to lebrikizumab, explained Blauvelt.

Responders were those who, at 16 weeks, had an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (IGA 0/1) with a 2-point improvement or who had a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (EASI 75) without the need for rescue medication, compared with baseline values.
 

Induction and maintenance phase results

At the end of the 16-week induction period, a greater proportion of patients who had been treated with lebrikizumab than placebo met a primary outcome of IGA 0/1 in each trial (43.1% vs. 12.7% in ADvocate1 and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in ADvocate2).

A similar result was seen for another primary outcome, EASI 75 (58.8% vs. 16.2% and 52.1% vs. 18.1%) and for a secondary outcome, improvement in pruritus using a numerical rating scale (45.9% vs. 13.0% and 39.8% vs. 11.5%).

In the maintenance phase, with respect to responders, Dr. Blauvelt reported “very similar results” between the QW2 and Q4W maintenance dosing, “and still a quite high response in [half] the patients who were randomized to placebo at week 16.”

In the ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, respectively, an IGA 0/1 with at least a 2-point improvement was maintained at week 52 in 75.8% and 64.6% of patients treated with the Q2W lebrikizumab dose, 74.2% and 80.6% of those treated with the Q4W dose, and 46.5% and 49.8% of those given placebo.

EASI 75 was maintained at week 52 in a respective 79.2% and 77.4% of patients treated with the Q2W dose, 79.2% and 84.7% with the Q4W dose, and 61.3% and 72.0% with placebo.

As for maintenance of at least a 4-point improvement in pruritus score, results at 52 weeks were 81.2% and 90.3% for the 2-week dose, 80.4% and 88.1% for the 4-week dose, and 65.4% and 67.6% for placebo.

Although topical corticosteroid treatment was allowed during the maintenance phase, only about 15% of patients needed this, Dr. Blauvelt said.
 

Different dosing results questioned

During the discussion period, one delegate highlighted that the twice-weekly maintenance dosing schedule seemed to “do worse a little bit” than the 4-week dosing, with both “close to placebo,” although “the long-term effect is already very impressive.”

Dr. Blauvelt noted that a pooled analysis had been done and that “it’s very clear that being on lebrikizumab works better than not being on lebrikizumab.

“Now, Q2W versus Q4W. We believe that this may be due to the long half-life of the drug possibly. It could be due to the slow disassociation rate, it’s binding tightly,” he suggested.

“We also could talk about disease modification, right. So, it opens up the concept of hit hard, hit early for 16 weeks, and then maybe you can modify disease over time,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

He added: “That’s highly speculative, of course.”

Short-term safety data

The 52-week safety profile of lebrikizumab is consistent with previously published data at 16 weeks, Dr. Blauvelt said. The most common adverse events during the studies included atopic dermatitis, nasopharyngitis, conjunctivitis, conjunctivitis allergic, headache, and COVID-19.

“This drug has comparable efficacy with dupilumab and tralokinumab,” said Jashin J. Wu, MD, from the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., in an interview. He was not involved in the study.

“As it does not have any significant advantages with less long-term safety data, I do not see a place for it in my practice,” Dr. Wu said.

Dupilumab (Dupixent) and tralokinumab (Adbry) are monoclonal antibodies that also block IL-13. Both are already licensed for treating atopic dermatitis. Dupilumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017, and tralokinumab was approved in 2021.

The study was funded by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Eli Lilly has exclusive rights for the development and commercialization of lebrikizumab in the United States and all countries outside Europe; European rights belong to Almirall for all dermatology indications, including atopic dermatitis. Dr. Blauvelt acts as an investigator and adviser to these companies as well as many other pharmaceutical companies that are involved in developing new dermatologic treatments. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

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

Efficacy of the investigational drug lebrikizumab is maintained in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis for at least 1 year, according to new results from the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials.

“We’re focused on the responders,” said Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, as he presented the positive findings at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Responders were the 291 people whose atopic dermatitis greatly improved after an initial 16 weeks’ treatment with lebrikizumab in both trials and who were then randomly allocated to receive injections every 2 weeks (Q2W, n = 113) or every 4 weeks (Q4W, n = 118), or to receive placebo injections Q2W (n = 60).

“Very interestingly, for me, the Q4W maintenance dosing was just as good as the Q2W maintenance dosing,” said Dr. Blauvelt, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

“Another highlight of these data is that the patients who went on to placebo, about 50% of the patients maintained good responses, despite no treatment from week 16 to week 52,” he added.

Most patients did not require topical steroids, and “there were no surprises here” in terms of the safety profile. Lebrikizumab, a monoclonal antibody, binds to soluble interleukin-13 and blocks IL-13 signaling.

“So, the study really shows that specific targeting of IL-13 with lebrikizumab, either Q2W or Q4W, has high maintenance of efficacy and is reasonably tolerated and safe in adolescents and adults with atopic dermatitis,” Dr. Blauvelt concluded.

“We know now that IL-13 is a critical cytokine in AD [atopic dermatitis] pathogenesis. The unique features of this drug I want to highlight is that it has high binding affinity for IL-13,” he said.

“It has a slow dissociation off rate, meaning it binds IL-13 tightly, very potently, and stays blocking and stays hold of IL-13 in a strong manner,” he added. The drug has a half-life of 25 days.

These features could be very important for long-term dosing of the drug, he argued.
 

Lebrikizumab phase 3 trials

ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two of several phase 3 trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab for the treatment of atopic dermatitis.

These include the completed ADhere study, in which lebrikizumab was used in combination with topical steroids and showed positive results in skin improvement and relief of pruritus.

The ADore study, an open-label trial in adolescents, is yet to report. The ongoing ADjoin study, a long-term extension study, is actively recruiting.

ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two identically designed – multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group – monotherapy trials that initially pitched two dosing regimens of lebrikizumab (250 mg) against placebo with a double loading dose at baseline and week 2 and then one dose every 2 weeks. The pair of trials enrolled a total of 869 adolescents and adults.

After the 16-week induction period, all patients in the lebrikizumab arm who had responded to treatment were rerandomly assigned to receive lebrikizumab 250 mg Q2W or Q4W, or placebo Q2W during a 36-week long-term maintenance treatment period.

This brought the total treatment time to 52 weeks for those whose atopic dermatitis had initially responded to lebrikizumab, explained Blauvelt.

Responders were those who, at 16 weeks, had an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (IGA 0/1) with a 2-point improvement or who had a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (EASI 75) without the need for rescue medication, compared with baseline values.
 

Induction and maintenance phase results

At the end of the 16-week induction period, a greater proportion of patients who had been treated with lebrikizumab than placebo met a primary outcome of IGA 0/1 in each trial (43.1% vs. 12.7% in ADvocate1 and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in ADvocate2).

A similar result was seen for another primary outcome, EASI 75 (58.8% vs. 16.2% and 52.1% vs. 18.1%) and for a secondary outcome, improvement in pruritus using a numerical rating scale (45.9% vs. 13.0% and 39.8% vs. 11.5%).

In the maintenance phase, with respect to responders, Dr. Blauvelt reported “very similar results” between the QW2 and Q4W maintenance dosing, “and still a quite high response in [half] the patients who were randomized to placebo at week 16.”

In the ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, respectively, an IGA 0/1 with at least a 2-point improvement was maintained at week 52 in 75.8% and 64.6% of patients treated with the Q2W lebrikizumab dose, 74.2% and 80.6% of those treated with the Q4W dose, and 46.5% and 49.8% of those given placebo.

EASI 75 was maintained at week 52 in a respective 79.2% and 77.4% of patients treated with the Q2W dose, 79.2% and 84.7% with the Q4W dose, and 61.3% and 72.0% with placebo.

As for maintenance of at least a 4-point improvement in pruritus score, results at 52 weeks were 81.2% and 90.3% for the 2-week dose, 80.4% and 88.1% for the 4-week dose, and 65.4% and 67.6% for placebo.

Although topical corticosteroid treatment was allowed during the maintenance phase, only about 15% of patients needed this, Dr. Blauvelt said.
 

Different dosing results questioned

During the discussion period, one delegate highlighted that the twice-weekly maintenance dosing schedule seemed to “do worse a little bit” than the 4-week dosing, with both “close to placebo,” although “the long-term effect is already very impressive.”

Dr. Blauvelt noted that a pooled analysis had been done and that “it’s very clear that being on lebrikizumab works better than not being on lebrikizumab.

“Now, Q2W versus Q4W. We believe that this may be due to the long half-life of the drug possibly. It could be due to the slow disassociation rate, it’s binding tightly,” he suggested.

“We also could talk about disease modification, right. So, it opens up the concept of hit hard, hit early for 16 weeks, and then maybe you can modify disease over time,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

He added: “That’s highly speculative, of course.”

Short-term safety data

The 52-week safety profile of lebrikizumab is consistent with previously published data at 16 weeks, Dr. Blauvelt said. The most common adverse events during the studies included atopic dermatitis, nasopharyngitis, conjunctivitis, conjunctivitis allergic, headache, and COVID-19.

“This drug has comparable efficacy with dupilumab and tralokinumab,” said Jashin J. Wu, MD, from the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., in an interview. He was not involved in the study.

“As it does not have any significant advantages with less long-term safety data, I do not see a place for it in my practice,” Dr. Wu said.

Dupilumab (Dupixent) and tralokinumab (Adbry) are monoclonal antibodies that also block IL-13. Both are already licensed for treating atopic dermatitis. Dupilumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017, and tralokinumab was approved in 2021.

The study was funded by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Eli Lilly has exclusive rights for the development and commercialization of lebrikizumab in the United States and all countries outside Europe; European rights belong to Almirall for all dermatology indications, including atopic dermatitis. Dr. Blauvelt acts as an investigator and adviser to these companies as well as many other pharmaceutical companies that are involved in developing new dermatologic treatments. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

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

Efficacy of the investigational drug lebrikizumab is maintained in patients with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis for at least 1 year, according to new results from the phase 3 ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials.

“We’re focused on the responders,” said Andrew Blauvelt, MD, MBA, as he presented the positive findings at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Responders were the 291 people whose atopic dermatitis greatly improved after an initial 16 weeks’ treatment with lebrikizumab in both trials and who were then randomly allocated to receive injections every 2 weeks (Q2W, n = 113) or every 4 weeks (Q4W, n = 118), or to receive placebo injections Q2W (n = 60).

“Very interestingly, for me, the Q4W maintenance dosing was just as good as the Q2W maintenance dosing,” said Dr. Blauvelt, president of Oregon Medical Research Center, Portland.

“Another highlight of these data is that the patients who went on to placebo, about 50% of the patients maintained good responses, despite no treatment from week 16 to week 52,” he added.

Most patients did not require topical steroids, and “there were no surprises here” in terms of the safety profile. Lebrikizumab, a monoclonal antibody, binds to soluble interleukin-13 and blocks IL-13 signaling.

“So, the study really shows that specific targeting of IL-13 with lebrikizumab, either Q2W or Q4W, has high maintenance of efficacy and is reasonably tolerated and safe in adolescents and adults with atopic dermatitis,” Dr. Blauvelt concluded.

“We know now that IL-13 is a critical cytokine in AD [atopic dermatitis] pathogenesis. The unique features of this drug I want to highlight is that it has high binding affinity for IL-13,” he said.

“It has a slow dissociation off rate, meaning it binds IL-13 tightly, very potently, and stays blocking and stays hold of IL-13 in a strong manner,” he added. The drug has a half-life of 25 days.

These features could be very important for long-term dosing of the drug, he argued.
 

Lebrikizumab phase 3 trials

ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two of several phase 3 trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab for the treatment of atopic dermatitis.

These include the completed ADhere study, in which lebrikizumab was used in combination with topical steroids and showed positive results in skin improvement and relief of pruritus.

The ADore study, an open-label trial in adolescents, is yet to report. The ongoing ADjoin study, a long-term extension study, is actively recruiting.

ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 are two identically designed – multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group – monotherapy trials that initially pitched two dosing regimens of lebrikizumab (250 mg) against placebo with a double loading dose at baseline and week 2 and then one dose every 2 weeks. The pair of trials enrolled a total of 869 adolescents and adults.

After the 16-week induction period, all patients in the lebrikizumab arm who had responded to treatment were rerandomly assigned to receive lebrikizumab 250 mg Q2W or Q4W, or placebo Q2W during a 36-week long-term maintenance treatment period.

This brought the total treatment time to 52 weeks for those whose atopic dermatitis had initially responded to lebrikizumab, explained Blauvelt.

Responders were those who, at 16 weeks, had an Investigator’s Global Assessment score of 0 or 1 (IGA 0/1) with a 2-point improvement or who had a 75% improvement in the Eczema Area and Severity Index score (EASI 75) without the need for rescue medication, compared with baseline values.
 

Induction and maintenance phase results

At the end of the 16-week induction period, a greater proportion of patients who had been treated with lebrikizumab than placebo met a primary outcome of IGA 0/1 in each trial (43.1% vs. 12.7% in ADvocate1 and 33.2% vs. 10.8% in ADvocate2).

A similar result was seen for another primary outcome, EASI 75 (58.8% vs. 16.2% and 52.1% vs. 18.1%) and for a secondary outcome, improvement in pruritus using a numerical rating scale (45.9% vs. 13.0% and 39.8% vs. 11.5%).

In the maintenance phase, with respect to responders, Dr. Blauvelt reported “very similar results” between the QW2 and Q4W maintenance dosing, “and still a quite high response in [half] the patients who were randomized to placebo at week 16.”

In the ADvocate1 and ADvocate2 trials, respectively, an IGA 0/1 with at least a 2-point improvement was maintained at week 52 in 75.8% and 64.6% of patients treated with the Q2W lebrikizumab dose, 74.2% and 80.6% of those treated with the Q4W dose, and 46.5% and 49.8% of those given placebo.

EASI 75 was maintained at week 52 in a respective 79.2% and 77.4% of patients treated with the Q2W dose, 79.2% and 84.7% with the Q4W dose, and 61.3% and 72.0% with placebo.

As for maintenance of at least a 4-point improvement in pruritus score, results at 52 weeks were 81.2% and 90.3% for the 2-week dose, 80.4% and 88.1% for the 4-week dose, and 65.4% and 67.6% for placebo.

Although topical corticosteroid treatment was allowed during the maintenance phase, only about 15% of patients needed this, Dr. Blauvelt said.
 

Different dosing results questioned

During the discussion period, one delegate highlighted that the twice-weekly maintenance dosing schedule seemed to “do worse a little bit” than the 4-week dosing, with both “close to placebo,” although “the long-term effect is already very impressive.”

Dr. Blauvelt noted that a pooled analysis had been done and that “it’s very clear that being on lebrikizumab works better than not being on lebrikizumab.

“Now, Q2W versus Q4W. We believe that this may be due to the long half-life of the drug possibly. It could be due to the slow disassociation rate, it’s binding tightly,” he suggested.

“We also could talk about disease modification, right. So, it opens up the concept of hit hard, hit early for 16 weeks, and then maybe you can modify disease over time,” Dr. Blauvelt said.

He added: “That’s highly speculative, of course.”

Short-term safety data

The 52-week safety profile of lebrikizumab is consistent with previously published data at 16 weeks, Dr. Blauvelt said. The most common adverse events during the studies included atopic dermatitis, nasopharyngitis, conjunctivitis, conjunctivitis allergic, headache, and COVID-19.

“This drug has comparable efficacy with dupilumab and tralokinumab,” said Jashin J. Wu, MD, from the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., in an interview. He was not involved in the study.

“As it does not have any significant advantages with less long-term safety data, I do not see a place for it in my practice,” Dr. Wu said.

Dupilumab (Dupixent) and tralokinumab (Adbry) are monoclonal antibodies that also block IL-13. Both are already licensed for treating atopic dermatitis. Dupilumab was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2017, and tralokinumab was approved in 2021.

The study was funded by Dermira, a wholly owned subsidiary of Eli Lilly. Eli Lilly has exclusive rights for the development and commercialization of lebrikizumab in the United States and all countries outside Europe; European rights belong to Almirall for all dermatology indications, including atopic dermatitis. Dr. Blauvelt acts as an investigator and adviser to these companies as well as many other pharmaceutical companies that are involved in developing new dermatologic treatments. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

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

Ruxolitinib cream can help repigment the skin in many body areas affected with vitiligo, researchers reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Those difficult areas include the hands and feet, said Thierry Passeron, MD, PhD, of Université Côte d’Azur and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice (France).

Indeed, a 50% or greater improvement in the Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (VASI-50) of the hands and feet was achieved with ruxolitinib cream (Opzelura) in around one-third of patients after 52 weeks’ treatment, and more than half of patients showed improvement in the upper and lower extremities.

During one of the late-breaking news sessions, Dr. Passeron presented a pooled analysis of the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo Study 1 (TRuE-V1) and Study 2 (TruE-V2), which assessed VASI-50 data by body regions.

Similarly positive results were seen on the head and neck and the trunk, with VASI-50 being reached in a respective 68% and 48% of patients after a full year of treatment.

“VASI-50 response rates rose steadily through 52 weeks for both the head and trunk,” said Dr. Passeron. He noted that the trials were initially double-blinded for 24 weeks and that there was a further open-label extension phase through week 52.

In the latter phase, all patients were treated with ruxolitinib; those who originally received a vehicle agent as placebo crossed over to the active treatment.
 

First FDA-approved treatment for adults and adolescents with vitiligo

Ruxolitinib is a Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor that has been available for the treatment for atopic dermatitis for more than a year. It was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of vitiligo in adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years and older.

This approval was based on the positive findings of the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 studies, which showed that after 24 weeks, 30% of patients treated with ruxolitinib had at least 75% improvement in the facial VASI, compared with 10% of placebo-treated patients.

“These studies demonstrated very nice results, especially on the face, which is the easiest part to repigment in vitiligo,” Dr. Passeron said.

“We know that the location is very important when it comes to repigmentation of vitiligo,” he added. He noted that other body areas, “the extremities, for example, are much more difficult.”

The analysis he presented specifically assessed the effect of ruxolitinib cream on repigmentation in other areas.

Pooled analysis performed

Data from the two TRuE-V trials were pooled. The new analysis included a total of 661 individuals; of those patients, 443 had been treated with topical ruxolitinib, and 218 had received a vehicle cream as a placebo.

For the first 24 weeks, patients received twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle cream. This was followed by a 28-week extension phase in which everyone was treated with ruxolitinib cream, after which there was a 30-day final follow-up period.

Dr. Passeron reported data by body region for weeks 12, 24, and 52, which showed an increasing percentage of patients with VASI-50.

“We didn’t look at the face; that we know well, that is a very good result,” he said.

The best results were seen for the head and neck. VASI-50 was reached by 28.3%, 45.3%, and 68.1% of patients treated with ruxolitinib cream at weeks 12, 24, and 52, respectively. Corresponding rates for the placebo-crossover group were 19.8%, 23.8%, and 51%.

Repigmentation rates of the hand, upper extremities, trunk, lower extremities, and feet were about 9%-15% for both ruxolitinib and placebo at 12 weeks, but by 24 weeks, there was a clear increase in repigmentation rates in the ruxolitinib group for all body areas.

The 24-week VASI-50 rates for hand repigmentation were 24.9% for ruxolitinib cream and 14.4% for placebo. Corresponding rates for upper extremity repigmentation were 33.2% and 8.2%; for the trunk, 26.4% and 12.2%; for the lower extremities, 29.5% and 12.2%; and for the feet, 18.5% and 12.5%.

“The results are quite poor at 12 weeks,” Dr. Passeron said. “It’s very important to keep this in mind; it takes time to repigment vitiligo, it takes to 6-24 months. We have to explain to our patients that they will have to wait to see the results.”
 

Steady improvements, no new safety concerns

Regarding VASI-50 over time, there was a steady increase in total body scores; 47.7% of patients who received ruxolitinib and 23.3% of placebo-treated patients hit this target at 52 weeks.

“And what is also very important to see is that we didn’t reach the plateau,” Dr. Passeron reported.

Similar patterns were seen for all the other body areas. Again there was a suggestion that rates may continue to rise with continued long-term treatment.

“About one-third of the patients reached at least 50% repigmentation after 1 year of treatment in the hands and feet,” Dr. Passeron said. He noted that certain areas, such as the back of the hand or tips of the fingers, may be unresponsive.

“So, we have to also to warn the patient that probably on these areas we have to combine it with other treatment because it remains very, very difficult to treat.”

There were no new safety concerns regarding treatment-emergent adverse events, which were reported in 52% of patients who received ruxolitinib and in 36% of placebo-treated patients.

The most common adverse reactions included COVID-19 (6.1% vs. 3.1%), acne at the application site (5.3% vs. 1.3%), and pruritus at the application site (3.9% vs. 2.7%), although cases were “mild or moderate,” said Dr. Passeron.
 

An expert’s take-home

“The results of TRuE-V phase 3 studies are encouraging and exciting,” Viktoria Eleftheriadou, MD, MRCP(UK), SCE(Derm), PhD, said in providing an independent comment for this news organization.

“Although ruxolitinib cream is applied on the skin, this novel treatment for vitiligo is not without risks; therefore, careful monitoring of patients who are started on this topical treatment would be prudent,” said Dr. Eleftheriadou, who is a consultant dermatologist for Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust and the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

“I would like to see how many patients achieved VASI-75 or VASI-80 score, which from patients’ perspectives is a more meaningful outcome, as well as how long these results will last for,” she added.

The study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Dr. Passeron has received grants, honoraria, or both from AbbVie, ACM Pharma, Almirall, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galderma, Genzyme/Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB. Dr. Passeron is the cofounder of YUKIN Therapeutics and has patents on WNT agonists or GSK2b antagonist for repigmentation of vitiligo and on the use of CXCR3B blockers in vitiligo. Dr. Eleftheriadou is an investigator and trial development group member on the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial (specific), a lead investigator on the pilot HI-Light Vitiligo Trial, and a medical advisory panel member of the Vitiligo Society UK. Dr. Eleftheriadou also provides consultancy services to Incyte and Pfizer.

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

Ruxolitinib cream can help repigment the skin in many body areas affected with vitiligo, researchers reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Those difficult areas include the hands and feet, said Thierry Passeron, MD, PhD, of Université Côte d’Azur and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice (France).

Indeed, a 50% or greater improvement in the Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (VASI-50) of the hands and feet was achieved with ruxolitinib cream (Opzelura) in around one-third of patients after 52 weeks’ treatment, and more than half of patients showed improvement in the upper and lower extremities.

During one of the late-breaking news sessions, Dr. Passeron presented a pooled analysis of the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo Study 1 (TRuE-V1) and Study 2 (TruE-V2), which assessed VASI-50 data by body regions.

Similarly positive results were seen on the head and neck and the trunk, with VASI-50 being reached in a respective 68% and 48% of patients after a full year of treatment.

“VASI-50 response rates rose steadily through 52 weeks for both the head and trunk,” said Dr. Passeron. He noted that the trials were initially double-blinded for 24 weeks and that there was a further open-label extension phase through week 52.

In the latter phase, all patients were treated with ruxolitinib; those who originally received a vehicle agent as placebo crossed over to the active treatment.
 

First FDA-approved treatment for adults and adolescents with vitiligo

Ruxolitinib is a Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor that has been available for the treatment for atopic dermatitis for more than a year. It was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of vitiligo in adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years and older.

This approval was based on the positive findings of the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 studies, which showed that after 24 weeks, 30% of patients treated with ruxolitinib had at least 75% improvement in the facial VASI, compared with 10% of placebo-treated patients.

“These studies demonstrated very nice results, especially on the face, which is the easiest part to repigment in vitiligo,” Dr. Passeron said.

“We know that the location is very important when it comes to repigmentation of vitiligo,” he added. He noted that other body areas, “the extremities, for example, are much more difficult.”

The analysis he presented specifically assessed the effect of ruxolitinib cream on repigmentation in other areas.

Pooled analysis performed

Data from the two TRuE-V trials were pooled. The new analysis included a total of 661 individuals; of those patients, 443 had been treated with topical ruxolitinib, and 218 had received a vehicle cream as a placebo.

For the first 24 weeks, patients received twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle cream. This was followed by a 28-week extension phase in which everyone was treated with ruxolitinib cream, after which there was a 30-day final follow-up period.

Dr. Passeron reported data by body region for weeks 12, 24, and 52, which showed an increasing percentage of patients with VASI-50.

“We didn’t look at the face; that we know well, that is a very good result,” he said.

The best results were seen for the head and neck. VASI-50 was reached by 28.3%, 45.3%, and 68.1% of patients treated with ruxolitinib cream at weeks 12, 24, and 52, respectively. Corresponding rates for the placebo-crossover group were 19.8%, 23.8%, and 51%.

Repigmentation rates of the hand, upper extremities, trunk, lower extremities, and feet were about 9%-15% for both ruxolitinib and placebo at 12 weeks, but by 24 weeks, there was a clear increase in repigmentation rates in the ruxolitinib group for all body areas.

The 24-week VASI-50 rates for hand repigmentation were 24.9% for ruxolitinib cream and 14.4% for placebo. Corresponding rates for upper extremity repigmentation were 33.2% and 8.2%; for the trunk, 26.4% and 12.2%; for the lower extremities, 29.5% and 12.2%; and for the feet, 18.5% and 12.5%.

“The results are quite poor at 12 weeks,” Dr. Passeron said. “It’s very important to keep this in mind; it takes time to repigment vitiligo, it takes to 6-24 months. We have to explain to our patients that they will have to wait to see the results.”
 

Steady improvements, no new safety concerns

Regarding VASI-50 over time, there was a steady increase in total body scores; 47.7% of patients who received ruxolitinib and 23.3% of placebo-treated patients hit this target at 52 weeks.

“And what is also very important to see is that we didn’t reach the plateau,” Dr. Passeron reported.

Similar patterns were seen for all the other body areas. Again there was a suggestion that rates may continue to rise with continued long-term treatment.

“About one-third of the patients reached at least 50% repigmentation after 1 year of treatment in the hands and feet,” Dr. Passeron said. He noted that certain areas, such as the back of the hand or tips of the fingers, may be unresponsive.

“So, we have to also to warn the patient that probably on these areas we have to combine it with other treatment because it remains very, very difficult to treat.”

There were no new safety concerns regarding treatment-emergent adverse events, which were reported in 52% of patients who received ruxolitinib and in 36% of placebo-treated patients.

The most common adverse reactions included COVID-19 (6.1% vs. 3.1%), acne at the application site (5.3% vs. 1.3%), and pruritus at the application site (3.9% vs. 2.7%), although cases were “mild or moderate,” said Dr. Passeron.
 

An expert’s take-home

“The results of TRuE-V phase 3 studies are encouraging and exciting,” Viktoria Eleftheriadou, MD, MRCP(UK), SCE(Derm), PhD, said in providing an independent comment for this news organization.

“Although ruxolitinib cream is applied on the skin, this novel treatment for vitiligo is not without risks; therefore, careful monitoring of patients who are started on this topical treatment would be prudent,” said Dr. Eleftheriadou, who is a consultant dermatologist for Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust and the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

“I would like to see how many patients achieved VASI-75 or VASI-80 score, which from patients’ perspectives is a more meaningful outcome, as well as how long these results will last for,” she added.

The study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Dr. Passeron has received grants, honoraria, or both from AbbVie, ACM Pharma, Almirall, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galderma, Genzyme/Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB. Dr. Passeron is the cofounder of YUKIN Therapeutics and has patents on WNT agonists or GSK2b antagonist for repigmentation of vitiligo and on the use of CXCR3B blockers in vitiligo. Dr. Eleftheriadou is an investigator and trial development group member on the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial (specific), a lead investigator on the pilot HI-Light Vitiligo Trial, and a medical advisory panel member of the Vitiligo Society UK. Dr. Eleftheriadou also provides consultancy services to Incyte and Pfizer.

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

Ruxolitinib cream can help repigment the skin in many body areas affected with vitiligo, researchers reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Those difficult areas include the hands and feet, said Thierry Passeron, MD, PhD, of Université Côte d’Azur and Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nice (France).

Indeed, a 50% or greater improvement in the Vitiligo Area Scoring Index (VASI-50) of the hands and feet was achieved with ruxolitinib cream (Opzelura) in around one-third of patients after 52 weeks’ treatment, and more than half of patients showed improvement in the upper and lower extremities.

During one of the late-breaking news sessions, Dr. Passeron presented a pooled analysis of the Topical Ruxolitinib Evaluation in Vitiligo Study 1 (TRuE-V1) and Study 2 (TruE-V2), which assessed VASI-50 data by body regions.

Similarly positive results were seen on the head and neck and the trunk, with VASI-50 being reached in a respective 68% and 48% of patients after a full year of treatment.

“VASI-50 response rates rose steadily through 52 weeks for both the head and trunk,” said Dr. Passeron. He noted that the trials were initially double-blinded for 24 weeks and that there was a further open-label extension phase through week 52.

In the latter phase, all patients were treated with ruxolitinib; those who originally received a vehicle agent as placebo crossed over to the active treatment.
 

First FDA-approved treatment for adults and adolescents with vitiligo

Ruxolitinib is a Janus kinase 1/2 inhibitor that has been available for the treatment for atopic dermatitis for more than a year. It was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of vitiligo in adults and pediatric patients aged 12 years and older.

This approval was based on the positive findings of the TRuE-V1 and TRuE-V2 studies, which showed that after 24 weeks, 30% of patients treated with ruxolitinib had at least 75% improvement in the facial VASI, compared with 10% of placebo-treated patients.

“These studies demonstrated very nice results, especially on the face, which is the easiest part to repigment in vitiligo,” Dr. Passeron said.

“We know that the location is very important when it comes to repigmentation of vitiligo,” he added. He noted that other body areas, “the extremities, for example, are much more difficult.”

The analysis he presented specifically assessed the effect of ruxolitinib cream on repigmentation in other areas.

Pooled analysis performed

Data from the two TRuE-V trials were pooled. The new analysis included a total of 661 individuals; of those patients, 443 had been treated with topical ruxolitinib, and 218 had received a vehicle cream as a placebo.

For the first 24 weeks, patients received twice-daily 1.5% ruxolitinib cream or vehicle cream. This was followed by a 28-week extension phase in which everyone was treated with ruxolitinib cream, after which there was a 30-day final follow-up period.

Dr. Passeron reported data by body region for weeks 12, 24, and 52, which showed an increasing percentage of patients with VASI-50.

“We didn’t look at the face; that we know well, that is a very good result,” he said.

The best results were seen for the head and neck. VASI-50 was reached by 28.3%, 45.3%, and 68.1% of patients treated with ruxolitinib cream at weeks 12, 24, and 52, respectively. Corresponding rates for the placebo-crossover group were 19.8%, 23.8%, and 51%.

Repigmentation rates of the hand, upper extremities, trunk, lower extremities, and feet were about 9%-15% for both ruxolitinib and placebo at 12 weeks, but by 24 weeks, there was a clear increase in repigmentation rates in the ruxolitinib group for all body areas.

The 24-week VASI-50 rates for hand repigmentation were 24.9% for ruxolitinib cream and 14.4% for placebo. Corresponding rates for upper extremity repigmentation were 33.2% and 8.2%; for the trunk, 26.4% and 12.2%; for the lower extremities, 29.5% and 12.2%; and for the feet, 18.5% and 12.5%.

“The results are quite poor at 12 weeks,” Dr. Passeron said. “It’s very important to keep this in mind; it takes time to repigment vitiligo, it takes to 6-24 months. We have to explain to our patients that they will have to wait to see the results.”
 

Steady improvements, no new safety concerns

Regarding VASI-50 over time, there was a steady increase in total body scores; 47.7% of patients who received ruxolitinib and 23.3% of placebo-treated patients hit this target at 52 weeks.

“And what is also very important to see is that we didn’t reach the plateau,” Dr. Passeron reported.

Similar patterns were seen for all the other body areas. Again there was a suggestion that rates may continue to rise with continued long-term treatment.

“About one-third of the patients reached at least 50% repigmentation after 1 year of treatment in the hands and feet,” Dr. Passeron said. He noted that certain areas, such as the back of the hand or tips of the fingers, may be unresponsive.

“So, we have to also to warn the patient that probably on these areas we have to combine it with other treatment because it remains very, very difficult to treat.”

There were no new safety concerns regarding treatment-emergent adverse events, which were reported in 52% of patients who received ruxolitinib and in 36% of placebo-treated patients.

The most common adverse reactions included COVID-19 (6.1% vs. 3.1%), acne at the application site (5.3% vs. 1.3%), and pruritus at the application site (3.9% vs. 2.7%), although cases were “mild or moderate,” said Dr. Passeron.
 

An expert’s take-home

“The results of TRuE-V phase 3 studies are encouraging and exciting,” Viktoria Eleftheriadou, MD, MRCP(UK), SCE(Derm), PhD, said in providing an independent comment for this news organization.

“Although ruxolitinib cream is applied on the skin, this novel treatment for vitiligo is not without risks; therefore, careful monitoring of patients who are started on this topical treatment would be prudent,” said Dr. Eleftheriadou, who is a consultant dermatologist for Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust and the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.

“I would like to see how many patients achieved VASI-75 or VASI-80 score, which from patients’ perspectives is a more meaningful outcome, as well as how long these results will last for,” she added.

The study was funded by Incyte Corporation. Dr. Passeron has received grants, honoraria, or both from AbbVie, ACM Pharma, Almirall, Amgen, Astellas, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Galderma, Genzyme/Sanofi, GlaxoSmithKline, Incyte Corporation, Janssen, LEO Pharma, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Sun Pharmaceuticals, and UCB. Dr. Passeron is the cofounder of YUKIN Therapeutics and has patents on WNT agonists or GSK2b antagonist for repigmentation of vitiligo and on the use of CXCR3B blockers in vitiligo. Dr. Eleftheriadou is an investigator and trial development group member on the HI-Light Vitiligo Trial (specific), a lead investigator on the pilot HI-Light Vitiligo Trial, and a medical advisory panel member of the Vitiligo Society UK. Dr. Eleftheriadou also provides consultancy services to Incyte and Pfizer.

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

Some pediatricians believe that molluscum contagiosum (MC) should not be treated because they usually self-resolve in 6-18 months, but Rebecca Smith, MD, sees things differently.

“If you don’t treat them, they’re going to spread,” Dr. Smith, who practices dermatology in Fort Mill, S.C., said at Medscape Live’s annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium. “They’re going to be itchy, they can spread on the patient themselves and then to others, and they can cause scarring. The prevalence is anywhere from 5% to 11%. That means there are 6 million patients out there, just waiting to come into your clinics.”

To date, no treatment has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for MC, although a laundry list of agents have been tried, including cantharidin; cryotherapy; curettage with and without imiquimod; sinecatechins ointment, 15%; imiquimod; and retinoids. And there are several treatments that are being investigated.

A 2017 Cochrane review of 22 studies involving 1,650 patients demonstrated that no single intervention has been consistently effective in treating MC. “Most of the studies were actually very low quality,” said Dr. Smith, who was not involved with the analysis. “The one high quality study showed that imiquimod did not work any better than its vehicle.”
 

Investigational treatments

One of the products in the pipeline is VP-102, a proprietary drug-device combination of cantharidin 0.7% administered through a single-use precision applicator, which has been evaluated in phase 3 studies of patients with molluscum aged 2 years and older. It features a visualization agent so that the person applying the drug can see which lesions have been treated. It also contains a bittering agent to mitigate oral ingestion by children.

Courtesy Dr. Sarah Cipriano

VP-102, which is being developed by Verrica Pharmaceuticals, is applied once every 21 days in up to 4 applications, and multiple lesions can be treated with one applicator. “It’s a stable concentration with a good shelf life, and two phase 3 randomized studies have shown about a 50% complete clearance of new and existing lesions at day 84,” Dr. Smith said. Those studies enrolled children and adults.

A separate analysis of the same data presented at a meeting in 2019 showed that 77% of patients treated with VP-102 achieved greater than 75% clearance, while 65.8% achieved more than 90% clearance.

The new kid on the block is a gel formulation of a nitric oxide–releasing medication, berdazimer 10.3%, a first-in-class topical treatment being developed by Novan, which can be applied at home. In a multicenter study published in JAMA Dermatology, researchers randomized 444 patients to berdazimer gel 10.3% and 447 to a placebo gel, applied once daily in a thin layer on all MC lesions for 12 weeks. The study was conducted at 55 clinics across the United States between Sept. 1, 2020, and July 21, 2021. The mean age of the patients was about 6.5 years and participants had 3-70 raised MC lesions; those with sexually transmitted MC or MC in the periocular area were excluded. The primary endpoint was complete clearance of MC lesions after 12 weeks of treatment.

At 12 weeks, significantly more patients treated with berdazimer gel achieved complete clearance than those on vehicle (32.4% vs. 19.7%; P < .001). A total of 64 (14.4%) patients in the berdazimer group discontinued treatment because of MC clearance, compared with 40 patients (8.9%) in the vehicle group.

More recently, investigators evaluated autoinoculation vs. 35% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) for the treatment of MC. Autoinoculation involves puncturing the perilesional and lesional skin 5-7 times with an insulin syringe. “This gets a little bit of the virus into the dermis, and you hope to elicit an immune response,” explained Dr. Smith, who was not involved with the study. At 3 months, 80% of patients in the autoinoculation group achieved complete clearance, compared with 62% of those in the TCA group, while recurrence at 6 months was 3% vs. 40%, respectively.

Manual extraction of MC lesions is another option. “I love to pop the cores out with my thumbs,” Dr. Smith said. “You have to pick the patients who can tolerate this, and the MC lesions need to be ripe and ready.”

For ophthalmic lesions, watchful waiting is advisable unless the MC lesions are symptomatic or bothersome or large lesions form on the lid margin, which may cause ocular irritation or even a corneal abrasion. “If a patient presents with a multisite infection that includes ocular lesions, treat lesions on other parts of the body and keep your fingers crossed that a systemic immune response occurs,” she said.

The desired immune response is known as the “BOTE” sign (the beginning of the end), which heralds the clearance of the molluscum infection. This often appears as reddening of all the MC lesions and occasionally as a granulomatous “id-like” reaction especially on the extensor elbows and knees. “When this happens, it often scares the patients,” Dr. Smith said. But she explains that this is a positive development, and that “this means that the lesions are about to self-resolve.”

Dr. Smith disclosed that she serves as a speaker or a member of the speakers bureau for Amgen, CeraVe, EPI, Galderma, InCyte, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Sun. She also serves as an advisor or consultant for Janssen, Lilly, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Some pediatricians believe that molluscum contagiosum (MC) should not be treated because they usually self-resolve in 6-18 months, but Rebecca Smith, MD, sees things differently.

“If you don’t treat them, they’re going to spread,” Dr. Smith, who practices dermatology in Fort Mill, S.C., said at Medscape Live’s annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium. “They’re going to be itchy, they can spread on the patient themselves and then to others, and they can cause scarring. The prevalence is anywhere from 5% to 11%. That means there are 6 million patients out there, just waiting to come into your clinics.”

To date, no treatment has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for MC, although a laundry list of agents have been tried, including cantharidin; cryotherapy; curettage with and without imiquimod; sinecatechins ointment, 15%; imiquimod; and retinoids. And there are several treatments that are being investigated.

A 2017 Cochrane review of 22 studies involving 1,650 patients demonstrated that no single intervention has been consistently effective in treating MC. “Most of the studies were actually very low quality,” said Dr. Smith, who was not involved with the analysis. “The one high quality study showed that imiquimod did not work any better than its vehicle.”
 

Investigational treatments

One of the products in the pipeline is VP-102, a proprietary drug-device combination of cantharidin 0.7% administered through a single-use precision applicator, which has been evaluated in phase 3 studies of patients with molluscum aged 2 years and older. It features a visualization agent so that the person applying the drug can see which lesions have been treated. It also contains a bittering agent to mitigate oral ingestion by children.

Courtesy Dr. Sarah Cipriano

VP-102, which is being developed by Verrica Pharmaceuticals, is applied once every 21 days in up to 4 applications, and multiple lesions can be treated with one applicator. “It’s a stable concentration with a good shelf life, and two phase 3 randomized studies have shown about a 50% complete clearance of new and existing lesions at day 84,” Dr. Smith said. Those studies enrolled children and adults.

A separate analysis of the same data presented at a meeting in 2019 showed that 77% of patients treated with VP-102 achieved greater than 75% clearance, while 65.8% achieved more than 90% clearance.

The new kid on the block is a gel formulation of a nitric oxide–releasing medication, berdazimer 10.3%, a first-in-class topical treatment being developed by Novan, which can be applied at home. In a multicenter study published in JAMA Dermatology, researchers randomized 444 patients to berdazimer gel 10.3% and 447 to a placebo gel, applied once daily in a thin layer on all MC lesions for 12 weeks. The study was conducted at 55 clinics across the United States between Sept. 1, 2020, and July 21, 2021. The mean age of the patients was about 6.5 years and participants had 3-70 raised MC lesions; those with sexually transmitted MC or MC in the periocular area were excluded. The primary endpoint was complete clearance of MC lesions after 12 weeks of treatment.

At 12 weeks, significantly more patients treated with berdazimer gel achieved complete clearance than those on vehicle (32.4% vs. 19.7%; P < .001). A total of 64 (14.4%) patients in the berdazimer group discontinued treatment because of MC clearance, compared with 40 patients (8.9%) in the vehicle group.

More recently, investigators evaluated autoinoculation vs. 35% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) for the treatment of MC. Autoinoculation involves puncturing the perilesional and lesional skin 5-7 times with an insulin syringe. “This gets a little bit of the virus into the dermis, and you hope to elicit an immune response,” explained Dr. Smith, who was not involved with the study. At 3 months, 80% of patients in the autoinoculation group achieved complete clearance, compared with 62% of those in the TCA group, while recurrence at 6 months was 3% vs. 40%, respectively.

Manual extraction of MC lesions is another option. “I love to pop the cores out with my thumbs,” Dr. Smith said. “You have to pick the patients who can tolerate this, and the MC lesions need to be ripe and ready.”

For ophthalmic lesions, watchful waiting is advisable unless the MC lesions are symptomatic or bothersome or large lesions form on the lid margin, which may cause ocular irritation or even a corneal abrasion. “If a patient presents with a multisite infection that includes ocular lesions, treat lesions on other parts of the body and keep your fingers crossed that a systemic immune response occurs,” she said.

The desired immune response is known as the “BOTE” sign (the beginning of the end), which heralds the clearance of the molluscum infection. This often appears as reddening of all the MC lesions and occasionally as a granulomatous “id-like” reaction especially on the extensor elbows and knees. “When this happens, it often scares the patients,” Dr. Smith said. But she explains that this is a positive development, and that “this means that the lesions are about to self-resolve.”

Dr. Smith disclosed that she serves as a speaker or a member of the speakers bureau for Amgen, CeraVe, EPI, Galderma, InCyte, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Sun. She also serves as an advisor or consultant for Janssen, Lilly, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

Some pediatricians believe that molluscum contagiosum (MC) should not be treated because they usually self-resolve in 6-18 months, but Rebecca Smith, MD, sees things differently.

“If you don’t treat them, they’re going to spread,” Dr. Smith, who practices dermatology in Fort Mill, S.C., said at Medscape Live’s annual Coastal Dermatology Symposium. “They’re going to be itchy, they can spread on the patient themselves and then to others, and they can cause scarring. The prevalence is anywhere from 5% to 11%. That means there are 6 million patients out there, just waiting to come into your clinics.”

To date, no treatment has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for MC, although a laundry list of agents have been tried, including cantharidin; cryotherapy; curettage with and without imiquimod; sinecatechins ointment, 15%; imiquimod; and retinoids. And there are several treatments that are being investigated.

A 2017 Cochrane review of 22 studies involving 1,650 patients demonstrated that no single intervention has been consistently effective in treating MC. “Most of the studies were actually very low quality,” said Dr. Smith, who was not involved with the analysis. “The one high quality study showed that imiquimod did not work any better than its vehicle.”
 

Investigational treatments

One of the products in the pipeline is VP-102, a proprietary drug-device combination of cantharidin 0.7% administered through a single-use precision applicator, which has been evaluated in phase 3 studies of patients with molluscum aged 2 years and older. It features a visualization agent so that the person applying the drug can see which lesions have been treated. It also contains a bittering agent to mitigate oral ingestion by children.

Courtesy Dr. Sarah Cipriano

VP-102, which is being developed by Verrica Pharmaceuticals, is applied once every 21 days in up to 4 applications, and multiple lesions can be treated with one applicator. “It’s a stable concentration with a good shelf life, and two phase 3 randomized studies have shown about a 50% complete clearance of new and existing lesions at day 84,” Dr. Smith said. Those studies enrolled children and adults.

A separate analysis of the same data presented at a meeting in 2019 showed that 77% of patients treated with VP-102 achieved greater than 75% clearance, while 65.8% achieved more than 90% clearance.

The new kid on the block is a gel formulation of a nitric oxide–releasing medication, berdazimer 10.3%, a first-in-class topical treatment being developed by Novan, which can be applied at home. In a multicenter study published in JAMA Dermatology, researchers randomized 444 patients to berdazimer gel 10.3% and 447 to a placebo gel, applied once daily in a thin layer on all MC lesions for 12 weeks. The study was conducted at 55 clinics across the United States between Sept. 1, 2020, and July 21, 2021. The mean age of the patients was about 6.5 years and participants had 3-70 raised MC lesions; those with sexually transmitted MC or MC in the periocular area were excluded. The primary endpoint was complete clearance of MC lesions after 12 weeks of treatment.

At 12 weeks, significantly more patients treated with berdazimer gel achieved complete clearance than those on vehicle (32.4% vs. 19.7%; P < .001). A total of 64 (14.4%) patients in the berdazimer group discontinued treatment because of MC clearance, compared with 40 patients (8.9%) in the vehicle group.

More recently, investigators evaluated autoinoculation vs. 35% trichloroacetic acid (TCA) for the treatment of MC. Autoinoculation involves puncturing the perilesional and lesional skin 5-7 times with an insulin syringe. “This gets a little bit of the virus into the dermis, and you hope to elicit an immune response,” explained Dr. Smith, who was not involved with the study. At 3 months, 80% of patients in the autoinoculation group achieved complete clearance, compared with 62% of those in the TCA group, while recurrence at 6 months was 3% vs. 40%, respectively.

Manual extraction of MC lesions is another option. “I love to pop the cores out with my thumbs,” Dr. Smith said. “You have to pick the patients who can tolerate this, and the MC lesions need to be ripe and ready.”

For ophthalmic lesions, watchful waiting is advisable unless the MC lesions are symptomatic or bothersome or large lesions form on the lid margin, which may cause ocular irritation or even a corneal abrasion. “If a patient presents with a multisite infection that includes ocular lesions, treat lesions on other parts of the body and keep your fingers crossed that a systemic immune response occurs,” she said.

The desired immune response is known as the “BOTE” sign (the beginning of the end), which heralds the clearance of the molluscum infection. This often appears as reddening of all the MC lesions and occasionally as a granulomatous “id-like” reaction especially on the extensor elbows and knees. “When this happens, it often scares the patients,” Dr. Smith said. But she explains that this is a positive development, and that “this means that the lesions are about to self-resolve.”

Dr. Smith disclosed that she serves as a speaker or a member of the speakers bureau for Amgen, CeraVe, EPI, Galderma, InCyte, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi Genzyme, and Sun. She also serves as an advisor or consultant for Janssen, Lilly, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme.

Medscape Live and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

People with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who are taking immunosuppressants don’t mount as strong of an immune defense against the Omicron variant as they did against the original SARS-CoV-2 wild-type virus, according to two studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. One of the studies further showed that vaccinated individuals taking immunosuppressants have poorer cross-neutralizing responses to Omicron than do healthy vaccinated individuals, even after three doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

“We carefully suggest that if Omicron-specific vaccination can be administered, it may be an effective way to reduce the risk of breakthrough infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease,” Sang Tae Choi, MD, PhD, of the University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and one of the authors of the study on cross-neutralizing protection, told this news organization. “However, further research is needed on Omicron-specific vaccine effectiveness in patients with immune dysfunctions. We believe that these study results can be of great benefit in determining the strategy of vaccination in the future.”

The earlier study, published in July, examined the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to induce cross-reactive antibody responses against Omicron infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs). The observational study involved 149 patients with ARDs and 94 health care workers as controls, all of whom provided blood samples a median 15 weeks after their second COVID vaccine dose or a median 8 weeks after their third dose. A little more than two-thirds of the patients (68.5%) had received a third mRNA vaccine dose. None of the participants previously had COVID-19.

The researchers compared the rate of breakthrough infections with the Omicron variant to the neutralizing responses in patients’ blood, specifically the cross-neutralizing antibody responses because the original mRNA vaccines targeted a different variant than Omicron. Breakthrough infections were assessed by survey questions.

“Our findings suggested that neither primary series vaccinations nor booster doses are sufficient to induce Omicron-neutralizing responses above the threshold in patients with ARDs, although responses were noticeably increased following the third dose of an mRNA vaccine,” write Woo-Joong Kim, of the Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and his colleagues. “This impairment of cross-neutralization responses across most of our patients contrasts starkly with a potent elicitation of the Omicron-neutralizing responses after the third vaccination in healthy recipients.”

The average neutralizing responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain were similar in both groups: 76% in patients with ARDs and 72% in health care workers after the second dose. The mean response after a third dose was 97% in health care workers and 88% in patients.

The average cross-neutralizing response against the Omicron variant was far lower, particularly in those with rheumatic disease: only 11.5%, which rose to 27% after the third dose. Only 39% of the patient sera showed neutralization of Omicron, even after the third dose. Meanwhile, the mean cross-neutralizing response in health care workers was 18% after the second dose and 50% after the third.

When the researchers compared seropositivity rates against the original virus to neutralizing responses against Omicron, the association between these was stronger in health care workers than in those with ARDs. In fact, among patients with ARDs who seroconverted, only 41% showed any response against Omicron. Among all the patients, most of those who didn’t respond to Omicron (93.5%) had initially seroconverted.

The researchers also looked at the ability to neutralize Omicron on the basis of disease in those who received three doses of the vaccine. About half of those with lupus (52%) showed any neutralization against Omicron, compared with 25% of those with rheumatoid arthritis, 37.5% of those with ankylosing spondylitis, 33% of those with Behçet snydrome, and all of those with adult-onset Still’s disease.

The rate of breakthrough infections was lower in patients (19%) than in health care workers (33%). A similar pattern was seen in the more recent study published Sept. 5. Researchers used data from a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands to examine incidence and severity of Omicron breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The researchers compared infection rates and severity among 1,593 vaccinated patients with inflammatory disease who were taking immunosuppressants and 579 vaccinated controls (418 patients with inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 161 healthy controls).

One in five patients with inflammatory disease (21%) were taking immunosuppressants that substantially impair antibodies, such as anti-CD20 therapy, S1P modulators, or mycophenolate mofetil combination therapy, and 48% of these patients seroconverted after primary vaccination, compared with 96% of patients taking other immunosuppressants and 98% of controls.

Breakthrough infection rates were similar between the control group (31%) and those taking immunosuppressants (30%). Only three participants had severe disease requiring hospitalization: one control and two patients taking immunosuppressants.

“In both studies, the controls had similar or higher rates of breakthrough infections, compared with the immunosuppressed,” noted Alfred Kim, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University, St Louis, but he added, “one has to consider differences in mitigation strategies, such as masking, that may explain these findings.” That is, patients taking immunosuppressants may be taking fewer risks in the community or have fewer potential exposures, especially in the Korean study, wherein the controls were health care workers.

A greater disparity in infections occurred when considering seroconversion rates. Breakthrough incidence was 38% among those taking immunosuppressants who did not seroconvert, compared with 29% among those who did. A similar trend was seen in breakthrough incidence between those taking strongly antibody-impairing immunosuppressants (36% breakthrough rate) and those taking other immunosuppressants (28%).

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

People with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who are taking immunosuppressants don’t mount as strong of an immune defense against the Omicron variant as they did against the original SARS-CoV-2 wild-type virus, according to two studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. One of the studies further showed that vaccinated individuals taking immunosuppressants have poorer cross-neutralizing responses to Omicron than do healthy vaccinated individuals, even after three doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

“We carefully suggest that if Omicron-specific vaccination can be administered, it may be an effective way to reduce the risk of breakthrough infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease,” Sang Tae Choi, MD, PhD, of the University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and one of the authors of the study on cross-neutralizing protection, told this news organization. “However, further research is needed on Omicron-specific vaccine effectiveness in patients with immune dysfunctions. We believe that these study results can be of great benefit in determining the strategy of vaccination in the future.”

The earlier study, published in July, examined the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to induce cross-reactive antibody responses against Omicron infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs). The observational study involved 149 patients with ARDs and 94 health care workers as controls, all of whom provided blood samples a median 15 weeks after their second COVID vaccine dose or a median 8 weeks after their third dose. A little more than two-thirds of the patients (68.5%) had received a third mRNA vaccine dose. None of the participants previously had COVID-19.

The researchers compared the rate of breakthrough infections with the Omicron variant to the neutralizing responses in patients’ blood, specifically the cross-neutralizing antibody responses because the original mRNA vaccines targeted a different variant than Omicron. Breakthrough infections were assessed by survey questions.

“Our findings suggested that neither primary series vaccinations nor booster doses are sufficient to induce Omicron-neutralizing responses above the threshold in patients with ARDs, although responses were noticeably increased following the third dose of an mRNA vaccine,” write Woo-Joong Kim, of the Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and his colleagues. “This impairment of cross-neutralization responses across most of our patients contrasts starkly with a potent elicitation of the Omicron-neutralizing responses after the third vaccination in healthy recipients.”

The average neutralizing responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain were similar in both groups: 76% in patients with ARDs and 72% in health care workers after the second dose. The mean response after a third dose was 97% in health care workers and 88% in patients.

The average cross-neutralizing response against the Omicron variant was far lower, particularly in those with rheumatic disease: only 11.5%, which rose to 27% after the third dose. Only 39% of the patient sera showed neutralization of Omicron, even after the third dose. Meanwhile, the mean cross-neutralizing response in health care workers was 18% after the second dose and 50% after the third.

When the researchers compared seropositivity rates against the original virus to neutralizing responses against Omicron, the association between these was stronger in health care workers than in those with ARDs. In fact, among patients with ARDs who seroconverted, only 41% showed any response against Omicron. Among all the patients, most of those who didn’t respond to Omicron (93.5%) had initially seroconverted.

The researchers also looked at the ability to neutralize Omicron on the basis of disease in those who received three doses of the vaccine. About half of those with lupus (52%) showed any neutralization against Omicron, compared with 25% of those with rheumatoid arthritis, 37.5% of those with ankylosing spondylitis, 33% of those with Behçet snydrome, and all of those with adult-onset Still’s disease.

The rate of breakthrough infections was lower in patients (19%) than in health care workers (33%). A similar pattern was seen in the more recent study published Sept. 5. Researchers used data from a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands to examine incidence and severity of Omicron breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The researchers compared infection rates and severity among 1,593 vaccinated patients with inflammatory disease who were taking immunosuppressants and 579 vaccinated controls (418 patients with inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 161 healthy controls).

One in five patients with inflammatory disease (21%) were taking immunosuppressants that substantially impair antibodies, such as anti-CD20 therapy, S1P modulators, or mycophenolate mofetil combination therapy, and 48% of these patients seroconverted after primary vaccination, compared with 96% of patients taking other immunosuppressants and 98% of controls.

Breakthrough infection rates were similar between the control group (31%) and those taking immunosuppressants (30%). Only three participants had severe disease requiring hospitalization: one control and two patients taking immunosuppressants.

“In both studies, the controls had similar or higher rates of breakthrough infections, compared with the immunosuppressed,” noted Alfred Kim, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University, St Louis, but he added, “one has to consider differences in mitigation strategies, such as masking, that may explain these findings.” That is, patients taking immunosuppressants may be taking fewer risks in the community or have fewer potential exposures, especially in the Korean study, wherein the controls were health care workers.

A greater disparity in infections occurred when considering seroconversion rates. Breakthrough incidence was 38% among those taking immunosuppressants who did not seroconvert, compared with 29% among those who did. A similar trend was seen in breakthrough incidence between those taking strongly antibody-impairing immunosuppressants (36% breakthrough rate) and those taking other immunosuppressants (28%).

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

People with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases who are taking immunosuppressants don’t mount as strong of an immune defense against the Omicron variant as they did against the original SARS-CoV-2 wild-type virus, according to two studies published in Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. One of the studies further showed that vaccinated individuals taking immunosuppressants have poorer cross-neutralizing responses to Omicron than do healthy vaccinated individuals, even after three doses of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

filadendron/E+/Getty Images

“We carefully suggest that if Omicron-specific vaccination can be administered, it may be an effective way to reduce the risk of breakthrough infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic disease,” Sang Tae Choi, MD, PhD, of the University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and one of the authors of the study on cross-neutralizing protection, told this news organization. “However, further research is needed on Omicron-specific vaccine effectiveness in patients with immune dysfunctions. We believe that these study results can be of great benefit in determining the strategy of vaccination in the future.”

The earlier study, published in July, examined the ability of COVID-19 vaccines to induce cross-reactive antibody responses against Omicron infections in patients with autoimmune rheumatic diseases (ARDs). The observational study involved 149 patients with ARDs and 94 health care workers as controls, all of whom provided blood samples a median 15 weeks after their second COVID vaccine dose or a median 8 weeks after their third dose. A little more than two-thirds of the patients (68.5%) had received a third mRNA vaccine dose. None of the participants previously had COVID-19.

The researchers compared the rate of breakthrough infections with the Omicron variant to the neutralizing responses in patients’ blood, specifically the cross-neutralizing antibody responses because the original mRNA vaccines targeted a different variant than Omicron. Breakthrough infections were assessed by survey questions.

“Our findings suggested that neither primary series vaccinations nor booster doses are sufficient to induce Omicron-neutralizing responses above the threshold in patients with ARDs, although responses were noticeably increased following the third dose of an mRNA vaccine,” write Woo-Joong Kim, of the Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea, and his colleagues. “This impairment of cross-neutralization responses across most of our patients contrasts starkly with a potent elicitation of the Omicron-neutralizing responses after the third vaccination in healthy recipients.”

The average neutralizing responses against the original SARS-CoV-2 strain were similar in both groups: 76% in patients with ARDs and 72% in health care workers after the second dose. The mean response after a third dose was 97% in health care workers and 88% in patients.

The average cross-neutralizing response against the Omicron variant was far lower, particularly in those with rheumatic disease: only 11.5%, which rose to 27% after the third dose. Only 39% of the patient sera showed neutralization of Omicron, even after the third dose. Meanwhile, the mean cross-neutralizing response in health care workers was 18% after the second dose and 50% after the third.

When the researchers compared seropositivity rates against the original virus to neutralizing responses against Omicron, the association between these was stronger in health care workers than in those with ARDs. In fact, among patients with ARDs who seroconverted, only 41% showed any response against Omicron. Among all the patients, most of those who didn’t respond to Omicron (93.5%) had initially seroconverted.

The researchers also looked at the ability to neutralize Omicron on the basis of disease in those who received three doses of the vaccine. About half of those with lupus (52%) showed any neutralization against Omicron, compared with 25% of those with rheumatoid arthritis, 37.5% of those with ankylosing spondylitis, 33% of those with Behçet snydrome, and all of those with adult-onset Still’s disease.

The rate of breakthrough infections was lower in patients (19%) than in health care workers (33%). A similar pattern was seen in the more recent study published Sept. 5. Researchers used data from a prospective cohort study in the Netherlands to examine incidence and severity of Omicron breakthrough infections in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The researchers compared infection rates and severity among 1,593 vaccinated patients with inflammatory disease who were taking immunosuppressants and 579 vaccinated controls (418 patients with inflammatory disease not on immunosuppressants and 161 healthy controls).

One in five patients with inflammatory disease (21%) were taking immunosuppressants that substantially impair antibodies, such as anti-CD20 therapy, S1P modulators, or mycophenolate mofetil combination therapy, and 48% of these patients seroconverted after primary vaccination, compared with 96% of patients taking other immunosuppressants and 98% of controls.

Breakthrough infection rates were similar between the control group (31%) and those taking immunosuppressants (30%). Only three participants had severe disease requiring hospitalization: one control and two patients taking immunosuppressants.

“In both studies, the controls had similar or higher rates of breakthrough infections, compared with the immunosuppressed,” noted Alfred Kim, MD, an assistant professor of medicine at Washington University, St Louis, but he added, “one has to consider differences in mitigation strategies, such as masking, that may explain these findings.” That is, patients taking immunosuppressants may be taking fewer risks in the community or have fewer potential exposures, especially in the Korean study, wherein the controls were health care workers.

A greater disparity in infections occurred when considering seroconversion rates. Breakthrough incidence was 38% among those taking immunosuppressants who did not seroconvert, compared with 29% among those who did. A similar trend was seen in breakthrough incidence between those taking strongly antibody-impairing immunosuppressants (36% breakthrough rate) and those taking other immunosuppressants (28%).

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics says children with head lice don’t need to be sent home from school.

Head lice infestations aren’t really a health hazard because of low transmission rates, a new report from the academy says, and sending students home “may stigmatize children suspected of having head lice.” The group says schools should instead offer education programs to help families understand how to manage head lice.

“Head lice are an unpleasant part of the human experience, but they can be successfully managed and are no reason for a child to miss school,” Dawn Nolt, MD, lead author of the report on head lice, said in a news release.

The report advises schools to abandon “no-nit” policies, which call for a student to be lice-free before being allowed back in class.

“A child or adolescent should not be restricted from school attendance because of head lice, given the low contagion within classrooms. ‘No-nit’ policies that exclude children or adolescents until all nits are removed may violate a child’s or adolescent’s civil liberties and are best addressed with legal counsel for schools,” the report says.

The report notes that lice almost always spread through head-to-head contact, not by “jumping” from one person to another. It’s possible for lice to spread by touching the belongings of a person with lice, such as combs or sports helmets, but the chances of that happening are very low, the academy said.

“Lice found on combs are likely to be injured or dead, and a louse is not likely to leave a healthy head unless there is a heavy infestation,” the report says.

The report lists new medications for treatment and gives an algorithm for managing head lice cases.

“The ideal treatment of head lice should be safe, free of toxic chemicals, readily available, simple to apply, effective, and inexpensive,” the report says.

This is the first updated guidance on head lice from the American Academy of Pediatrics since 2015. The CDC also says students with head lice don’t need to be sent home.

“Students diagnosed with live head lice do not need to be sent home early from school; they can go home at the end of the day, be treated, and return to class after appropriate treatment has begun. Nits may persist after treatment, but successful treatment should kill crawling lice,” the CDC says. 

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics says children with head lice don’t need to be sent home from school.

Head lice infestations aren’t really a health hazard because of low transmission rates, a new report from the academy says, and sending students home “may stigmatize children suspected of having head lice.” The group says schools should instead offer education programs to help families understand how to manage head lice.

“Head lice are an unpleasant part of the human experience, but they can be successfully managed and are no reason for a child to miss school,” Dawn Nolt, MD, lead author of the report on head lice, said in a news release.

The report advises schools to abandon “no-nit” policies, which call for a student to be lice-free before being allowed back in class.

“A child or adolescent should not be restricted from school attendance because of head lice, given the low contagion within classrooms. ‘No-nit’ policies that exclude children or adolescents until all nits are removed may violate a child’s or adolescent’s civil liberties and are best addressed with legal counsel for schools,” the report says.

The report notes that lice almost always spread through head-to-head contact, not by “jumping” from one person to another. It’s possible for lice to spread by touching the belongings of a person with lice, such as combs or sports helmets, but the chances of that happening are very low, the academy said.

“Lice found on combs are likely to be injured or dead, and a louse is not likely to leave a healthy head unless there is a heavy infestation,” the report says.

The report lists new medications for treatment and gives an algorithm for managing head lice cases.

“The ideal treatment of head lice should be safe, free of toxic chemicals, readily available, simple to apply, effective, and inexpensive,” the report says.

This is the first updated guidance on head lice from the American Academy of Pediatrics since 2015. The CDC also says students with head lice don’t need to be sent home.

“Students diagnosed with live head lice do not need to be sent home early from school; they can go home at the end of the day, be treated, and return to class after appropriate treatment has begun. Nits may persist after treatment, but successful treatment should kill crawling lice,” the CDC says. 

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

The American Academy of Pediatrics says children with head lice don’t need to be sent home from school.

Head lice infestations aren’t really a health hazard because of low transmission rates, a new report from the academy says, and sending students home “may stigmatize children suspected of having head lice.” The group says schools should instead offer education programs to help families understand how to manage head lice.

“Head lice are an unpleasant part of the human experience, but they can be successfully managed and are no reason for a child to miss school,” Dawn Nolt, MD, lead author of the report on head lice, said in a news release.

The report advises schools to abandon “no-nit” policies, which call for a student to be lice-free before being allowed back in class.

“A child or adolescent should not be restricted from school attendance because of head lice, given the low contagion within classrooms. ‘No-nit’ policies that exclude children or adolescents until all nits are removed may violate a child’s or adolescent’s civil liberties and are best addressed with legal counsel for schools,” the report says.

The report notes that lice almost always spread through head-to-head contact, not by “jumping” from one person to another. It’s possible for lice to spread by touching the belongings of a person with lice, such as combs or sports helmets, but the chances of that happening are very low, the academy said.

“Lice found on combs are likely to be injured or dead, and a louse is not likely to leave a healthy head unless there is a heavy infestation,” the report says.

The report lists new medications for treatment and gives an algorithm for managing head lice cases.

“The ideal treatment of head lice should be safe, free of toxic chemicals, readily available, simple to apply, effective, and inexpensive,” the report says.

This is the first updated guidance on head lice from the American Academy of Pediatrics since 2015. The CDC also says students with head lice don’t need to be sent home.

“Students diagnosed with live head lice do not need to be sent home early from school; they can go home at the end of the day, be treated, and return to class after appropriate treatment has begun. Nits may persist after treatment, but successful treatment should kill crawling lice,” the CDC says. 

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

For Tara Lagu, MD, the realization that the health care system was broken for patients with disabilities came when a woman she had been treating seemed to keep ignoring Dr. Lagu’s request to see a urologist.

When Dr. Lagu asked the patient’s two attentive daughters about the delay, their response surprised her. The women said they couldn’t find a urologist who was willing to see a patient in a wheelchair.

Ingram/thinkstock

Surprised and a bit doubtful, Dr. Lagu checked around. She found that, indeed, the only way to get her patient in to see the type of physician required was to send her by ambulance.

“It opened my eyes to how hard it is for patients with disabilities to navigate the health care system,” Dr. Lagu said.

Dr. Lagu, director of the Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research at Northwestern University in Chicago, decided to take a closer look at how her colleagues in medicine care for – or not, as the case proved – the roughly one in four American adults, and millions of children, with disabilities.

In a series of three focus groups, Dr. Lagu and colleagues identified a range of obstacles – including some physician attitudes – that prevent people with disabilities from getting adequate care.

Lack of experience, logistics often cited

Some physicians admitted that limited resources and training left them without the space and necessary knowledge to properly care for patients with disabilities. They felt they lacked the expertise or exposure to care for individuals with disabilities, nor did they have enough time and space to properly accommodate these patients, according to the researchers. Some said they struggled to coordinate care for individuals with disabilities and did not know which types of accessible equipment, such as adjustable tables and chair scales, were needed or how to use them.

Several physicians also noted that they are inadequately reimbursed for the special accommodations – including additional staff, equipment, and time – required to care for these patients. One primary care physician said he hired a sign-language interpreter for a patient but the bill for the services exceeded the amount insurance reimbursed. As a result, he said, he spent $30 of his own money per visit to see the patient.

Because of these limitations, some physicians in the focus groups said they try to turn away patients with disabilities. Both specialists and general practitioners said they had told patients with disabilities that they didn’t feel they could provide the care needed, and suggested they look elsewhere. A few were surprisingly – even upsettingly – honest, Dr. Lagu said, making statements such as: “I am not the doctor for you.”
 

‘We really need a rewrite’

Previous work has shown that people with disabilities have worse health outcomes, such as undetected cancer, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.

But “the disability itself isn’t what leads to worse outcomes,” said Allison Kessler, MD, section chief of the Renée Crown Center for Spinal Cord Innovation and associate director of the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab in Chicago*. This study does a good job at highlighting “the need for change on multiple levels,” said Dr. Kessler, who was not a member of the study team.

“People with disabilities have all these disparities in access and outcomes. We’ve never understood why. I think the why is complicated,” Dr. Lagu added. “I think this study suggests some of the negative outcomes are due to explicit bias.”

“It’s also clear that the current framework of health care in the United States does not lend to allowing physicians and medical providers the time needed to adequately address patient issues – those with disabilities or just multiple complex problems,” Colin O’Reilly, DO, vice president and chief medical officer at Children’s Specialized Hospital, an acute rehabilitation facility affiliated with RWJBarnabas Health, in New Brunswick, N.J. “We really need a rewrite.”

However, Dr. O’Reilly said, such a small study population with no control group and no mention of physician resources makes it difficult to come to a strong conclusion about physician bias and discriminatory attitudes against individuals with disabilities.

Dr. Lagu agreed, saying this research “is not conclusive in any way.” The excuses doctors use to discharge patients with disabilities, such as “we don’t accept your insurance,” “we aren’t taking new patients,” and “we can’t provide you with the appropriate care,” could be legitimate, the study authors wrote. But the “disparities in care for people with disabilities suggest that there is a pattern of more frequently denying care to them than people without a disability,” they added.

Dr. Kessler said many of her patients have told her they experience barriers to care. Some say finding an office with the necessary equipment is a challenge or that they often don’t feel welcome.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all public and private places that are open to the general public, including medical offices.

“It is difficult to enforce the ADA in medical settings,” the researchers noted. “Explanations physicians gave in this study could, for any single case of denying care, be legitimate.” Knowing whether a particular instance of denial of care represents discrimination related to disability is “nearly impossible,” they wrote.

All the experts agreed that the study adds valuable insight into an ongoing health disparity. And while system and policy changes are required, Dr. Kessler said, individual physicians can take steps to improve the situation.

A physician in an academic setting can look at the curriculum and the medical school and see about increasing exposure to patients with disabilities earlier in training. In a practice, physicians can retrain staff to ask every patient if an accommodation is needed. “Each one of those changes can only help us move our system in the right direction,” Dr. Kessler said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

*Correction, 10/5/22: This article includes a corrected title for Dr. Allison Kessler.

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

For Tara Lagu, MD, the realization that the health care system was broken for patients with disabilities came when a woman she had been treating seemed to keep ignoring Dr. Lagu’s request to see a urologist.

When Dr. Lagu asked the patient’s two attentive daughters about the delay, their response surprised her. The women said they couldn’t find a urologist who was willing to see a patient in a wheelchair.

Ingram/thinkstock

Surprised and a bit doubtful, Dr. Lagu checked around. She found that, indeed, the only way to get her patient in to see the type of physician required was to send her by ambulance.

“It opened my eyes to how hard it is for patients with disabilities to navigate the health care system,” Dr. Lagu said.

Dr. Lagu, director of the Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research at Northwestern University in Chicago, decided to take a closer look at how her colleagues in medicine care for – or not, as the case proved – the roughly one in four American adults, and millions of children, with disabilities.

In a series of three focus groups, Dr. Lagu and colleagues identified a range of obstacles – including some physician attitudes – that prevent people with disabilities from getting adequate care.

Lack of experience, logistics often cited

Some physicians admitted that limited resources and training left them without the space and necessary knowledge to properly care for patients with disabilities. They felt they lacked the expertise or exposure to care for individuals with disabilities, nor did they have enough time and space to properly accommodate these patients, according to the researchers. Some said they struggled to coordinate care for individuals with disabilities and did not know which types of accessible equipment, such as adjustable tables and chair scales, were needed or how to use them.

Several physicians also noted that they are inadequately reimbursed for the special accommodations – including additional staff, equipment, and time – required to care for these patients. One primary care physician said he hired a sign-language interpreter for a patient but the bill for the services exceeded the amount insurance reimbursed. As a result, he said, he spent $30 of his own money per visit to see the patient.

Because of these limitations, some physicians in the focus groups said they try to turn away patients with disabilities. Both specialists and general practitioners said they had told patients with disabilities that they didn’t feel they could provide the care needed, and suggested they look elsewhere. A few were surprisingly – even upsettingly – honest, Dr. Lagu said, making statements such as: “I am not the doctor for you.”
 

‘We really need a rewrite’

Previous work has shown that people with disabilities have worse health outcomes, such as undetected cancer, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.

But “the disability itself isn’t what leads to worse outcomes,” said Allison Kessler, MD, section chief of the Renée Crown Center for Spinal Cord Innovation and associate director of the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab in Chicago*. This study does a good job at highlighting “the need for change on multiple levels,” said Dr. Kessler, who was not a member of the study team.

“People with disabilities have all these disparities in access and outcomes. We’ve never understood why. I think the why is complicated,” Dr. Lagu added. “I think this study suggests some of the negative outcomes are due to explicit bias.”

“It’s also clear that the current framework of health care in the United States does not lend to allowing physicians and medical providers the time needed to adequately address patient issues – those with disabilities or just multiple complex problems,” Colin O’Reilly, DO, vice president and chief medical officer at Children’s Specialized Hospital, an acute rehabilitation facility affiliated with RWJBarnabas Health, in New Brunswick, N.J. “We really need a rewrite.”

However, Dr. O’Reilly said, such a small study population with no control group and no mention of physician resources makes it difficult to come to a strong conclusion about physician bias and discriminatory attitudes against individuals with disabilities.

Dr. Lagu agreed, saying this research “is not conclusive in any way.” The excuses doctors use to discharge patients with disabilities, such as “we don’t accept your insurance,” “we aren’t taking new patients,” and “we can’t provide you with the appropriate care,” could be legitimate, the study authors wrote. But the “disparities in care for people with disabilities suggest that there is a pattern of more frequently denying care to them than people without a disability,” they added.

Dr. Kessler said many of her patients have told her they experience barriers to care. Some say finding an office with the necessary equipment is a challenge or that they often don’t feel welcome.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all public and private places that are open to the general public, including medical offices.

“It is difficult to enforce the ADA in medical settings,” the researchers noted. “Explanations physicians gave in this study could, for any single case of denying care, be legitimate.” Knowing whether a particular instance of denial of care represents discrimination related to disability is “nearly impossible,” they wrote.

All the experts agreed that the study adds valuable insight into an ongoing health disparity. And while system and policy changes are required, Dr. Kessler said, individual physicians can take steps to improve the situation.

A physician in an academic setting can look at the curriculum and the medical school and see about increasing exposure to patients with disabilities earlier in training. In a practice, physicians can retrain staff to ask every patient if an accommodation is needed. “Each one of those changes can only help us move our system in the right direction,” Dr. Kessler said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

*Correction, 10/5/22: This article includes a corrected title for Dr. Allison Kessler.

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

For Tara Lagu, MD, the realization that the health care system was broken for patients with disabilities came when a woman she had been treating seemed to keep ignoring Dr. Lagu’s request to see a urologist.

When Dr. Lagu asked the patient’s two attentive daughters about the delay, their response surprised her. The women said they couldn’t find a urologist who was willing to see a patient in a wheelchair.

Ingram/thinkstock

Surprised and a bit doubtful, Dr. Lagu checked around. She found that, indeed, the only way to get her patient in to see the type of physician required was to send her by ambulance.

“It opened my eyes to how hard it is for patients with disabilities to navigate the health care system,” Dr. Lagu said.

Dr. Lagu, director of the Center for Health Services and Outcomes Research at Northwestern University in Chicago, decided to take a closer look at how her colleagues in medicine care for – or not, as the case proved – the roughly one in four American adults, and millions of children, with disabilities.

In a series of three focus groups, Dr. Lagu and colleagues identified a range of obstacles – including some physician attitudes – that prevent people with disabilities from getting adequate care.

Lack of experience, logistics often cited

Some physicians admitted that limited resources and training left them without the space and necessary knowledge to properly care for patients with disabilities. They felt they lacked the expertise or exposure to care for individuals with disabilities, nor did they have enough time and space to properly accommodate these patients, according to the researchers. Some said they struggled to coordinate care for individuals with disabilities and did not know which types of accessible equipment, such as adjustable tables and chair scales, were needed or how to use them.

Several physicians also noted that they are inadequately reimbursed for the special accommodations – including additional staff, equipment, and time – required to care for these patients. One primary care physician said he hired a sign-language interpreter for a patient but the bill for the services exceeded the amount insurance reimbursed. As a result, he said, he spent $30 of his own money per visit to see the patient.

Because of these limitations, some physicians in the focus groups said they try to turn away patients with disabilities. Both specialists and general practitioners said they had told patients with disabilities that they didn’t feel they could provide the care needed, and suggested they look elsewhere. A few were surprisingly – even upsettingly – honest, Dr. Lagu said, making statements such as: “I am not the doctor for you.”
 

‘We really need a rewrite’

Previous work has shown that people with disabilities have worse health outcomes, such as undetected cancer, obesity, and cardiovascular disease.

But “the disability itself isn’t what leads to worse outcomes,” said Allison Kessler, MD, section chief of the Renée Crown Center for Spinal Cord Innovation and associate director of the Shirley Ryan AbilityLab in Chicago*. This study does a good job at highlighting “the need for change on multiple levels,” said Dr. Kessler, who was not a member of the study team.

“People with disabilities have all these disparities in access and outcomes. We’ve never understood why. I think the why is complicated,” Dr. Lagu added. “I think this study suggests some of the negative outcomes are due to explicit bias.”

“It’s also clear that the current framework of health care in the United States does not lend to allowing physicians and medical providers the time needed to adequately address patient issues – those with disabilities or just multiple complex problems,” Colin O’Reilly, DO, vice president and chief medical officer at Children’s Specialized Hospital, an acute rehabilitation facility affiliated with RWJBarnabas Health, in New Brunswick, N.J. “We really need a rewrite.”

However, Dr. O’Reilly said, such a small study population with no control group and no mention of physician resources makes it difficult to come to a strong conclusion about physician bias and discriminatory attitudes against individuals with disabilities.

Dr. Lagu agreed, saying this research “is not conclusive in any way.” The excuses doctors use to discharge patients with disabilities, such as “we don’t accept your insurance,” “we aren’t taking new patients,” and “we can’t provide you with the appropriate care,” could be legitimate, the study authors wrote. But the “disparities in care for people with disabilities suggest that there is a pattern of more frequently denying care to them than people without a disability,” they added.

Dr. Kessler said many of her patients have told her they experience barriers to care. Some say finding an office with the necessary equipment is a challenge or that they often don’t feel welcome.

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) is a federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities in all public and private places that are open to the general public, including medical offices.

“It is difficult to enforce the ADA in medical settings,” the researchers noted. “Explanations physicians gave in this study could, for any single case of denying care, be legitimate.” Knowing whether a particular instance of denial of care represents discrimination related to disability is “nearly impossible,” they wrote.

All the experts agreed that the study adds valuable insight into an ongoing health disparity. And while system and policy changes are required, Dr. Kessler said, individual physicians can take steps to improve the situation.

A physician in an academic setting can look at the curriculum and the medical school and see about increasing exposure to patients with disabilities earlier in training. In a practice, physicians can retrain staff to ask every patient if an accommodation is needed. “Each one of those changes can only help us move our system in the right direction,” Dr. Kessler said.

The study was supported by a grant from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

*Correction, 10/5/22: This article includes a corrected title for Dr. Allison Kessler.

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

The Diagnosis: Secondary Syphilis

Histopathology revealed a lichenoid interface dermatitis with psoriasiform hyperplasia (Figure 1A). A single spirochete was identified using immunohistochemical staining (Figure 1B). Laboratory workup revealed positive IgG and IgM treponemal antibodies and reactive rapid plasma reagin titer of 1:2048. A VDRL test performed on a cerebrospinal fluid specimen also was reactive at 1:8. A diagnosis of secondary syphilis with neurologic involvement was made, and the patient was treated with intravenous penicillin G for 14 days. Following treatment, his rapid plasma reagin decreased 4-fold with an improvement in his ocular and cutaneous symptoms.

Mucocutaneus manifestations of secondary syphilis are multitudinous. As in our patient, the classic presentation is a generalized morbilliform and papulosquamous eruption involving the palms (Figure 2) and soles. Split papules at the oral commissures, mucosal patches, and condyloma lata are the characteristic mucosal lesions of secondary syphilis.¹ Patchy nonscarring alopecia is not uncommon and can be the only manifestation of secondary syphilis.² The histopathologic features of secondary syphilis vary depending on the location and type of the skin eruption. Psoriasiform or lichenoid changes commonly occur in the epidermis and dermoepidermal junction.³ The dermal inflammatory patterns that have been described include granulomatous, nodular, and superficial and deep perivascular inflammation. The infiltrate often is composed of lymphocytes, plasma cells, and histocytes. Reactive endothelial cells and perineural plasma cell infiltrates also are common histologic features.^3,4 Spirochetes can be identified in most cases using immunohistochemical staining; however, the absence of spirochetes does not exclude syphilis.³ The sensitivity of immunohistochemical staining in secondary syphilis is reported to be 71% to 100% with a very high specificity.⁵ The treatment for all stages of syphilis is benzathine penicillin G, and the route of administration and duration of treatment depend on the stage of disease.⁶

A broad differential diagnosis must be considered when encountering skin eruptions in patients with HIV. Psoriasis usually presents as circumscribed erythematous plaques with dry and silvery scaling and a predilection for the extensor surfaces of the limbs, sacrum, scalp, and nails. Nail manifestations include distal onycholysis, irregular pitting, oil spots, salmon patches, and subungual hyperkeratosis. Alopecia occasionally may be seen within scalp lesions⁷; however, the constellation of alopecia with a moth-eaten appearance, subungual hyperkeratosis, papulosquamous eruption, and split papules was more suggestive of secondary syphilis in our patient. In immunocompromised patients, crusted scabies can be considered for the diagnosis of papulosquamous eruptions involving the palms and soles. It often presents with symmetric, mildly pruritic, psoriasiform dermatitis that favors acral sites, but widespread involvement can be observed.⁸ Areas of the scalp and face can be affected in infants, elderly patients, and immunocompromised individuals. Unlike in secondary syphilis, patchy alopecia, split papules, and ocular symptoms typically are not observed in scabies.

Sarcoidosis is common in Black individuals, and similar to syphilis, it is considered a great imitator of other dermatologic diseases. Frequently, it presents as redviolaceous papules, nodules, or plaques; however, rare variants including psoriasiform, ichthyosiform, verrucous, and lichenoid skin eruptions can occur. Nail dystrophy, split papules, and alopecia also have been observed.⁹ Ocular involvement is common and frequently presents as uveitis.¹⁰ The pathologic hallmark of sarcoidosis is noncaseating granulomatous inflammation, which also may occur in syphilitic lesions⁹; however, a papulosquamous eruption involving the palms and soles, positive serology, and the finding of interface lichenoid dermatitis with psoriasiform hyperplasia confirmed the diagnosis of secondary syphilis in our patient. Pityriasis rubra pilaris is a rare papulosquamous disorder that can be associated with HIV (type VI/HIVassociated follicular syndrome). It presents with generalized red-orange keratotic papules and often is associated with acne conglobata, hidradenitis suppurativa, and lichen spinulosus.¹¹ Unlike in secondary syphilis, patchy alopecia, split papules, and ocular symptoms typically are not observed in pityriasis rubra pilaris.

This case highlights many classical findings of secondary syphilis and demonstrates that, while helpful, routine skin biopsy may not be required. Treatment should be guided by clinical presentation and serologic testing while reserving skin biopsy for equivocal cases.

The Diagnosis: Secondary Syphilis

Histopathology revealed a lichenoid interface dermatitis with psoriasiform hyperplasia (Figure 1A). A single spirochete was identified using immunohistochemical staining (Figure 1B). Laboratory workup revealed positive IgG and IgM treponemal antibodies and reactive rapid plasma reagin titer of 1:2048. A VDRL test performed on a cerebrospinal fluid specimen also was reactive at 1:8. A diagnosis of secondary syphilis with neurologic involvement was made, and the patient was treated with intravenous penicillin G for 14 days. Following treatment, his rapid plasma reagin decreased 4-fold with an improvement in his ocular and cutaneous symptoms.

Mucocutaneus manifestations of secondary syphilis are multitudinous. As in our patient, the classic presentation is a generalized morbilliform and papulosquamous eruption involving the palms (Figure 2) and soles. Split papules at the oral commissures, mucosal patches, and condyloma lata are the characteristic mucosal lesions of secondary syphilis.¹ Patchy nonscarring alopecia is not uncommon and can be the only manifestation of secondary syphilis.² The histopathologic features of secondary syphilis vary depending on the location and type of the skin eruption. Psoriasiform or lichenoid changes commonly occur in the epidermis and dermoepidermal junction.³ The dermal inflammatory patterns that have been described include granulomatous, nodular, and superficial and deep perivascular inflammation. The infiltrate often is composed of lymphocytes, plasma cells, and histocytes. Reactive endothelial cells and perineural plasma cell infiltrates also are common histologic features.^3,4 Spirochetes can be identified in most cases using immunohistochemical staining; however, the absence of spirochetes does not exclude syphilis.³ The sensitivity of immunohistochemical staining in secondary syphilis is reported to be 71% to 100% with a very high specificity.⁵ The treatment for all stages of syphilis is benzathine penicillin G, and the route of administration and duration of treatment depend on the stage of disease.⁶

A broad differential diagnosis must be considered when encountering skin eruptions in patients with HIV. Psoriasis usually presents as circumscribed erythematous plaques with dry and silvery scaling and a predilection for the extensor surfaces of the limbs, sacrum, scalp, and nails. Nail manifestations include distal onycholysis, irregular pitting, oil spots, salmon patches, and subungual hyperkeratosis. Alopecia occasionally may be seen within scalp lesions⁷; however, the constellation of alopecia with a moth-eaten appearance, subungual hyperkeratosis, papulosquamous eruption, and split papules was more suggestive of secondary syphilis in our patient. In immunocompromised patients, crusted scabies can be considered for the diagnosis of papulosquamous eruptions involving the palms and soles. It often presents with symmetric, mildly pruritic, psoriasiform dermatitis that favors acral sites, but widespread involvement can be observed.⁸ Areas of the scalp and face can be affected in infants, elderly patients, and immunocompromised individuals. Unlike in secondary syphilis, patchy alopecia, split papules, and ocular symptoms typically are not observed in scabies.

Sarcoidosis is common in Black individuals, and similar to syphilis, it is considered a great imitator of other dermatologic diseases. Frequently, it presents as redviolaceous papules, nodules, or plaques; however, rare variants including psoriasiform, ichthyosiform, verrucous, and lichenoid skin eruptions can occur. Nail dystrophy, split papules, and alopecia also have been observed.⁹ Ocular involvement is common and frequently presents as uveitis.¹⁰ The pathologic hallmark of sarcoidosis is noncaseating granulomatous inflammation, which also may occur in syphilitic lesions⁹; however, a papulosquamous eruption involving the palms and soles, positive serology, and the finding of interface lichenoid dermatitis with psoriasiform hyperplasia confirmed the diagnosis of secondary syphilis in our patient. Pityriasis rubra pilaris is a rare papulosquamous disorder that can be associated with HIV (type VI/HIVassociated follicular syndrome). It presents with generalized red-orange keratotic papules and often is associated with acne conglobata, hidradenitis suppurativa, and lichen spinulosus.¹¹ Unlike in secondary syphilis, patchy alopecia, split papules, and ocular symptoms typically are not observed in pityriasis rubra pilaris.

This case highlights many classical findings of secondary syphilis and demonstrates that, while helpful, routine skin biopsy may not be required. Treatment should be guided by clinical presentation and serologic testing while reserving skin biopsy for equivocal cases.

The Diagnosis: Secondary Syphilis

Histopathology revealed a lichenoid interface dermatitis with psoriasiform hyperplasia (Figure 1A). A single spirochete was identified using immunohistochemical staining (Figure 1B). Laboratory workup revealed positive IgG and IgM treponemal antibodies and reactive rapid plasma reagin titer of 1:2048. A VDRL test performed on a cerebrospinal fluid specimen also was reactive at 1:8. A diagnosis of secondary syphilis with neurologic involvement was made, and the patient was treated with intravenous penicillin G for 14 days. Following treatment, his rapid plasma reagin decreased 4-fold with an improvement in his ocular and cutaneous symptoms.

Mucocutaneus manifestations of secondary syphilis are multitudinous. As in our patient, the classic presentation is a generalized morbilliform and papulosquamous eruption involving the palms (Figure 2) and soles. Split papules at the oral commissures, mucosal patches, and condyloma lata are the characteristic mucosal lesions of secondary syphilis.¹ Patchy nonscarring alopecia is not uncommon and can be the only manifestation of secondary syphilis.² The histopathologic features of secondary syphilis vary depending on the location and type of the skin eruption. Psoriasiform or lichenoid changes commonly occur in the epidermis and dermoepidermal junction.³ The dermal inflammatory patterns that have been described include granulomatous, nodular, and superficial and deep perivascular inflammation. The infiltrate often is composed of lymphocytes, plasma cells, and histocytes. Reactive endothelial cells and perineural plasma cell infiltrates also are common histologic features.^3,4 Spirochetes can be identified in most cases using immunohistochemical staining; however, the absence of spirochetes does not exclude syphilis.³ The sensitivity of immunohistochemical staining in secondary syphilis is reported to be 71% to 100% with a very high specificity.⁵ The treatment for all stages of syphilis is benzathine penicillin G, and the route of administration and duration of treatment depend on the stage of disease.⁶

A broad differential diagnosis must be considered when encountering skin eruptions in patients with HIV. Psoriasis usually presents as circumscribed erythematous plaques with dry and silvery scaling and a predilection for the extensor surfaces of the limbs, sacrum, scalp, and nails. Nail manifestations include distal onycholysis, irregular pitting, oil spots, salmon patches, and subungual hyperkeratosis. Alopecia occasionally may be seen within scalp lesions⁷; however, the constellation of alopecia with a moth-eaten appearance, subungual hyperkeratosis, papulosquamous eruption, and split papules was more suggestive of secondary syphilis in our patient. In immunocompromised patients, crusted scabies can be considered for the diagnosis of papulosquamous eruptions involving the palms and soles. It often presents with symmetric, mildly pruritic, psoriasiform dermatitis that favors acral sites, but widespread involvement can be observed.⁸ Areas of the scalp and face can be affected in infants, elderly patients, and immunocompromised individuals. Unlike in secondary syphilis, patchy alopecia, split papules, and ocular symptoms typically are not observed in scabies.

Sarcoidosis is common in Black individuals, and similar to syphilis, it is considered a great imitator of other dermatologic diseases. Frequently, it presents as redviolaceous papules, nodules, or plaques; however, rare variants including psoriasiform, ichthyosiform, verrucous, and lichenoid skin eruptions can occur. Nail dystrophy, split papules, and alopecia also have been observed.⁹ Ocular involvement is common and frequently presents as uveitis.¹⁰ The pathologic hallmark of sarcoidosis is noncaseating granulomatous inflammation, which also may occur in syphilitic lesions⁹; however, a papulosquamous eruption involving the palms and soles, positive serology, and the finding of interface lichenoid dermatitis with psoriasiform hyperplasia confirmed the diagnosis of secondary syphilis in our patient. Pityriasis rubra pilaris is a rare papulosquamous disorder that can be associated with HIV (type VI/HIVassociated follicular syndrome). It presents with generalized red-orange keratotic papules and often is associated with acne conglobata, hidradenitis suppurativa, and lichen spinulosus.¹¹ Unlike in secondary syphilis, patchy alopecia, split papules, and ocular symptoms typically are not observed in pityriasis rubra pilaris.

This case highlights many classical findings of secondary syphilis and demonstrates that, while helpful, routine skin biopsy may not be required. Treatment should be guided by clinical presentation and serologic testing while reserving skin biopsy for equivocal cases.

The oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor baricitinib appears to improve symptoms of atopic dermatitis (AD) in children aged 2 years and up, as indicated by data from the phase 3 BREEZE-AD-PEDS trial.

After 16 weeks of treatment, the primary endpoint – an Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-point improvement from baseline – was met by 41.7% of patients given 2 mg (those younger than age 10) or 4 mg of baricitinib (those aged 10-17 years), the highest dose studied in each of those two age groups.

By comparison, the primary endpoint was met in 16.4% of children in the placebo group (P < .001).

Baricitinib is approved for the treatment of AD in adults in many countries, Antonio Torrelo, MD, of the Hospital Infantil Niño Jesús, Madrid, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating adults with severe alopecia areata in June and is under FDA review for the treatment of AD.
 

The phase 3 BREEZE-AD-PEDS trial

BREEZE-AD-PEDS was a randomized, double-blind trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of baricitinib in 483 children and adolescents with moderate to severe AD. Participants were aged 2-17 years. Those aged 2-5 years had been diagnosed with AD for at least 6 months; if they were older, they had been diagnosed for at least 12 months.

Three dosing levels of baricitinib were tested: 121 patients were given a low dose, which was 0.5 mg/day in children aged 2 to less than 10 years and 1 mg/day in those aged 10 to less than 18 years. A medium dose – 1 mg/day in the younger children and 2 mg/day in the older children – was given to 120 children, while a high dose – 2 mg/day and 4 mg/day, respectively – was given to another 120 children.

Topical treatments were permitted, although for entry into the trial, participants had to have had an inadequate response to steroids and an inadequate or no response to topical calcineurin inhibitors. In all groups, age, gender, race, geographic region, age at diagnosis of AD, and duration of AD “were more or less similar,” Dr. Torello said.
 

Good results, but only with highest dose

The primary IGA endpoint was reached by 25.8% of children in the medium-dose group and by 18.2% in the low-dose group. Neither result was statistically significant in comparison with placebo (16.4%).

When breaking down the results between different ages, “the results in the IGA scores are consistent in both age subgroups – below 10 years and over 10 years,” Dr. Torello noted. The results are also consistent across body weights (< 20 kg, 20-60 kg, and > 60 kg), he added.

Among those treated with the high dose of baricitinib, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 75% and 95% improvement scores were reached in 52.5% and 30% of patients, respectively. Corresponding figures for the medium dose were 40% and 21.7%; for the low baricitinib dose, 32.2% and 11.6%; and for placebo, 32% and 12.3%. Again, only the results for the highest baricitinib dose were significant in comparison with placebo.

A similar pattern was seen for improvement in itch, and there was a 75% improvement in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD75) results.
 

Safety of baricitinib in children

The labeling for JAK inhibitors that have been approved to date, including baricitinib, include a boxed warning regarding risks for thrombosis, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality. The warning is based on use by patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Dr. Torello summarized baricitinib’s safety profile in the trial as being “consistent with the well-known safety profile for baricitinib in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”

In the study, no severe adverse effects were noted, and no new safety signals were observed, he said. The rate of any treatment-emergent effect among patients was around 50% and was similar across all baricitinib and placebo groups. Study discontinuations because of a side effect were more frequent in the placebo arm (1.6% of patients) than in the baricitinib low-, medium-, and high-dose arms (0.8%, 0%, and 0.8%, respectively).

There were no cases of deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or other adverse effects of special interest, including major adverse cardiovascular events, gastrointestinal perforations, and opportunistic infections, Dr. Torrelo said.

No patient experienced elevations in liver enzyme levels, although there were some cases of elevated creatinine phosphokinase levels (16% in the placebo group and 19% in the baricitinib arms altogether) that were not from muscle injury. There was a possible increase in low-density cholesterol level (3.3% of those taking placebo vs. 10.1% of baricitinib-treated patients).
 

Is there a role for baricitinib?

“Baricitinib is a potential therapeutic option with a favorable benefit-to-risk profile for children between 2 and 18 years who have moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, and candidates for systemic therapy,” Dr. Torrelo said. “No single drug is capable to treat every patient with atopic dermatitis,” he added in discussing the possible place of baricitinib in pediatric practice.

“There are patients who do not respond to dupilumab, who apparently respond later to JAK inhibitors,” he noted.

“We are trying to work phenotypically, trying to learn what kind of patients – especially children who have a more heterogeneous disease than adults – can be better treated with JAK inhibitors or dupilumab.” There may be other important considerations in choosing a treatment in children, Dr. Torrelo said, including that JAK inhibitors can be given orally, while dupilumab is administered by injection.

Asked to comment on the results, Jashin J. Wu, MD, founder and CEO of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., pointed out that “only the higher dose is significantly more effective than placebo.”

In his view, “the potentially severe adverse events are not worth the risk compared to more effective agents, such as dupilumab, in this pediatric population,” added Dr. Wu, who recently authored a review of the role of JAK inhibitors in skin disease. He was not involved with the baricitinib study.

The study was funded by Eli Lilly in collaboration with Incyte. Dr. Torello has participated in advisory boards and/or has served as a principal investigator in clinical trials for AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

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

The oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor baricitinib appears to improve symptoms of atopic dermatitis (AD) in children aged 2 years and up, as indicated by data from the phase 3 BREEZE-AD-PEDS trial.

After 16 weeks of treatment, the primary endpoint – an Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-point improvement from baseline – was met by 41.7% of patients given 2 mg (those younger than age 10) or 4 mg of baricitinib (those aged 10-17 years), the highest dose studied in each of those two age groups.

By comparison, the primary endpoint was met in 16.4% of children in the placebo group (P < .001).

Baricitinib is approved for the treatment of AD in adults in many countries, Antonio Torrelo, MD, of the Hospital Infantil Niño Jesús, Madrid, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating adults with severe alopecia areata in June and is under FDA review for the treatment of AD.
 

The phase 3 BREEZE-AD-PEDS trial

BREEZE-AD-PEDS was a randomized, double-blind trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of baricitinib in 483 children and adolescents with moderate to severe AD. Participants were aged 2-17 years. Those aged 2-5 years had been diagnosed with AD for at least 6 months; if they were older, they had been diagnosed for at least 12 months.

Three dosing levels of baricitinib were tested: 121 patients were given a low dose, which was 0.5 mg/day in children aged 2 to less than 10 years and 1 mg/day in those aged 10 to less than 18 years. A medium dose – 1 mg/day in the younger children and 2 mg/day in the older children – was given to 120 children, while a high dose – 2 mg/day and 4 mg/day, respectively – was given to another 120 children.

Topical treatments were permitted, although for entry into the trial, participants had to have had an inadequate response to steroids and an inadequate or no response to topical calcineurin inhibitors. In all groups, age, gender, race, geographic region, age at diagnosis of AD, and duration of AD “were more or less similar,” Dr. Torello said.
 

Good results, but only with highest dose

The primary IGA endpoint was reached by 25.8% of children in the medium-dose group and by 18.2% in the low-dose group. Neither result was statistically significant in comparison with placebo (16.4%).

When breaking down the results between different ages, “the results in the IGA scores are consistent in both age subgroups – below 10 years and over 10 years,” Dr. Torello noted. The results are also consistent across body weights (< 20 kg, 20-60 kg, and > 60 kg), he added.

Among those treated with the high dose of baricitinib, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 75% and 95% improvement scores were reached in 52.5% and 30% of patients, respectively. Corresponding figures for the medium dose were 40% and 21.7%; for the low baricitinib dose, 32.2% and 11.6%; and for placebo, 32% and 12.3%. Again, only the results for the highest baricitinib dose were significant in comparison with placebo.

A similar pattern was seen for improvement in itch, and there was a 75% improvement in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD75) results.
 

Safety of baricitinib in children

The labeling for JAK inhibitors that have been approved to date, including baricitinib, include a boxed warning regarding risks for thrombosis, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality. The warning is based on use by patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Dr. Torello summarized baricitinib’s safety profile in the trial as being “consistent with the well-known safety profile for baricitinib in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”

In the study, no severe adverse effects were noted, and no new safety signals were observed, he said. The rate of any treatment-emergent effect among patients was around 50% and was similar across all baricitinib and placebo groups. Study discontinuations because of a side effect were more frequent in the placebo arm (1.6% of patients) than in the baricitinib low-, medium-, and high-dose arms (0.8%, 0%, and 0.8%, respectively).

There were no cases of deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or other adverse effects of special interest, including major adverse cardiovascular events, gastrointestinal perforations, and opportunistic infections, Dr. Torrelo said.

No patient experienced elevations in liver enzyme levels, although there were some cases of elevated creatinine phosphokinase levels (16% in the placebo group and 19% in the baricitinib arms altogether) that were not from muscle injury. There was a possible increase in low-density cholesterol level (3.3% of those taking placebo vs. 10.1% of baricitinib-treated patients).
 

Is there a role for baricitinib?

“Baricitinib is a potential therapeutic option with a favorable benefit-to-risk profile for children between 2 and 18 years who have moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, and candidates for systemic therapy,” Dr. Torrelo said. “No single drug is capable to treat every patient with atopic dermatitis,” he added in discussing the possible place of baricitinib in pediatric practice.

“There are patients who do not respond to dupilumab, who apparently respond later to JAK inhibitors,” he noted.

“We are trying to work phenotypically, trying to learn what kind of patients – especially children who have a more heterogeneous disease than adults – can be better treated with JAK inhibitors or dupilumab.” There may be other important considerations in choosing a treatment in children, Dr. Torrelo said, including that JAK inhibitors can be given orally, while dupilumab is administered by injection.

Asked to comment on the results, Jashin J. Wu, MD, founder and CEO of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., pointed out that “only the higher dose is significantly more effective than placebo.”

In his view, “the potentially severe adverse events are not worth the risk compared to more effective agents, such as dupilumab, in this pediatric population,” added Dr. Wu, who recently authored a review of the role of JAK inhibitors in skin disease. He was not involved with the baricitinib study.

The study was funded by Eli Lilly in collaboration with Incyte. Dr. Torello has participated in advisory boards and/or has served as a principal investigator in clinical trials for AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

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

The oral Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor baricitinib appears to improve symptoms of atopic dermatitis (AD) in children aged 2 years and up, as indicated by data from the phase 3 BREEZE-AD-PEDS trial.

After 16 weeks of treatment, the primary endpoint – an Investigators Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 or 1 with at least a 2-point improvement from baseline – was met by 41.7% of patients given 2 mg (those younger than age 10) or 4 mg of baricitinib (those aged 10-17 years), the highest dose studied in each of those two age groups.

By comparison, the primary endpoint was met in 16.4% of children in the placebo group (P < .001).

Baricitinib is approved for the treatment of AD in adults in many countries, Antonio Torrelo, MD, of the Hospital Infantil Niño Jesús, Madrid, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. It was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for treating adults with severe alopecia areata in June and is under FDA review for the treatment of AD.
 

The phase 3 BREEZE-AD-PEDS trial

BREEZE-AD-PEDS was a randomized, double-blind trial that evaluated the safety and efficacy of baricitinib in 483 children and adolescents with moderate to severe AD. Participants were aged 2-17 years. Those aged 2-5 years had been diagnosed with AD for at least 6 months; if they were older, they had been diagnosed for at least 12 months.

Three dosing levels of baricitinib were tested: 121 patients were given a low dose, which was 0.5 mg/day in children aged 2 to less than 10 years and 1 mg/day in those aged 10 to less than 18 years. A medium dose – 1 mg/day in the younger children and 2 mg/day in the older children – was given to 120 children, while a high dose – 2 mg/day and 4 mg/day, respectively – was given to another 120 children.

Topical treatments were permitted, although for entry into the trial, participants had to have had an inadequate response to steroids and an inadequate or no response to topical calcineurin inhibitors. In all groups, age, gender, race, geographic region, age at diagnosis of AD, and duration of AD “were more or less similar,” Dr. Torello said.
 

Good results, but only with highest dose

The primary IGA endpoint was reached by 25.8% of children in the medium-dose group and by 18.2% in the low-dose group. Neither result was statistically significant in comparison with placebo (16.4%).

When breaking down the results between different ages, “the results in the IGA scores are consistent in both age subgroups – below 10 years and over 10 years,” Dr. Torello noted. The results are also consistent across body weights (< 20 kg, 20-60 kg, and > 60 kg), he added.

Among those treated with the high dose of baricitinib, Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI) 75% and 95% improvement scores were reached in 52.5% and 30% of patients, respectively. Corresponding figures for the medium dose were 40% and 21.7%; for the low baricitinib dose, 32.2% and 11.6%; and for placebo, 32% and 12.3%. Again, only the results for the highest baricitinib dose were significant in comparison with placebo.

A similar pattern was seen for improvement in itch, and there was a 75% improvement in Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD75) results.
 

Safety of baricitinib in children

The labeling for JAK inhibitors that have been approved to date, including baricitinib, include a boxed warning regarding risks for thrombosis, major adverse cardiovascular events, and all-cause mortality. The warning is based on use by patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

Dr. Torello summarized baricitinib’s safety profile in the trial as being “consistent with the well-known safety profile for baricitinib in adults with moderate to severe atopic dermatitis.”

In the study, no severe adverse effects were noted, and no new safety signals were observed, he said. The rate of any treatment-emergent effect among patients was around 50% and was similar across all baricitinib and placebo groups. Study discontinuations because of a side effect were more frequent in the placebo arm (1.6% of patients) than in the baricitinib low-, medium-, and high-dose arms (0.8%, 0%, and 0.8%, respectively).

There were no cases of deep-vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or other adverse effects of special interest, including major adverse cardiovascular events, gastrointestinal perforations, and opportunistic infections, Dr. Torrelo said.

No patient experienced elevations in liver enzyme levels, although there were some cases of elevated creatinine phosphokinase levels (16% in the placebo group and 19% in the baricitinib arms altogether) that were not from muscle injury. There was a possible increase in low-density cholesterol level (3.3% of those taking placebo vs. 10.1% of baricitinib-treated patients).
 

Is there a role for baricitinib?

“Baricitinib is a potential therapeutic option with a favorable benefit-to-risk profile for children between 2 and 18 years who have moderate to severe atopic dermatitis, and candidates for systemic therapy,” Dr. Torrelo said. “No single drug is capable to treat every patient with atopic dermatitis,” he added in discussing the possible place of baricitinib in pediatric practice.

“There are patients who do not respond to dupilumab, who apparently respond later to JAK inhibitors,” he noted.

“We are trying to work phenotypically, trying to learn what kind of patients – especially children who have a more heterogeneous disease than adults – can be better treated with JAK inhibitors or dupilumab.” There may be other important considerations in choosing a treatment in children, Dr. Torrelo said, including that JAK inhibitors can be given orally, while dupilumab is administered by injection.

Asked to comment on the results, Jashin J. Wu, MD, founder and CEO of the Dermatology Research and Education Foundation in Irvine, Calif., pointed out that “only the higher dose is significantly more effective than placebo.”

In his view, “the potentially severe adverse events are not worth the risk compared to more effective agents, such as dupilumab, in this pediatric population,” added Dr. Wu, who recently authored a review of the role of JAK inhibitors in skin disease. He was not involved with the baricitinib study.

The study was funded by Eli Lilly in collaboration with Incyte. Dr. Torello has participated in advisory boards and/or has served as a principal investigator in clinical trials for AbbVie, Eli Lilly and Company, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, and Sanofi. Dr. Wu has been an investigator, consultant, or speaker for multiple pharmaceutical companies.

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

Instagram’s lack of high-quality educational content on nonsurgical cosmetic procedures puts the onus on dermatologists and plastic surgeons to increase their social media presence, according to an analysis of related posts on the photo-sharing service.

“Given that there is little to no oversight on social networking sites, unqualified sources can widely disseminate misinformation resulting in misguided management or unnecessary procedures,” Taryn N. Murray, MD, and associates said in Lasers in Surgery and Medicine.

They generated a list of 25 hashtags related to nonsurgical cosmetic procedures, which were queried on Instagram on Jan. 2-3, 2022. The most popular was #Botox, with 12.1 million posts, followed by #Laser with 6.7 million, and #Filler with 3.5 million. Each of the 25 hashtags had at least 250,000 posts, they reported.

“Studies have shown that cosmetic patients and younger patients value social media when selecting a provider and patients often make treatment decisions based on social media,” they noted.

The bulk of the study involved “the first 10 posts displayed under the ‘Top’ section for each hashtag, as sorted by Instagram’s proprietary algorithm,” explained Dr. Murray and associates at the Dermatology and Laser Surgery Center in Houston. The 250 posts eventually selected for inclusion each received scrutiny in terms of content type and creator credentials.

Physicians in core cosmetic specialties – dermatology, plastic surgery, facial plastic surgery, and oculoplastic surgery – created just 12% of those 250 posts, compared with 68% for nonphysician providers, 13% for consumers/others, and 8% for other physicians, they said.

Educational content made up the largest share (38%) of posts by core cosmetic physicians, with before-and-after next at 31%, self-promotional at 21%, and personal at 10%. Nonphysician providers were the most likely to create before-and-after (49% of their total) and self-promotional (28%) content, while consumers had the largest share of promotional posts (31%) and other physicians posted the most entertainment content (25%), the researchers said.

An overall look at the content shows that the largest proportion of all 250 posts included in the analysis involved before-and-after photos (45%), with self-promotion next at 23%. Education represented just 17% of the posting total for nonsurgical cosmetic procedures, with personal, entertainment, and promotional each at 5%, Dr. Murray and associates reported.

By recognizing “the role social media plays in patients’ understanding of and desire to undergo nonsurgical cosmetic procedures” and “increasing their presence on Instagram, core cosmetic physicians can provide patient education, counteract misinformation, and raise awareness on training and qualifications,” they wrote.

The study authors did not provide any disclosures regarding funding or financial conflicts.

 

Instagram’s lack of high-quality educational content on nonsurgical cosmetic procedures puts the onus on dermatologists and plastic surgeons to increase their social media presence, according to an analysis of related posts on the photo-sharing service.

“Given that there is little to no oversight on social networking sites, unqualified sources can widely disseminate misinformation resulting in misguided management or unnecessary procedures,” Taryn N. Murray, MD, and associates said in Lasers in Surgery and Medicine.

They generated a list of 25 hashtags related to nonsurgical cosmetic procedures, which were queried on Instagram on Jan. 2-3, 2022. The most popular was #Botox, with 12.1 million posts, followed by #Laser with 6.7 million, and #Filler with 3.5 million. Each of the 25 hashtags had at least 250,000 posts, they reported.

“Studies have shown that cosmetic patients and younger patients value social media when selecting a provider and patients often make treatment decisions based on social media,” they noted.

The bulk of the study involved “the first 10 posts displayed under the ‘Top’ section for each hashtag, as sorted by Instagram’s proprietary algorithm,” explained Dr. Murray and associates at the Dermatology and Laser Surgery Center in Houston. The 250 posts eventually selected for inclusion each received scrutiny in terms of content type and creator credentials.

Physicians in core cosmetic specialties – dermatology, plastic surgery, facial plastic surgery, and oculoplastic surgery – created just 12% of those 250 posts, compared with 68% for nonphysician providers, 13% for consumers/others, and 8% for other physicians, they said.

Educational content made up the largest share (38%) of posts by core cosmetic physicians, with before-and-after next at 31%, self-promotional at 21%, and personal at 10%. Nonphysician providers were the most likely to create before-and-after (49% of their total) and self-promotional (28%) content, while consumers had the largest share of promotional posts (31%) and other physicians posted the most entertainment content (25%), the researchers said.

An overall look at the content shows that the largest proportion of all 250 posts included in the analysis involved before-and-after photos (45%), with self-promotion next at 23%. Education represented just 17% of the posting total for nonsurgical cosmetic procedures, with personal, entertainment, and promotional each at 5%, Dr. Murray and associates reported.

By recognizing “the role social media plays in patients’ understanding of and desire to undergo nonsurgical cosmetic procedures” and “increasing their presence on Instagram, core cosmetic physicians can provide patient education, counteract misinformation, and raise awareness on training and qualifications,” they wrote.

The study authors did not provide any disclosures regarding funding or financial conflicts.

 

Instagram’s lack of high-quality educational content on nonsurgical cosmetic procedures puts the onus on dermatologists and plastic surgeons to increase their social media presence, according to an analysis of related posts on the photo-sharing service.

“Given that there is little to no oversight on social networking sites, unqualified sources can widely disseminate misinformation resulting in misguided management or unnecessary procedures,” Taryn N. Murray, MD, and associates said in Lasers in Surgery and Medicine.

They generated a list of 25 hashtags related to nonsurgical cosmetic procedures, which were queried on Instagram on Jan. 2-3, 2022. The most popular was #Botox, with 12.1 million posts, followed by #Laser with 6.7 million, and #Filler with 3.5 million. Each of the 25 hashtags had at least 250,000 posts, they reported.

“Studies have shown that cosmetic patients and younger patients value social media when selecting a provider and patients often make treatment decisions based on social media,” they noted.

The bulk of the study involved “the first 10 posts displayed under the ‘Top’ section for each hashtag, as sorted by Instagram’s proprietary algorithm,” explained Dr. Murray and associates at the Dermatology and Laser Surgery Center in Houston. The 250 posts eventually selected for inclusion each received scrutiny in terms of content type and creator credentials.

Physicians in core cosmetic specialties – dermatology, plastic surgery, facial plastic surgery, and oculoplastic surgery – created just 12% of those 250 posts, compared with 68% for nonphysician providers, 13% for consumers/others, and 8% for other physicians, they said.

Educational content made up the largest share (38%) of posts by core cosmetic physicians, with before-and-after next at 31%, self-promotional at 21%, and personal at 10%. Nonphysician providers were the most likely to create before-and-after (49% of their total) and self-promotional (28%) content, while consumers had the largest share of promotional posts (31%) and other physicians posted the most entertainment content (25%), the researchers said.

An overall look at the content shows that the largest proportion of all 250 posts included in the analysis involved before-and-after photos (45%), with self-promotion next at 23%. Education represented just 17% of the posting total for nonsurgical cosmetic procedures, with personal, entertainment, and promotional each at 5%, Dr. Murray and associates reported.

By recognizing “the role social media plays in patients’ understanding of and desire to undergo nonsurgical cosmetic procedures” and “increasing their presence on Instagram, core cosmetic physicians can provide patient education, counteract misinformation, and raise awareness on training and qualifications,” they wrote.

The study authors did not provide any disclosures regarding funding or financial conflicts.

 

Mounting evidence suggests that a higher density of Demodex mites on the skin may play a role in the development of papules and pustules associated with rosacea, a narrative review proposes.

According to the author, Fabienne Forton, MD, PhD, a dermatologist based in Brussels, recent studies suggest that Demodex induces two opposite actions on host immunity: A defensive immune response aimed at eliminating the mite and an immunosuppressive action aimed at favoring its own proliferation. “Moreover, the initial defensive immune response is likely diverted towards benefit for the mite, via T-cell exhaustion induced by the immunosuppressive properties of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which may also explain the favorable influence that the altered vascular background of rosacea seems to exert on Demodex proliferation,” she wrote in the review, which was published in JEADV, the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Courtesy National Rosacea Society

She presented several arguments for and against a causal role of Demodex in rosacea. Three on the “for” side are:

High Demodex densities (Dds) are observed in almost all cases of rosacea with papulopustules (PPR). Dr. Forton pointed out that Demodex proliferation presents in as many as 98.6% of cases of PPR when two consecutive standardized skin surface biopsies (SSSBs) are performed (Acta Derm Venereol. 2017;97:242-8). “Dds in patients with PPR are as high as those in patients with demodicosis, much higher than in healthy skin and other facial dermatoses (except when these are associated with demodicosis [as is often the case with seborrheic dermatitis and acne vulgaris]),” she wrote.

The Demodex mite has the elements necessary to stimulate the host’s innate and adaptative immune system. Dr. Forton characterized Demodex as “the only microorganism found in abundance in almost all subjects with PPR, which can, in addition, alter the skin barrier. To feed and move around, Demodex mites attack the epidermal wall of the pilosebaceous follicles mechanically (via their stylets, mouth palps and motor palps) and chemically (through enzymes secreted from salivary glands for pre-oral digestion).”

The Demodex mite stimulates the immune system (which ultimately results in phymatous changes). A healthy immune system, including T helper 17 cells, seems necessary to adequately control mite proliferation. Dr. Forton noted that researchers have observed a perivascular and perifollicular infiltrate in people with rosacea, “which invades the epidermis and is often associated with the presence of Demodex. The lympho-histiocytic perifollicular infiltrate is correlated with the presence and the numbers of mites inside the follicles, and giant cell granulomas can be seen around intradermal Demodex mites, which attempt to phagocytize the mites.”

The three arguments that she presented against a causal role of Demodex in rosacea are the following:

No relationship with the mite was observed in two early histological studies. Rosacea biopsies conducted in these two analyses, published in 1969 and 1988, showed only mild infiltrate, with few parasites and no inflammation around the infested follicles.

However, she countered, “these data are now obsolete, because it has since been clearly demonstrated that the perifollicular infiltrate is a characteristic of rosacea, that this infiltrate is statistically related to the presence and the number of Demodex mites, and that high Dds are observed in almost all subjects with PPR.”

Demodex is not always associated with inflammatory symptoms. This argument holds that Demodex is present in all individuals and can be observed in very high densities without causing significant symptoms. Studies that support this viewpoint include the following: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2001;15:441–4 and J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2011;12:998-1007.

However, Dr. Forton pointed out that the normal, low-density presence of Demodex in the skin “does not contradict a pathogenic effect when it proliferates excessively or penetrates into the dermis. The absence of intense inflammatory symptoms when the Dd is very high does not negate its potential pathogenicity.”

Demodex proliferation could be a consequence rather than a cause. Dr. Forton cited a study, suggesting that inflammation could be responsible for alteration of the skin barrier, “which, secondarily, would favor proliferation of the parasites, as with skin affected by atopic dermatitis that becomes superinfected by Staphylococcus aureus”. On the other hand, she argued, “unlike S. aureus, Demodex does not require alteration of the skin barrier to implant or proliferate. It also does not require an inflammatory background.” She added that if mite proliferation was a consequence of clinical lesions, “the Demodex mite should logically proliferate in other inflammatory facial skin conditions, which is not the case.”

A Sept. 14 National Rosacea Society (NRS) press release featured the paper by Dr. Forton, titled, “Which Comes First, The Rosacea Blemish or The Mite?” In the release, Richard Gallo, MD, PhD, who chaired the NRS Expert Committee that updated the standard classification of rosacea in 2018, said that “growing knowledge of rosacea’s pathophysiology has established that a consistent multivariate disease process underlies its potential manifestations, and the clinical significance of each of these elements is increasing as more is understood.”

While the potential role of Demodex in rosacea has been controversial in the past, “these new insights suggest where it may play a role as a meaningful cofactor in the development of the disorder,” added Dr. Gallo, chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.

Dr. Forton reported having no financial disclosures.

Mounting evidence suggests that a higher density of Demodex mites on the skin may play a role in the development of papules and pustules associated with rosacea, a narrative review proposes.

According to the author, Fabienne Forton, MD, PhD, a dermatologist based in Brussels, recent studies suggest that Demodex induces two opposite actions on host immunity: A defensive immune response aimed at eliminating the mite and an immunosuppressive action aimed at favoring its own proliferation. “Moreover, the initial defensive immune response is likely diverted towards benefit for the mite, via T-cell exhaustion induced by the immunosuppressive properties of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which may also explain the favorable influence that the altered vascular background of rosacea seems to exert on Demodex proliferation,” she wrote in the review, which was published in JEADV, the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Courtesy National Rosacea Society

She presented several arguments for and against a causal role of Demodex in rosacea. Three on the “for” side are:

High Demodex densities (Dds) are observed in almost all cases of rosacea with papulopustules (PPR). Dr. Forton pointed out that Demodex proliferation presents in as many as 98.6% of cases of PPR when two consecutive standardized skin surface biopsies (SSSBs) are performed (Acta Derm Venereol. 2017;97:242-8). “Dds in patients with PPR are as high as those in patients with demodicosis, much higher than in healthy skin and other facial dermatoses (except when these are associated with demodicosis [as is often the case with seborrheic dermatitis and acne vulgaris]),” she wrote.

The Demodex mite has the elements necessary to stimulate the host’s innate and adaptative immune system. Dr. Forton characterized Demodex as “the only microorganism found in abundance in almost all subjects with PPR, which can, in addition, alter the skin barrier. To feed and move around, Demodex mites attack the epidermal wall of the pilosebaceous follicles mechanically (via their stylets, mouth palps and motor palps) and chemically (through enzymes secreted from salivary glands for pre-oral digestion).”

The Demodex mite stimulates the immune system (which ultimately results in phymatous changes). A healthy immune system, including T helper 17 cells, seems necessary to adequately control mite proliferation. Dr. Forton noted that researchers have observed a perivascular and perifollicular infiltrate in people with rosacea, “which invades the epidermis and is often associated with the presence of Demodex. The lympho-histiocytic perifollicular infiltrate is correlated with the presence and the numbers of mites inside the follicles, and giant cell granulomas can be seen around intradermal Demodex mites, which attempt to phagocytize the mites.”

The three arguments that she presented against a causal role of Demodex in rosacea are the following:

No relationship with the mite was observed in two early histological studies. Rosacea biopsies conducted in these two analyses, published in 1969 and 1988, showed only mild infiltrate, with few parasites and no inflammation around the infested follicles.

However, she countered, “these data are now obsolete, because it has since been clearly demonstrated that the perifollicular infiltrate is a characteristic of rosacea, that this infiltrate is statistically related to the presence and the number of Demodex mites, and that high Dds are observed in almost all subjects with PPR.”

Demodex is not always associated with inflammatory symptoms. This argument holds that Demodex is present in all individuals and can be observed in very high densities without causing significant symptoms. Studies that support this viewpoint include the following: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2001;15:441–4 and J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2011;12:998-1007.

However, Dr. Forton pointed out that the normal, low-density presence of Demodex in the skin “does not contradict a pathogenic effect when it proliferates excessively or penetrates into the dermis. The absence of intense inflammatory symptoms when the Dd is very high does not negate its potential pathogenicity.”

Demodex proliferation could be a consequence rather than a cause. Dr. Forton cited a study, suggesting that inflammation could be responsible for alteration of the skin barrier, “which, secondarily, would favor proliferation of the parasites, as with skin affected by atopic dermatitis that becomes superinfected by Staphylococcus aureus”. On the other hand, she argued, “unlike S. aureus, Demodex does not require alteration of the skin barrier to implant or proliferate. It also does not require an inflammatory background.” She added that if mite proliferation was a consequence of clinical lesions, “the Demodex mite should logically proliferate in other inflammatory facial skin conditions, which is not the case.”

A Sept. 14 National Rosacea Society (NRS) press release featured the paper by Dr. Forton, titled, “Which Comes First, The Rosacea Blemish or The Mite?” In the release, Richard Gallo, MD, PhD, who chaired the NRS Expert Committee that updated the standard classification of rosacea in 2018, said that “growing knowledge of rosacea’s pathophysiology has established that a consistent multivariate disease process underlies its potential manifestations, and the clinical significance of each of these elements is increasing as more is understood.”

While the potential role of Demodex in rosacea has been controversial in the past, “these new insights suggest where it may play a role as a meaningful cofactor in the development of the disorder,” added Dr. Gallo, chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.

Dr. Forton reported having no financial disclosures.

Mounting evidence suggests that a higher density of Demodex mites on the skin may play a role in the development of papules and pustules associated with rosacea, a narrative review proposes.

According to the author, Fabienne Forton, MD, PhD, a dermatologist based in Brussels, recent studies suggest that Demodex induces two opposite actions on host immunity: A defensive immune response aimed at eliminating the mite and an immunosuppressive action aimed at favoring its own proliferation. “Moreover, the initial defensive immune response is likely diverted towards benefit for the mite, via T-cell exhaustion induced by the immunosuppressive properties of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which may also explain the favorable influence that the altered vascular background of rosacea seems to exert on Demodex proliferation,” she wrote in the review, which was published in JEADV, the Journal of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Courtesy National Rosacea Society

She presented several arguments for and against a causal role of Demodex in rosacea. Three on the “for” side are:

High Demodex densities (Dds) are observed in almost all cases of rosacea with papulopustules (PPR). Dr. Forton pointed out that Demodex proliferation presents in as many as 98.6% of cases of PPR when two consecutive standardized skin surface biopsies (SSSBs) are performed (Acta Derm Venereol. 2017;97:242-8). “Dds in patients with PPR are as high as those in patients with demodicosis, much higher than in healthy skin and other facial dermatoses (except when these are associated with demodicosis [as is often the case with seborrheic dermatitis and acne vulgaris]),” she wrote.

The Demodex mite has the elements necessary to stimulate the host’s innate and adaptative immune system. Dr. Forton characterized Demodex as “the only microorganism found in abundance in almost all subjects with PPR, which can, in addition, alter the skin barrier. To feed and move around, Demodex mites attack the epidermal wall of the pilosebaceous follicles mechanically (via their stylets, mouth palps and motor palps) and chemically (through enzymes secreted from salivary glands for pre-oral digestion).”

The Demodex mite stimulates the immune system (which ultimately results in phymatous changes). A healthy immune system, including T helper 17 cells, seems necessary to adequately control mite proliferation. Dr. Forton noted that researchers have observed a perivascular and perifollicular infiltrate in people with rosacea, “which invades the epidermis and is often associated with the presence of Demodex. The lympho-histiocytic perifollicular infiltrate is correlated with the presence and the numbers of mites inside the follicles, and giant cell granulomas can be seen around intradermal Demodex mites, which attempt to phagocytize the mites.”

The three arguments that she presented against a causal role of Demodex in rosacea are the following:

No relationship with the mite was observed in two early histological studies. Rosacea biopsies conducted in these two analyses, published in 1969 and 1988, showed only mild infiltrate, with few parasites and no inflammation around the infested follicles.

However, she countered, “these data are now obsolete, because it has since been clearly demonstrated that the perifollicular infiltrate is a characteristic of rosacea, that this infiltrate is statistically related to the presence and the number of Demodex mites, and that high Dds are observed in almost all subjects with PPR.”

Demodex is not always associated with inflammatory symptoms. This argument holds that Demodex is present in all individuals and can be observed in very high densities without causing significant symptoms. Studies that support this viewpoint include the following: J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2001;15:441–4 and J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 2011;12:998-1007.

However, Dr. Forton pointed out that the normal, low-density presence of Demodex in the skin “does not contradict a pathogenic effect when it proliferates excessively or penetrates into the dermis. The absence of intense inflammatory symptoms when the Dd is very high does not negate its potential pathogenicity.”

Demodex proliferation could be a consequence rather than a cause. Dr. Forton cited a study, suggesting that inflammation could be responsible for alteration of the skin barrier, “which, secondarily, would favor proliferation of the parasites, as with skin affected by atopic dermatitis that becomes superinfected by Staphylococcus aureus”. On the other hand, she argued, “unlike S. aureus, Demodex does not require alteration of the skin barrier to implant or proliferate. It also does not require an inflammatory background.” She added that if mite proliferation was a consequence of clinical lesions, “the Demodex mite should logically proliferate in other inflammatory facial skin conditions, which is not the case.”

A Sept. 14 National Rosacea Society (NRS) press release featured the paper by Dr. Forton, titled, “Which Comes First, The Rosacea Blemish or The Mite?” In the release, Richard Gallo, MD, PhD, who chaired the NRS Expert Committee that updated the standard classification of rosacea in 2018, said that “growing knowledge of rosacea’s pathophysiology has established that a consistent multivariate disease process underlies its potential manifestations, and the clinical significance of each of these elements is increasing as more is understood.”

While the potential role of Demodex in rosacea has been controversial in the past, “these new insights suggest where it may play a role as a meaningful cofactor in the development of the disorder,” added Dr. Gallo, chair of the department of dermatology at the University of California, San Diego.

Dr. Forton reported having no financial disclosures.