MDedge Dermatology

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) may be more likely to develop psoriasis if they take certain B cell-depleting therapies, a new study finds. However, overall rates of reported disease are very low, and there’s no confirmation of a connection.

“People with MS and comorbid psoriasis – or those at a known high-risk for developing psoriasis – may benefit from a careful consideration of disease-modifying therapy (DMT), specifically when B cell-depleting therapies are considered,” study coauthor and Medical College of Wisconsin neurologist Ahmed Obeidat, MD, PhD, said in an interview. The findings were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

Dr. Obeidat and colleagues launched the study after noticing cases of psoriasis that developed months to years after patients started taking ocrelizumab, a B cell-depleting therapy. “We referred to the published literature and only found very scant reports of MS, psoriasis, and B cell-depleting therapy use,” he said. “Thus we decided to pursue an investigation of a large [Food and Drug Administration] database to examine for possible out-of-proportion reports for psoriasis in patients with MS who were receiving B cell-depleting therapy.”

The researchers tracked case reports of psoriasis in patients with MS on DMTs from 2009 to 2020 via the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. They found 517 psoriasis reports among 45,547 reports of skin/cutaneous conditions. The reports were linked to interferon beta 1a (136 reports, 26% of total), natalizumab (107, 21%), fingolimod (75, 15%), dimethyl fumarate (64, 12%), ocrelizumab (49, 10%), teriflunomide (28, 5%), interferon beta 1b (22, 4%), glatiramer acetate (12, 2%), rituximab (10, 2%), and alemtuzumab (9, 2%).

The total numbers of cases is low, but this may reflect underreporting due to the assumption that “autoimmunity begets autoimmunity” and therefore cases of psoriasis in MS are not alarming, medical student Mokshal H. Porwal, the study lead author, said in an interview.

The average age of patients – 48-51 – was similar for all of the drugs except alemtuzumab (mean age 41), which had a very small number of cases. The percentage of cases in females was 71%-77% for most of the drugs, with a few exceptions: rituximab (60%), ocrelizumab (63%), and alemtuzumab (33%).

Other drugs – cladribine, siponimod, and ozanimod – had 1, 1, and 0 reports, respectively, and were not included in the age and gender analyses.

The researchers also found that psoriasis made up about 65% of all skin/cutaneous adverse reports for rituximab, the highest number among DMTs. By comparison, that number was about 30% for ocrelizumab and under 1% for dimethyl fumarate and alemtuzumab.

Links between psoriasis and MS are murky, Dr. Obeidat said. “Some studies consider the presence of psoriasis as a possible indicator of increased future risk for MS, but there’s no clear association between the two conditions,” he said.

As for DMTs, “a few case reports of psoriasis in association with interferon-beta and rare case reports in association with ocrelizumab therapy have been published. However, the possible association between certain DMTs and psoriasis remains unclear,” he said.

Going forward, “we advise that patients with psoriasis on B cell-depleting agents are monitored more closely,” Dr. Obeidat said. “If the psoriasis worsens, it may be beneficial to think about potential alternative therapies.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Obeidat reports various disclosures; the other authors report no disclosures.

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) may be more likely to develop psoriasis if they take certain B cell-depleting therapies, a new study finds. However, overall rates of reported disease are very low, and there’s no confirmation of a connection.

“People with MS and comorbid psoriasis – or those at a known high-risk for developing psoriasis – may benefit from a careful consideration of disease-modifying therapy (DMT), specifically when B cell-depleting therapies are considered,” study coauthor and Medical College of Wisconsin neurologist Ahmed Obeidat, MD, PhD, said in an interview. The findings were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

Dr. Obeidat and colleagues launched the study after noticing cases of psoriasis that developed months to years after patients started taking ocrelizumab, a B cell-depleting therapy. “We referred to the published literature and only found very scant reports of MS, psoriasis, and B cell-depleting therapy use,” he said. “Thus we decided to pursue an investigation of a large [Food and Drug Administration] database to examine for possible out-of-proportion reports for psoriasis in patients with MS who were receiving B cell-depleting therapy.”

The researchers tracked case reports of psoriasis in patients with MS on DMTs from 2009 to 2020 via the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. They found 517 psoriasis reports among 45,547 reports of skin/cutaneous conditions. The reports were linked to interferon beta 1a (136 reports, 26% of total), natalizumab (107, 21%), fingolimod (75, 15%), dimethyl fumarate (64, 12%), ocrelizumab (49, 10%), teriflunomide (28, 5%), interferon beta 1b (22, 4%), glatiramer acetate (12, 2%), rituximab (10, 2%), and alemtuzumab (9, 2%).

The total numbers of cases is low, but this may reflect underreporting due to the assumption that “autoimmunity begets autoimmunity” and therefore cases of psoriasis in MS are not alarming, medical student Mokshal H. Porwal, the study lead author, said in an interview.

The average age of patients – 48-51 – was similar for all of the drugs except alemtuzumab (mean age 41), which had a very small number of cases. The percentage of cases in females was 71%-77% for most of the drugs, with a few exceptions: rituximab (60%), ocrelizumab (63%), and alemtuzumab (33%).

Other drugs – cladribine, siponimod, and ozanimod – had 1, 1, and 0 reports, respectively, and were not included in the age and gender analyses.

The researchers also found that psoriasis made up about 65% of all skin/cutaneous adverse reports for rituximab, the highest number among DMTs. By comparison, that number was about 30% for ocrelizumab and under 1% for dimethyl fumarate and alemtuzumab.

Links between psoriasis and MS are murky, Dr. Obeidat said. “Some studies consider the presence of psoriasis as a possible indicator of increased future risk for MS, but there’s no clear association between the two conditions,” he said.

As for DMTs, “a few case reports of psoriasis in association with interferon-beta and rare case reports in association with ocrelizumab therapy have been published. However, the possible association between certain DMTs and psoriasis remains unclear,” he said.

Going forward, “we advise that patients with psoriasis on B cell-depleting agents are monitored more closely,” Dr. Obeidat said. “If the psoriasis worsens, it may be beneficial to think about potential alternative therapies.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Obeidat reports various disclosures; the other authors report no disclosures.

Patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) may be more likely to develop psoriasis if they take certain B cell-depleting therapies, a new study finds. However, overall rates of reported disease are very low, and there’s no confirmation of a connection.

“People with MS and comorbid psoriasis – or those at a known high-risk for developing psoriasis – may benefit from a careful consideration of disease-modifying therapy (DMT), specifically when B cell-depleting therapies are considered,” study coauthor and Medical College of Wisconsin neurologist Ahmed Obeidat, MD, PhD, said in an interview. The findings were presented at the 2021 Annual Meeting of the Consortium of Multiple Sclerosis Centers (CMSC).

Dr. Obeidat and colleagues launched the study after noticing cases of psoriasis that developed months to years after patients started taking ocrelizumab, a B cell-depleting therapy. “We referred to the published literature and only found very scant reports of MS, psoriasis, and B cell-depleting therapy use,” he said. “Thus we decided to pursue an investigation of a large [Food and Drug Administration] database to examine for possible out-of-proportion reports for psoriasis in patients with MS who were receiving B cell-depleting therapy.”

The researchers tracked case reports of psoriasis in patients with MS on DMTs from 2009 to 2020 via the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. They found 517 psoriasis reports among 45,547 reports of skin/cutaneous conditions. The reports were linked to interferon beta 1a (136 reports, 26% of total), natalizumab (107, 21%), fingolimod (75, 15%), dimethyl fumarate (64, 12%), ocrelizumab (49, 10%), teriflunomide (28, 5%), interferon beta 1b (22, 4%), glatiramer acetate (12, 2%), rituximab (10, 2%), and alemtuzumab (9, 2%).

The total numbers of cases is low, but this may reflect underreporting due to the assumption that “autoimmunity begets autoimmunity” and therefore cases of psoriasis in MS are not alarming, medical student Mokshal H. Porwal, the study lead author, said in an interview.

The average age of patients – 48-51 – was similar for all of the drugs except alemtuzumab (mean age 41), which had a very small number of cases. The percentage of cases in females was 71%-77% for most of the drugs, with a few exceptions: rituximab (60%), ocrelizumab (63%), and alemtuzumab (33%).

Other drugs – cladribine, siponimod, and ozanimod – had 1, 1, and 0 reports, respectively, and were not included in the age and gender analyses.

The researchers also found that psoriasis made up about 65% of all skin/cutaneous adverse reports for rituximab, the highest number among DMTs. By comparison, that number was about 30% for ocrelizumab and under 1% for dimethyl fumarate and alemtuzumab.

Links between psoriasis and MS are murky, Dr. Obeidat said. “Some studies consider the presence of psoriasis as a possible indicator of increased future risk for MS, but there’s no clear association between the two conditions,” he said.

As for DMTs, “a few case reports of psoriasis in association with interferon-beta and rare case reports in association with ocrelizumab therapy have been published. However, the possible association between certain DMTs and psoriasis remains unclear,” he said.

Going forward, “we advise that patients with psoriasis on B cell-depleting agents are monitored more closely,” Dr. Obeidat said. “If the psoriasis worsens, it may be beneficial to think about potential alternative therapies.”

No study funding is reported. Dr. Obeidat reports various disclosures; the other authors report no disclosures.

Almost all physicians write prescriptions, and each prescription requires a physician to assess the risks and benefits of the drug. If an adverse drug reaction occurs, physicians may be called on to defend their risk-benefit assessment in court.

The assessment of risk is complicated when there is a boxed warning that describes potentially serious and life-threatening adverse reactions associated with a drug. Some of our most commonly prescribed drugs have boxed warnings, and drugs that were initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration without boxed warnings may have them added years later.

One serious problem with boxed warnings is that there are no reliable mechanisms for making sure that physicians are aware of them. The warnings are typically not seen by physicians as printed product labels, just as physicians often don’t see the pills and capsules that they prescribe. Pharmacists who receive packaged drugs from manufacturers may be the only ones to see an actual printed boxed warning, but even those pharmacists have little reason to read each label and note changes when handling many bulk packages.

This problem is aggravated by misperceptions that many physicians have about boxed warnings and the increasingly intense scrutiny given to them by mass media and the courts. Lawyers can use boxed warnings to make a drug look dangerous, even when it’s not, and to make physicians look reckless when prescribing it. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand what boxed warnings are, what they are not, the problems they cause, and how to minimize these problems.
 

What is a ‘boxed warning’?

The marketing and sale of drugs in the United States requires approval by the FDA. Approval requires manufacturers to prepare a document containing “Full Prescribing Information” for the drug and to include a printed copy in every package of the drug that is sold. This document is commonly called a “package insert,” but the FDA designates this document as the manufacturer’s product “label.”

In 1979, the FDA began requiring some labels to appear within thick, black rectangular borders; these have come to be known as boxed warnings. Boxed warnings are usually placed at the beginning of a label. They may be added to the label of a previously approved drug already on the market or included in the product label when first approved and marketed.

The requirement for a boxed warning most often arises when a signal appears during review of postmarketing surveillance data suggesting a possible and plausible association between a drug and an adverse reaction. Warnings may also be initiated in response to petitions from public interest groups, or upon the discovery of serious toxicity in animals. Regardless of their origin, the intent of a boxed warning is to highlight information that may have important therapeutic consequences and warrants heightened awareness among physicians.
 

What a boxed warning is not

A boxed warning is not “issued” by the FDA; it is merely required by the FDA. Specific wording or a template may be suggested by the FDA, but product labels and boxed warnings are written and issued by the manufacturer. This distinction may seem minor, but extensive litigation has occurred over whether manufacturers have met their duty to warn consumers about possible risks when using their products, and this duty cannot be shifted to the FDA.

A boxed warning may not be added to a product label at the option of a manufacturer. The FDA allows a boxed warning only if it requires the warning, to preserve its impact. It should be noted that some medical information sources (e.g., PDR.net) may include a “BOXED WARNING” in their drug monographs, but monographs not written by a manufacturer are not regulated by the FDA, and the text of their boxed warnings do not always correspond to the boxed warning that was approved by the FDA.

A boxed warning is not an indication that revocation of FDA approval is being considered or that it is likely to be revoked. FDA approval is subject to ongoing review and may be revoked at any time, without a prior boxed warning.

A boxed warning is not the highest level of warning. The FDA may require a manufacturer to send out a “Dear Health Care Provider” (DHCP) letter when an even higher or more urgent level of warning is deemed necessary. DHCP letters are usually accompanied by revisions of the product label, but most label revisions – and even most boxed warnings – are not accompanied by DHCP letters.

A boxed warning is not a statement about causation. Most warnings describe an “association” between a drug and an adverse effect, or “increased risk,” or instances of a particular adverse effect that “have been reported” in persons taking a drug. The words in a boxed warning are carefully chosen and require careful reading; in most cases they refrain from stating that a drug actually causes an adverse effect. The postmarketing surveillance data on which most warnings are based generally cannot provide the kind of evidence required to establish causation, and an association may be nothing more than an uncommon manifestation of the disorder for which the drug has been prescribed.

A boxed warning is not a statement about the probability of an adverse reaction occurring. The requirement for a boxed warning correlates better to the new recognition of a possible association than to the probability of an association. For example, penicillin has long been known to cause fatal anaphylaxis in 1/100,000 first-time administrations, but it does not have a boxed warning. The adverse consequences described in boxed warnings are often far less frequent – so much so that most physicians will never see them.

A boxed warning does not define the standard of care. The warning is a requirement imposed on the manufacturer, not on the practice of medicine. For legal purposes, the “standard of care” for the practice of medicine is defined state by state and is typically cast in terms such as “what most physicians would do in similar circumstances.” Physicians often prescribe drugs in spite of boxed warnings, just as they often prescribe drugs for “off label” indications, always balancing risk versus benefit.

A boxed warning does not constitute a contraindication to the use of a medication. Some warnings state that a drug is contraindicated in some situations, but product labels have another mandated section for listing contraindications, and most boxed warnings have no corresponding entry in that section.

A boxed warning does not necessarily constitute current information, nor is it always updated when new or contrary information becomes available. Revisions to boxed warnings, and to product labels in general, are made only after detailed review at the FDA, and the process of deciding whether an existing boxed warning continues to be appropriate may divert limited regulatory resources from more urgent priorities. Consequently, revisions to a boxed warning may lag behind the data that justify a revision by months or years. Revisions may never occur if softening or eliminating a boxed warning is deemed to be not worth the cost by a manufacturer.
 

Boxed warning problems for physicians

There is no reliable mechanism for manufacturers or the FDA to communicate boxed warnings directly to physicians, so it’s not clear how physicians are expected to stay informed about the issuance or revision of boxed warnings. They may first learn about new or revised warnings in the mass media, which is paying ever-increasing attention to press releases from the FDA. However, it can be difficult for the media to accurately convey the subtle and complex nature of a boxed warning in nontechnical terms.

Many physicians subscribe to various medical news alerts and attend continuing medical education (CME) programs, which often do an excellent job of highlighting new warnings, while hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies may broadcast news about boxed warnings in newsletters or other notices. But these notifications are ephemeral and may be missed by physicians who are overwhelmed by email, notices, newsletters, and CME programs.

The warnings that pop up in electronic medical records systems are often so numerous that physicians become trained to ignore them. Printed advertisements in professional journals must include mandated boxed warnings, but their visibility is waning as physicians increasingly read journals online.

Another conundrum is how to inform the public about boxed warnings.

Manufacturers are prohibited from direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs with boxed warnings, although the warnings are easily found on the Internet. Some patients expect and welcome detailed information from their physicians, so it’s a good policy to always and repeatedly review this information with them, especially if they are members of an identified risk group. However, that policy may be counterproductive if it dissuades anxious patients from needed therapy despite risk-benefit considerations that strongly favor it. Boxed warnings are well known to have “spillover effects” in which the aspersions cast by a boxed warning for a relatively small subgroup of patients causes use of a drug to decline among all patients.

Compounding this conundrum is that physicians rarely have sufficient information to gauge the magnitude of a risk, given that boxed warnings are often based on information from surveillance systems that cannot accurately quantify the risk or even establish a causal relationship. The text of a boxed warning generally does not provide the information needed for evidence-based clinical practice such as a quantitative estimate of effect, information about source and trustworthiness of the evidence, and guidance on implementation. For these and other reasons, FDA policies about various boxed warnings have been the target of significant criticism.

Medication guides are one mechanism to address the challenge of informing patients about the risks of drugs they are taking. FDA-approved medication guides are available for most drugs dispensed as outpatient prescriptions, they’re written in plain language for the consumer, and they include paraphrased versions of any boxed warning. Ideally, patients review these guides with their physicians or pharmacists, but the guides may be lengthy and raise questions that may not be answerable (e.g., about incidence rates). Patients may decline to review this information when a drug is prescribed or dispensed, and they may discard printed copies given to them without reading.
 

What can physicians do to minimize boxed warning problems?

Physicians should periodically review the product labels for drugs they commonly prescribe, including drugs they’ve prescribed for a long time. Prescription renewal requests can be used as a prompt to check for changes in a patient’s condition or other medications that might place a patient in the target population of a boxed warning. Physicians can subscribe to newsletters that announce and discuss significant product label changes, including alerts directly from the FDA. Physicians may also enlist their office staff to find and review boxed warnings for drugs being prescribed, noting which ones should require a conversation with any patient who has been or will be receiving this drug. They may want to make explicit mention in their encounter record that a boxed warning, medication guide, or overall risk-benefit assessment has been discussed.

Summary

The nature of boxed warnings, the means by which they are disseminated, and their role in clinical practice are all in great need of improvement. Until that occurs, boxed warnings offer some, but only very limited, help to patients and physicians who struggle to understand the risks of medications.

Dr. Axelsen is professor in the departments of pharmacology, biochemistry, and biophysics, and of medicine, infectious diseases section, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Almost all physicians write prescriptions, and each prescription requires a physician to assess the risks and benefits of the drug. If an adverse drug reaction occurs, physicians may be called on to defend their risk-benefit assessment in court.

The assessment of risk is complicated when there is a boxed warning that describes potentially serious and life-threatening adverse reactions associated with a drug. Some of our most commonly prescribed drugs have boxed warnings, and drugs that were initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration without boxed warnings may have them added years later.

One serious problem with boxed warnings is that there are no reliable mechanisms for making sure that physicians are aware of them. The warnings are typically not seen by physicians as printed product labels, just as physicians often don’t see the pills and capsules that they prescribe. Pharmacists who receive packaged drugs from manufacturers may be the only ones to see an actual printed boxed warning, but even those pharmacists have little reason to read each label and note changes when handling many bulk packages.

This problem is aggravated by misperceptions that many physicians have about boxed warnings and the increasingly intense scrutiny given to them by mass media and the courts. Lawyers can use boxed warnings to make a drug look dangerous, even when it’s not, and to make physicians look reckless when prescribing it. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand what boxed warnings are, what they are not, the problems they cause, and how to minimize these problems.
 

What is a ‘boxed warning’?

The marketing and sale of drugs in the United States requires approval by the FDA. Approval requires manufacturers to prepare a document containing “Full Prescribing Information” for the drug and to include a printed copy in every package of the drug that is sold. This document is commonly called a “package insert,” but the FDA designates this document as the manufacturer’s product “label.”

In 1979, the FDA began requiring some labels to appear within thick, black rectangular borders; these have come to be known as boxed warnings. Boxed warnings are usually placed at the beginning of a label. They may be added to the label of a previously approved drug already on the market or included in the product label when first approved and marketed.

The requirement for a boxed warning most often arises when a signal appears during review of postmarketing surveillance data suggesting a possible and plausible association between a drug and an adverse reaction. Warnings may also be initiated in response to petitions from public interest groups, or upon the discovery of serious toxicity in animals. Regardless of their origin, the intent of a boxed warning is to highlight information that may have important therapeutic consequences and warrants heightened awareness among physicians.
 

What a boxed warning is not

A boxed warning is not “issued” by the FDA; it is merely required by the FDA. Specific wording or a template may be suggested by the FDA, but product labels and boxed warnings are written and issued by the manufacturer. This distinction may seem minor, but extensive litigation has occurred over whether manufacturers have met their duty to warn consumers about possible risks when using their products, and this duty cannot be shifted to the FDA.

A boxed warning may not be added to a product label at the option of a manufacturer. The FDA allows a boxed warning only if it requires the warning, to preserve its impact. It should be noted that some medical information sources (e.g., PDR.net) may include a “BOXED WARNING” in their drug monographs, but monographs not written by a manufacturer are not regulated by the FDA, and the text of their boxed warnings do not always correspond to the boxed warning that was approved by the FDA.

A boxed warning is not an indication that revocation of FDA approval is being considered or that it is likely to be revoked. FDA approval is subject to ongoing review and may be revoked at any time, without a prior boxed warning.

A boxed warning is not the highest level of warning. The FDA may require a manufacturer to send out a “Dear Health Care Provider” (DHCP) letter when an even higher or more urgent level of warning is deemed necessary. DHCP letters are usually accompanied by revisions of the product label, but most label revisions – and even most boxed warnings – are not accompanied by DHCP letters.

A boxed warning is not a statement about causation. Most warnings describe an “association” between a drug and an adverse effect, or “increased risk,” or instances of a particular adverse effect that “have been reported” in persons taking a drug. The words in a boxed warning are carefully chosen and require careful reading; in most cases they refrain from stating that a drug actually causes an adverse effect. The postmarketing surveillance data on which most warnings are based generally cannot provide the kind of evidence required to establish causation, and an association may be nothing more than an uncommon manifestation of the disorder for which the drug has been prescribed.

A boxed warning is not a statement about the probability of an adverse reaction occurring. The requirement for a boxed warning correlates better to the new recognition of a possible association than to the probability of an association. For example, penicillin has long been known to cause fatal anaphylaxis in 1/100,000 first-time administrations, but it does not have a boxed warning. The adverse consequences described in boxed warnings are often far less frequent – so much so that most physicians will never see them.

A boxed warning does not define the standard of care. The warning is a requirement imposed on the manufacturer, not on the practice of medicine. For legal purposes, the “standard of care” for the practice of medicine is defined state by state and is typically cast in terms such as “what most physicians would do in similar circumstances.” Physicians often prescribe drugs in spite of boxed warnings, just as they often prescribe drugs for “off label” indications, always balancing risk versus benefit.

A boxed warning does not constitute a contraindication to the use of a medication. Some warnings state that a drug is contraindicated in some situations, but product labels have another mandated section for listing contraindications, and most boxed warnings have no corresponding entry in that section.

A boxed warning does not necessarily constitute current information, nor is it always updated when new or contrary information becomes available. Revisions to boxed warnings, and to product labels in general, are made only after detailed review at the FDA, and the process of deciding whether an existing boxed warning continues to be appropriate may divert limited regulatory resources from more urgent priorities. Consequently, revisions to a boxed warning may lag behind the data that justify a revision by months or years. Revisions may never occur if softening or eliminating a boxed warning is deemed to be not worth the cost by a manufacturer.
 

Boxed warning problems for physicians

There is no reliable mechanism for manufacturers or the FDA to communicate boxed warnings directly to physicians, so it’s not clear how physicians are expected to stay informed about the issuance or revision of boxed warnings. They may first learn about new or revised warnings in the mass media, which is paying ever-increasing attention to press releases from the FDA. However, it can be difficult for the media to accurately convey the subtle and complex nature of a boxed warning in nontechnical terms.

Many physicians subscribe to various medical news alerts and attend continuing medical education (CME) programs, which often do an excellent job of highlighting new warnings, while hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies may broadcast news about boxed warnings in newsletters or other notices. But these notifications are ephemeral and may be missed by physicians who are overwhelmed by email, notices, newsletters, and CME programs.

The warnings that pop up in electronic medical records systems are often so numerous that physicians become trained to ignore them. Printed advertisements in professional journals must include mandated boxed warnings, but their visibility is waning as physicians increasingly read journals online.

Another conundrum is how to inform the public about boxed warnings.

Manufacturers are prohibited from direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs with boxed warnings, although the warnings are easily found on the Internet. Some patients expect and welcome detailed information from their physicians, so it’s a good policy to always and repeatedly review this information with them, especially if they are members of an identified risk group. However, that policy may be counterproductive if it dissuades anxious patients from needed therapy despite risk-benefit considerations that strongly favor it. Boxed warnings are well known to have “spillover effects” in which the aspersions cast by a boxed warning for a relatively small subgroup of patients causes use of a drug to decline among all patients.

Compounding this conundrum is that physicians rarely have sufficient information to gauge the magnitude of a risk, given that boxed warnings are often based on information from surveillance systems that cannot accurately quantify the risk or even establish a causal relationship. The text of a boxed warning generally does not provide the information needed for evidence-based clinical practice such as a quantitative estimate of effect, information about source and trustworthiness of the evidence, and guidance on implementation. For these and other reasons, FDA policies about various boxed warnings have been the target of significant criticism.

Medication guides are one mechanism to address the challenge of informing patients about the risks of drugs they are taking. FDA-approved medication guides are available for most drugs dispensed as outpatient prescriptions, they’re written in plain language for the consumer, and they include paraphrased versions of any boxed warning. Ideally, patients review these guides with their physicians or pharmacists, but the guides may be lengthy and raise questions that may not be answerable (e.g., about incidence rates). Patients may decline to review this information when a drug is prescribed or dispensed, and they may discard printed copies given to them without reading.
 

What can physicians do to minimize boxed warning problems?

Physicians should periodically review the product labels for drugs they commonly prescribe, including drugs they’ve prescribed for a long time. Prescription renewal requests can be used as a prompt to check for changes in a patient’s condition or other medications that might place a patient in the target population of a boxed warning. Physicians can subscribe to newsletters that announce and discuss significant product label changes, including alerts directly from the FDA. Physicians may also enlist their office staff to find and review boxed warnings for drugs being prescribed, noting which ones should require a conversation with any patient who has been or will be receiving this drug. They may want to make explicit mention in their encounter record that a boxed warning, medication guide, or overall risk-benefit assessment has been discussed.

Summary

The nature of boxed warnings, the means by which they are disseminated, and their role in clinical practice are all in great need of improvement. Until that occurs, boxed warnings offer some, but only very limited, help to patients and physicians who struggle to understand the risks of medications.

Dr. Axelsen is professor in the departments of pharmacology, biochemistry, and biophysics, and of medicine, infectious diseases section, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Almost all physicians write prescriptions, and each prescription requires a physician to assess the risks and benefits of the drug. If an adverse drug reaction occurs, physicians may be called on to defend their risk-benefit assessment in court.

The assessment of risk is complicated when there is a boxed warning that describes potentially serious and life-threatening adverse reactions associated with a drug. Some of our most commonly prescribed drugs have boxed warnings, and drugs that were initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration without boxed warnings may have them added years later.

One serious problem with boxed warnings is that there are no reliable mechanisms for making sure that physicians are aware of them. The warnings are typically not seen by physicians as printed product labels, just as physicians often don’t see the pills and capsules that they prescribe. Pharmacists who receive packaged drugs from manufacturers may be the only ones to see an actual printed boxed warning, but even those pharmacists have little reason to read each label and note changes when handling many bulk packages.

This problem is aggravated by misperceptions that many physicians have about boxed warnings and the increasingly intense scrutiny given to them by mass media and the courts. Lawyers can use boxed warnings to make a drug look dangerous, even when it’s not, and to make physicians look reckless when prescribing it. Therefore, it is important for physicians to understand what boxed warnings are, what they are not, the problems they cause, and how to minimize these problems.
 

What is a ‘boxed warning’?

The marketing and sale of drugs in the United States requires approval by the FDA. Approval requires manufacturers to prepare a document containing “Full Prescribing Information” for the drug and to include a printed copy in every package of the drug that is sold. This document is commonly called a “package insert,” but the FDA designates this document as the manufacturer’s product “label.”

In 1979, the FDA began requiring some labels to appear within thick, black rectangular borders; these have come to be known as boxed warnings. Boxed warnings are usually placed at the beginning of a label. They may be added to the label of a previously approved drug already on the market or included in the product label when first approved and marketed.

The requirement for a boxed warning most often arises when a signal appears during review of postmarketing surveillance data suggesting a possible and plausible association between a drug and an adverse reaction. Warnings may also be initiated in response to petitions from public interest groups, or upon the discovery of serious toxicity in animals. Regardless of their origin, the intent of a boxed warning is to highlight information that may have important therapeutic consequences and warrants heightened awareness among physicians.
 

What a boxed warning is not

A boxed warning is not “issued” by the FDA; it is merely required by the FDA. Specific wording or a template may be suggested by the FDA, but product labels and boxed warnings are written and issued by the manufacturer. This distinction may seem minor, but extensive litigation has occurred over whether manufacturers have met their duty to warn consumers about possible risks when using their products, and this duty cannot be shifted to the FDA.

A boxed warning may not be added to a product label at the option of a manufacturer. The FDA allows a boxed warning only if it requires the warning, to preserve its impact. It should be noted that some medical information sources (e.g., PDR.net) may include a “BOXED WARNING” in their drug monographs, but monographs not written by a manufacturer are not regulated by the FDA, and the text of their boxed warnings do not always correspond to the boxed warning that was approved by the FDA.

A boxed warning is not an indication that revocation of FDA approval is being considered or that it is likely to be revoked. FDA approval is subject to ongoing review and may be revoked at any time, without a prior boxed warning.

A boxed warning is not the highest level of warning. The FDA may require a manufacturer to send out a “Dear Health Care Provider” (DHCP) letter when an even higher or more urgent level of warning is deemed necessary. DHCP letters are usually accompanied by revisions of the product label, but most label revisions – and even most boxed warnings – are not accompanied by DHCP letters.

A boxed warning is not a statement about causation. Most warnings describe an “association” between a drug and an adverse effect, or “increased risk,” or instances of a particular adverse effect that “have been reported” in persons taking a drug. The words in a boxed warning are carefully chosen and require careful reading; in most cases they refrain from stating that a drug actually causes an adverse effect. The postmarketing surveillance data on which most warnings are based generally cannot provide the kind of evidence required to establish causation, and an association may be nothing more than an uncommon manifestation of the disorder for which the drug has been prescribed.

A boxed warning is not a statement about the probability of an adverse reaction occurring. The requirement for a boxed warning correlates better to the new recognition of a possible association than to the probability of an association. For example, penicillin has long been known to cause fatal anaphylaxis in 1/100,000 first-time administrations, but it does not have a boxed warning. The adverse consequences described in boxed warnings are often far less frequent – so much so that most physicians will never see them.

A boxed warning does not define the standard of care. The warning is a requirement imposed on the manufacturer, not on the practice of medicine. For legal purposes, the “standard of care” for the practice of medicine is defined state by state and is typically cast in terms such as “what most physicians would do in similar circumstances.” Physicians often prescribe drugs in spite of boxed warnings, just as they often prescribe drugs for “off label” indications, always balancing risk versus benefit.

A boxed warning does not constitute a contraindication to the use of a medication. Some warnings state that a drug is contraindicated in some situations, but product labels have another mandated section for listing contraindications, and most boxed warnings have no corresponding entry in that section.

A boxed warning does not necessarily constitute current information, nor is it always updated when new or contrary information becomes available. Revisions to boxed warnings, and to product labels in general, are made only after detailed review at the FDA, and the process of deciding whether an existing boxed warning continues to be appropriate may divert limited regulatory resources from more urgent priorities. Consequently, revisions to a boxed warning may lag behind the data that justify a revision by months or years. Revisions may never occur if softening or eliminating a boxed warning is deemed to be not worth the cost by a manufacturer.
 

Boxed warning problems for physicians

There is no reliable mechanism for manufacturers or the FDA to communicate boxed warnings directly to physicians, so it’s not clear how physicians are expected to stay informed about the issuance or revision of boxed warnings. They may first learn about new or revised warnings in the mass media, which is paying ever-increasing attention to press releases from the FDA. However, it can be difficult for the media to accurately convey the subtle and complex nature of a boxed warning in nontechnical terms.

Many physicians subscribe to various medical news alerts and attend continuing medical education (CME) programs, which often do an excellent job of highlighting new warnings, while hospitals, clinics, and pharmacies may broadcast news about boxed warnings in newsletters or other notices. But these notifications are ephemeral and may be missed by physicians who are overwhelmed by email, notices, newsletters, and CME programs.

The warnings that pop up in electronic medical records systems are often so numerous that physicians become trained to ignore them. Printed advertisements in professional journals must include mandated boxed warnings, but their visibility is waning as physicians increasingly read journals online.

Another conundrum is how to inform the public about boxed warnings.

Manufacturers are prohibited from direct-to-consumer advertising of drugs with boxed warnings, although the warnings are easily found on the Internet. Some patients expect and welcome detailed information from their physicians, so it’s a good policy to always and repeatedly review this information with them, especially if they are members of an identified risk group. However, that policy may be counterproductive if it dissuades anxious patients from needed therapy despite risk-benefit considerations that strongly favor it. Boxed warnings are well known to have “spillover effects” in which the aspersions cast by a boxed warning for a relatively small subgroup of patients causes use of a drug to decline among all patients.

Compounding this conundrum is that physicians rarely have sufficient information to gauge the magnitude of a risk, given that boxed warnings are often based on information from surveillance systems that cannot accurately quantify the risk or even establish a causal relationship. The text of a boxed warning generally does not provide the information needed for evidence-based clinical practice such as a quantitative estimate of effect, information about source and trustworthiness of the evidence, and guidance on implementation. For these and other reasons, FDA policies about various boxed warnings have been the target of significant criticism.

Medication guides are one mechanism to address the challenge of informing patients about the risks of drugs they are taking. FDA-approved medication guides are available for most drugs dispensed as outpatient prescriptions, they’re written in plain language for the consumer, and they include paraphrased versions of any boxed warning. Ideally, patients review these guides with their physicians or pharmacists, but the guides may be lengthy and raise questions that may not be answerable (e.g., about incidence rates). Patients may decline to review this information when a drug is prescribed or dispensed, and they may discard printed copies given to them without reading.
 

What can physicians do to minimize boxed warning problems?

Physicians should periodically review the product labels for drugs they commonly prescribe, including drugs they’ve prescribed for a long time. Prescription renewal requests can be used as a prompt to check for changes in a patient’s condition or other medications that might place a patient in the target population of a boxed warning. Physicians can subscribe to newsletters that announce and discuss significant product label changes, including alerts directly from the FDA. Physicians may also enlist their office staff to find and review boxed warnings for drugs being prescribed, noting which ones should require a conversation with any patient who has been or will be receiving this drug. They may want to make explicit mention in their encounter record that a boxed warning, medication guide, or overall risk-benefit assessment has been discussed.

Summary

The nature of boxed warnings, the means by which they are disseminated, and their role in clinical practice are all in great need of improvement. Until that occurs, boxed warnings offer some, but only very limited, help to patients and physicians who struggle to understand the risks of medications.

Dr. Axelsen is professor in the departments of pharmacology, biochemistry, and biophysics, and of medicine, infectious diseases section, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia. He disclosed no relevant financial relationships. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans are not confident that they understood their doctor’s recommendations and the health information they discussed with their doctor after a visit, according to a new survey.

Confusion over health information and doctor advice is even higher among people who care for patients than among those who don’t provide care to their loved ones, the nationally representative survey from the AHIMA Foundation found.

The survey also shows that 80% of Americans – and an even higher portion of caregivers – are likely to research medical recommendations online after a doctor’s visit. But 1 in 4 people don’t know how to access their own medical records or find it difficult to do so.

The findings reflect the same low level of health literacy in the U.S. population that earlier surveys did. The results also indicate that little has changed since the Department of Health and Human Services released a National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy in 2010.

That plan emphasized the need to develop and share accurate health information that helps people make decisions; to promote changes in the health care system that improve health information, communication, informed decision-making, and access to health services; and to increase the sharing and use of evidence-based health literacy practices.

According to the AHIMA Foundation report, 62% of Americans are not sure they understand their doctor’s advice and the health information discussed during a visit. Twenty-four percent say they don’t comprehend any of it, and 31% can’t remember what was said during the visit. Fifteen percent of those surveyed said they were more confused about their health than they were before the encounter with their doctor.
 

Caregivers have special issues

Forty-three percent of Americans are caregivers, the report notes, and 91% of those play an active role in managing someone else’s health. Millennials (65%) and Gen Xers (50%) are significantly more likely than Gen Zers (39%) and Boomers (20%) to be a caregiver.

Most caregivers have concerns about their loved ones’ ability to manage their own health. Most of them believe that doctors provide enough information, but 38% don’t believe a doctor can communicate effectively with the patient if the caregiver is not present.

Forty-three percent of caretakers don’t think their loved ones can understand medical information on their own. On the other hand, caregivers are more likely than people who don’t provide care to say the doctor confused them and to research the doctor’s advice after an appointment.

For many patients and caregivers, communications break down when they are with their health care provider. Twenty-two percent of Americans say they do not feel comfortable asking their doctor certain health questions. This inability to have a satisfactory dialogue with their doctor means that many patients leave their appointments without getting clear answers to their questions (24%) or without having an opportunity to ask any questions at all (17%).

This is not surprising, considering that a 2018 study found that doctors spend only 11 seconds, on average, listening to patients before interrupting them.
 

Depending on the internet

Overall, the AHIMA survey found, 42% of Americans research their doctor’s recommendations after an appointment. A higher percentage of caregivers than noncaregiver peers do so (47% vs. 38%). Eighty percent of respondents say they are “likely” to research their doctor’s advice online after a visit.

When they have a medical problem or a question about their condition, just as many Americans (59%) turn to the internet for an answer as contact their doctor directly, the survey found. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents consult friends, family, or colleagues; 23% look up medical records if they’re easily accessible; 19% ask pharmacists for advice; and 6% call an unspecified 800 number.

Americans feel secure in the health information they find on the internet. Among those who go online to look up information, 86% are confident that it is credible. And 42% report feeling relieved that they can find a lot of information about their health concerns. Respondents also say that the information they gather allows them to feel more confident in their doctor’s recommendations (35%) and that they feel better after having learned more on the internet than their doctor had told them (39%). Men are more likely than women to say that their confidence in their doctor’s recommendations increased after doing online research (40% vs. 30%).
 

Access to health records

Access to medical records would help people better understand their condition or diagnosis. But nearly half of Americans (48%) admit they don’t usually review their medical records until long after an appointment, and 52% say they rarely access their records at all.

One in four Americans say that they don’t know where to go to access their health information or that they didn’t find the process easy. More than half of those who have never had to find their records think the process would be difficult if they had to try.

Eighty-one percent of Americans use an online platform or portal to access their medical records or health information. Two-thirds of Americans who use an online portal trust that their medical information is kept safe and not shared with other people or organizations.

Four in five respondents agree that if they had access to all of their health information, including medical records, recommendations, conditions, and test results, they’d see an improvement in their health management. Fifty-nine percent of them believe they’d also be more confident about understanding their health, and 47% say they’d have greater trust in their doctor’s recommendations. Higher percentages of caregivers than noncaregivers say the same.

Younger people, those with a high school degree or less, and those who earn less than $50,000 are less likely than older, better educated, and more affluent people to understand their doctor’s health information and to ask questions of their providers.

People of color struggle with their relationships with doctors, are less satisfied than white people with the information they receive during visits, and are more likely than white peers to feel that if they had access to all their health information, they’d manage their health better and be more confident in their doctors’ recommendations, the survey found.

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

Nearly two-thirds of Americans are not confident that they understood their doctor’s recommendations and the health information they discussed with their doctor after a visit, according to a new survey.

Confusion over health information and doctor advice is even higher among people who care for patients than among those who don’t provide care to their loved ones, the nationally representative survey from the AHIMA Foundation found.

The survey also shows that 80% of Americans – and an even higher portion of caregivers – are likely to research medical recommendations online after a doctor’s visit. But 1 in 4 people don’t know how to access their own medical records or find it difficult to do so.

The findings reflect the same low level of health literacy in the U.S. population that earlier surveys did. The results also indicate that little has changed since the Department of Health and Human Services released a National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy in 2010.

That plan emphasized the need to develop and share accurate health information that helps people make decisions; to promote changes in the health care system that improve health information, communication, informed decision-making, and access to health services; and to increase the sharing and use of evidence-based health literacy practices.

According to the AHIMA Foundation report, 62% of Americans are not sure they understand their doctor’s advice and the health information discussed during a visit. Twenty-four percent say they don’t comprehend any of it, and 31% can’t remember what was said during the visit. Fifteen percent of those surveyed said they were more confused about their health than they were before the encounter with their doctor.
 

Caregivers have special issues

Forty-three percent of Americans are caregivers, the report notes, and 91% of those play an active role in managing someone else’s health. Millennials (65%) and Gen Xers (50%) are significantly more likely than Gen Zers (39%) and Boomers (20%) to be a caregiver.

Most caregivers have concerns about their loved ones’ ability to manage their own health. Most of them believe that doctors provide enough information, but 38% don’t believe a doctor can communicate effectively with the patient if the caregiver is not present.

Forty-three percent of caretakers don’t think their loved ones can understand medical information on their own. On the other hand, caregivers are more likely than people who don’t provide care to say the doctor confused them and to research the doctor’s advice after an appointment.

For many patients and caregivers, communications break down when they are with their health care provider. Twenty-two percent of Americans say they do not feel comfortable asking their doctor certain health questions. This inability to have a satisfactory dialogue with their doctor means that many patients leave their appointments without getting clear answers to their questions (24%) or without having an opportunity to ask any questions at all (17%).

This is not surprising, considering that a 2018 study found that doctors spend only 11 seconds, on average, listening to patients before interrupting them.
 

Depending on the internet

Overall, the AHIMA survey found, 42% of Americans research their doctor’s recommendations after an appointment. A higher percentage of caregivers than noncaregiver peers do so (47% vs. 38%). Eighty percent of respondents say they are “likely” to research their doctor’s advice online after a visit.

When they have a medical problem or a question about their condition, just as many Americans (59%) turn to the internet for an answer as contact their doctor directly, the survey found. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents consult friends, family, or colleagues; 23% look up medical records if they’re easily accessible; 19% ask pharmacists for advice; and 6% call an unspecified 800 number.

Americans feel secure in the health information they find on the internet. Among those who go online to look up information, 86% are confident that it is credible. And 42% report feeling relieved that they can find a lot of information about their health concerns. Respondents also say that the information they gather allows them to feel more confident in their doctor’s recommendations (35%) and that they feel better after having learned more on the internet than their doctor had told them (39%). Men are more likely than women to say that their confidence in their doctor’s recommendations increased after doing online research (40% vs. 30%).
 

Access to health records

Access to medical records would help people better understand their condition or diagnosis. But nearly half of Americans (48%) admit they don’t usually review their medical records until long after an appointment, and 52% say they rarely access their records at all.

One in four Americans say that they don’t know where to go to access their health information or that they didn’t find the process easy. More than half of those who have never had to find their records think the process would be difficult if they had to try.

Eighty-one percent of Americans use an online platform or portal to access their medical records or health information. Two-thirds of Americans who use an online portal trust that their medical information is kept safe and not shared with other people or organizations.

Four in five respondents agree that if they had access to all of their health information, including medical records, recommendations, conditions, and test results, they’d see an improvement in their health management. Fifty-nine percent of them believe they’d also be more confident about understanding their health, and 47% say they’d have greater trust in their doctor’s recommendations. Higher percentages of caregivers than noncaregivers say the same.

Younger people, those with a high school degree or less, and those who earn less than $50,000 are less likely than older, better educated, and more affluent people to understand their doctor’s health information and to ask questions of their providers.

People of color struggle with their relationships with doctors, are less satisfied than white people with the information they receive during visits, and are more likely than white peers to feel that if they had access to all their health information, they’d manage their health better and be more confident in their doctors’ recommendations, the survey found.

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

Nearly two-thirds of Americans are not confident that they understood their doctor’s recommendations and the health information they discussed with their doctor after a visit, according to a new survey.

Confusion over health information and doctor advice is even higher among people who care for patients than among those who don’t provide care to their loved ones, the nationally representative survey from the AHIMA Foundation found.

The survey also shows that 80% of Americans – and an even higher portion of caregivers – are likely to research medical recommendations online after a doctor’s visit. But 1 in 4 people don’t know how to access their own medical records or find it difficult to do so.

The findings reflect the same low level of health literacy in the U.S. population that earlier surveys did. The results also indicate that little has changed since the Department of Health and Human Services released a National Action Plan to Improve Health Literacy in 2010.

That plan emphasized the need to develop and share accurate health information that helps people make decisions; to promote changes in the health care system that improve health information, communication, informed decision-making, and access to health services; and to increase the sharing and use of evidence-based health literacy practices.

According to the AHIMA Foundation report, 62% of Americans are not sure they understand their doctor’s advice and the health information discussed during a visit. Twenty-four percent say they don’t comprehend any of it, and 31% can’t remember what was said during the visit. Fifteen percent of those surveyed said they were more confused about their health than they were before the encounter with their doctor.
 

Caregivers have special issues

Forty-three percent of Americans are caregivers, the report notes, and 91% of those play an active role in managing someone else’s health. Millennials (65%) and Gen Xers (50%) are significantly more likely than Gen Zers (39%) and Boomers (20%) to be a caregiver.

Most caregivers have concerns about their loved ones’ ability to manage their own health. Most of them believe that doctors provide enough information, but 38% don’t believe a doctor can communicate effectively with the patient if the caregiver is not present.

Forty-three percent of caretakers don’t think their loved ones can understand medical information on their own. On the other hand, caregivers are more likely than people who don’t provide care to say the doctor confused them and to research the doctor’s advice after an appointment.

For many patients and caregivers, communications break down when they are with their health care provider. Twenty-two percent of Americans say they do not feel comfortable asking their doctor certain health questions. This inability to have a satisfactory dialogue with their doctor means that many patients leave their appointments without getting clear answers to their questions (24%) or without having an opportunity to ask any questions at all (17%).

This is not surprising, considering that a 2018 study found that doctors spend only 11 seconds, on average, listening to patients before interrupting them.
 

Depending on the internet

Overall, the AHIMA survey found, 42% of Americans research their doctor’s recommendations after an appointment. A higher percentage of caregivers than noncaregiver peers do so (47% vs. 38%). Eighty percent of respondents say they are “likely” to research their doctor’s advice online after a visit.

When they have a medical problem or a question about their condition, just as many Americans (59%) turn to the internet for an answer as contact their doctor directly, the survey found. Twenty-nine percent of the respondents consult friends, family, or colleagues; 23% look up medical records if they’re easily accessible; 19% ask pharmacists for advice; and 6% call an unspecified 800 number.

Americans feel secure in the health information they find on the internet. Among those who go online to look up information, 86% are confident that it is credible. And 42% report feeling relieved that they can find a lot of information about their health concerns. Respondents also say that the information they gather allows them to feel more confident in their doctor’s recommendations (35%) and that they feel better after having learned more on the internet than their doctor had told them (39%). Men are more likely than women to say that their confidence in their doctor’s recommendations increased after doing online research (40% vs. 30%).
 

Access to health records

Access to medical records would help people better understand their condition or diagnosis. But nearly half of Americans (48%) admit they don’t usually review their medical records until long after an appointment, and 52% say they rarely access their records at all.

One in four Americans say that they don’t know where to go to access their health information or that they didn’t find the process easy. More than half of those who have never had to find their records think the process would be difficult if they had to try.

Eighty-one percent of Americans use an online platform or portal to access their medical records or health information. Two-thirds of Americans who use an online portal trust that their medical information is kept safe and not shared with other people or organizations.

Four in five respondents agree that if they had access to all of their health information, including medical records, recommendations, conditions, and test results, they’d see an improvement in their health management. Fifty-nine percent of them believe they’d also be more confident about understanding their health, and 47% say they’d have greater trust in their doctor’s recommendations. Higher percentages of caregivers than noncaregivers say the same.

Younger people, those with a high school degree or less, and those who earn less than $50,000 are less likely than older, better educated, and more affluent people to understand their doctor’s health information and to ask questions of their providers.

People of color struggle with their relationships with doctors, are less satisfied than white people with the information they receive during visits, and are more likely than white peers to feel that if they had access to all their health information, they’d manage their health better and be more confident in their doctors’ recommendations, the survey found.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11, which means vaccines could be available to school-aged children starting next week.

The move brings families with young children a step closer to resuming their normal activities, and it should help further slow transmission of the coronavirus virus in the United States.

States have already placed their orders for initial doses of the vaccines. The Oct. 29 FDA authorization triggers the shipment of millions of doses to pediatricians, family practice doctors, children’s hospitals, community health centers, and pharmacies.

Next, a panel of experts known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, will meet Nov. 2 to vote on recommendations for use of the vaccine.

As soon as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director signs off on those recommendations, children can get the shots, perhaps as early as Nov. 3.

Pfizer’s vaccine for children is 10 micrograms, or one-third of the dose given to teens and adults. Kids get two doses of the vaccine 3 weeks apart. In clinical trials, the most common side effects were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. These side effects were mild and disappeared quickly. There were no serious adverse events detected in the studies, which included about 3,100 children. In one study, the vaccine was 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infections with symptoms in younger children.

There are about 28 million children in the United States between the ages of 5 and 12.

“As a mother and a physician, I know that parents, caregivers, school staff, and children have been waiting for today’s authorization. Vaccinating younger children against COVID-19 will bring us closer to returning to a sense of normalcy,” Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in an FDA news release.

“Our comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the data pertaining to the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness should help assure parents and guardians that this vaccine meets our high standards,” she said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11, which means vaccines could be available to school-aged children starting next week.

The move brings families with young children a step closer to resuming their normal activities, and it should help further slow transmission of the coronavirus virus in the United States.

States have already placed their orders for initial doses of the vaccines. The Oct. 29 FDA authorization triggers the shipment of millions of doses to pediatricians, family practice doctors, children’s hospitals, community health centers, and pharmacies.

Next, a panel of experts known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, will meet Nov. 2 to vote on recommendations for use of the vaccine.

As soon as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director signs off on those recommendations, children can get the shots, perhaps as early as Nov. 3.

Pfizer’s vaccine for children is 10 micrograms, or one-third of the dose given to teens and adults. Kids get two doses of the vaccine 3 weeks apart. In clinical trials, the most common side effects were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. These side effects were mild and disappeared quickly. There were no serious adverse events detected in the studies, which included about 3,100 children. In one study, the vaccine was 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infections with symptoms in younger children.

There are about 28 million children in the United States between the ages of 5 and 12.

“As a mother and a physician, I know that parents, caregivers, school staff, and children have been waiting for today’s authorization. Vaccinating younger children against COVID-19 will bring us closer to returning to a sense of normalcy,” Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in an FDA news release.

“Our comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the data pertaining to the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness should help assure parents and guardians that this vaccine meets our high standards,” she said.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has authorized Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 5 to 11, which means vaccines could be available to school-aged children starting next week.

The move brings families with young children a step closer to resuming their normal activities, and it should help further slow transmission of the coronavirus virus in the United States.

States have already placed their orders for initial doses of the vaccines. The Oct. 29 FDA authorization triggers the shipment of millions of doses to pediatricians, family practice doctors, children’s hospitals, community health centers, and pharmacies.

Next, a panel of experts known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, will meet Nov. 2 to vote on recommendations for use of the vaccine.

As soon as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s director signs off on those recommendations, children can get the shots, perhaps as early as Nov. 3.

Pfizer’s vaccine for children is 10 micrograms, or one-third of the dose given to teens and adults. Kids get two doses of the vaccine 3 weeks apart. In clinical trials, the most common side effects were pain at the injection site, fatigue, and headache. These side effects were mild and disappeared quickly. There were no serious adverse events detected in the studies, which included about 3,100 children. In one study, the vaccine was 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infections with symptoms in younger children.

There are about 28 million children in the United States between the ages of 5 and 12.

“As a mother and a physician, I know that parents, caregivers, school staff, and children have been waiting for today’s authorization. Vaccinating younger children against COVID-19 will bring us closer to returning to a sense of normalcy,” Acting FDA Commissioner Janet Woodcock, MD, said in an FDA news release.

“Our comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of the data pertaining to the vaccine’s safety and effectiveness should help assure parents and guardians that this vaccine meets our high standards,” she said.

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

In the clinical experience of R. Rox Anderson, MD, currently available treatment options for benign tumors caused by neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF-1) are not acceptable.

“Simply removing the tumors with surgery is not the answer,” Dr. Anderson, a dermatologist who is the director of the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “We need a way to inhibit the cutaneous neurofibromatosis early in life and prevent disfigurement that occurs when kids become adults.

“Kids with NF-1 are born looking normal,” he said. “They have café au lait macules and Lisch nodules in their eye, but they’re normal-looking kids. By early adulthood, many will grow hundreds of tumors that are disfiguring.”

In patients with NF-1, surgical excision works for cutaneous tumors but is expensive and not widely available, and is usually not covered by health insurance. “Plus, you have these adults who have already been through a lot of trauma, with the disfigurement in their lives, who have to be put under general anesthesia to remove a large number of tumors,” Dr. Anderson said at the meeting, which was named What’s the Truth and was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. Cryotherapy is a minimally invasive way to treat cutaneous neurofibroma tumors, “but this destroys the overlying skin, so you get unwanted destruction,” he said. “I like the idea of selecting heating, but we don’t know yet by what method.”

Dr. Anderson and his colleagues just launched a comparative clinical trial that will test four different approaches to treating tumors in adults with cutaneous NF: deoxycholate injection, an insulated radiofrequency needle, a 980-nm diode laser, and a 860-nm Alexandrite laser. They plan to perform one or more treatment methods per patient in a single treatment session, then follow up at least 6 months later. Baseline and untreated cutaneous NF lesions will serve as controls. The researchers plan to conduct three-dimensional imaging, clinical assessments, and evaluate pain and other subjective measures.

Use of deoxycholate in a pilot trial was well tolerated and induced tumor regression in adults with cutaneous NF, he said.

Dr. Anderson noted that other researchers are studying the potential role of topical or local mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK) inhibitors for these tumors. “Systemic MEK inhibitors are effective for plexiform neuromas, but cause significant cutaneous side effects,” he said. A “soft” MEK inhibitor, NFX-179 is rapidly metabolized such that high drug levels are achieved in skin without systemic drug levels. However, Dr. Anderson said that it remains unclear if this approach will prevent cutaneous NF tumors from forming, arrest their growth, or induce their regression.

Dr. Anderson reported having received research funding and/or consulting fees from numerous device and pharmaceutical companies.

Commentary by Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD

Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is a common genodermatosis, associated with the development of neurofibromas derived from nerves, soft tissue, and skin. Cutaneous NFs often develop in later childhood onward and may be deforming, associated with pruritus, pain, and significant effect on quality of life. Dr. Anderson is a world leader in laser treatment, having developed the theories behind laser development for medical usage, as well as the laser technology used for vascular birthmarks and hair removal, laser and cooling techniques targeting fat, and “fractionating” laser energy, which has revolutionized scar management. We look forward to his group’s insights into better management of NF1 lesions!

Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. He disclosed that he has served as an investigator and/or consultant to AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Verrica.

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

This article was updated 6/18/22.

In the clinical experience of R. Rox Anderson, MD, currently available treatment options for benign tumors caused by neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF-1) are not acceptable.

“Simply removing the tumors with surgery is not the answer,” Dr. Anderson, a dermatologist who is the director of the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “We need a way to inhibit the cutaneous neurofibromatosis early in life and prevent disfigurement that occurs when kids become adults.

“Kids with NF-1 are born looking normal,” he said. “They have café au lait macules and Lisch nodules in their eye, but they’re normal-looking kids. By early adulthood, many will grow hundreds of tumors that are disfiguring.”

In patients with NF-1, surgical excision works for cutaneous tumors but is expensive and not widely available, and is usually not covered by health insurance. “Plus, you have these adults who have already been through a lot of trauma, with the disfigurement in their lives, who have to be put under general anesthesia to remove a large number of tumors,” Dr. Anderson said at the meeting, which was named What’s the Truth and was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. Cryotherapy is a minimally invasive way to treat cutaneous neurofibroma tumors, “but this destroys the overlying skin, so you get unwanted destruction,” he said. “I like the idea of selecting heating, but we don’t know yet by what method.”

Dr. Anderson and his colleagues just launched a comparative clinical trial that will test four different approaches to treating tumors in adults with cutaneous NF: deoxycholate injection, an insulated radiofrequency needle, a 980-nm diode laser, and a 860-nm Alexandrite laser. They plan to perform one or more treatment methods per patient in a single treatment session, then follow up at least 6 months later. Baseline and untreated cutaneous NF lesions will serve as controls. The researchers plan to conduct three-dimensional imaging, clinical assessments, and evaluate pain and other subjective measures.

Use of deoxycholate in a pilot trial was well tolerated and induced tumor regression in adults with cutaneous NF, he said.

Dr. Anderson noted that other researchers are studying the potential role of topical or local mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK) inhibitors for these tumors. “Systemic MEK inhibitors are effective for plexiform neuromas, but cause significant cutaneous side effects,” he said. A “soft” MEK inhibitor, NFX-179 is rapidly metabolized such that high drug levels are achieved in skin without systemic drug levels. However, Dr. Anderson said that it remains unclear if this approach will prevent cutaneous NF tumors from forming, arrest their growth, or induce their regression.

Dr. Anderson reported having received research funding and/or consulting fees from numerous device and pharmaceutical companies.

Commentary by Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD

Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is a common genodermatosis, associated with the development of neurofibromas derived from nerves, soft tissue, and skin. Cutaneous NFs often develop in later childhood onward and may be deforming, associated with pruritus, pain, and significant effect on quality of life. Dr. Anderson is a world leader in laser treatment, having developed the theories behind laser development for medical usage, as well as the laser technology used for vascular birthmarks and hair removal, laser and cooling techniques targeting fat, and “fractionating” laser energy, which has revolutionized scar management. We look forward to his group’s insights into better management of NF1 lesions!

Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. He disclosed that he has served as an investigator and/or consultant to AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Verrica.

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

This article was updated 6/18/22.

In the clinical experience of R. Rox Anderson, MD, currently available treatment options for benign tumors caused by neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF-1) are not acceptable.

“Simply removing the tumors with surgery is not the answer,” Dr. Anderson, a dermatologist who is the director of the Wellman Center for Photomedicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, said during a virtual course on laser and aesthetic skin therapy. “We need a way to inhibit the cutaneous neurofibromatosis early in life and prevent disfigurement that occurs when kids become adults.

“Kids with NF-1 are born looking normal,” he said. “They have café au lait macules and Lisch nodules in their eye, but they’re normal-looking kids. By early adulthood, many will grow hundreds of tumors that are disfiguring.”

In patients with NF-1, surgical excision works for cutaneous tumors but is expensive and not widely available, and is usually not covered by health insurance. “Plus, you have these adults who have already been through a lot of trauma, with the disfigurement in their lives, who have to be put under general anesthesia to remove a large number of tumors,” Dr. Anderson said at the meeting, which was named What’s the Truth and was sponsored by Harvard Medical School, Massachusetts General Hospital, and the Wellman Center for Photomedicine. Cryotherapy is a minimally invasive way to treat cutaneous neurofibroma tumors, “but this destroys the overlying skin, so you get unwanted destruction,” he said. “I like the idea of selecting heating, but we don’t know yet by what method.”

Dr. Anderson and his colleagues just launched a comparative clinical trial that will test four different approaches to treating tumors in adults with cutaneous NF: deoxycholate injection, an insulated radiofrequency needle, a 980-nm diode laser, and a 860-nm Alexandrite laser. They plan to perform one or more treatment methods per patient in a single treatment session, then follow up at least 6 months later. Baseline and untreated cutaneous NF lesions will serve as controls. The researchers plan to conduct three-dimensional imaging, clinical assessments, and evaluate pain and other subjective measures.

Use of deoxycholate in a pilot trial was well tolerated and induced tumor regression in adults with cutaneous NF, he said.

Dr. Anderson noted that other researchers are studying the potential role of topical or local mitogen-activated protein kinase (MEK) inhibitors for these tumors. “Systemic MEK inhibitors are effective for plexiform neuromas, but cause significant cutaneous side effects,” he said. A “soft” MEK inhibitor, NFX-179 is rapidly metabolized such that high drug levels are achieved in skin without systemic drug levels. However, Dr. Anderson said that it remains unclear if this approach will prevent cutaneous NF tumors from forming, arrest their growth, or induce their regression.

Dr. Anderson reported having received research funding and/or consulting fees from numerous device and pharmaceutical companies.

Commentary by Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD

Neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is a common genodermatosis, associated with the development of neurofibromas derived from nerves, soft tissue, and skin. Cutaneous NFs often develop in later childhood onward and may be deforming, associated with pruritus, pain, and significant effect on quality of life. Dr. Anderson is a world leader in laser treatment, having developed the theories behind laser development for medical usage, as well as the laser technology used for vascular birthmarks and hair removal, laser and cooling techniques targeting fat, and “fractionating” laser energy, which has revolutionized scar management. We look forward to his group’s insights into better management of NF1 lesions!

Dr. Eichenfield is chief of pediatric and adolescent dermatology at Rady Children's Hospital-San Diego. He is vice chair of the department of dermatology and professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego. He disclosed that he has served as an investigator and/or consultant to AbbVie, Lilly, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi-Genzyme, and Verrica.

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

This article was updated 6/18/22.

Using sunscreen and following other sun-protective behaviors such as wearing long sleeves or staying in the shade do not decrease bone mineral density overall or increase the risk of osteoporotic fracture, according to a new study that included more than 3,000 men and women.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

“We have objective data for the first time, and in a large-scale representative population of the U.S. adults, to indicate sun protection is not associated with negative bone-related outcomes,” said study lead author Mohsen Afarideh, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the autoimmune skin diseases unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, goes a step further than previous research by others that has found sunscreen use does not compromise vitamin D synthesis and has little effect on circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

In the new study, researchers looked at three sun-protective behaviors – sunscreen use, staying in the shade, wearing long sleeves – and their effects on bone mineral density and the risk of fractures.

While the effects of sun-protective habits on blood levels of vitamin D and BMD scores are important, ‘’what we are more interested to know is if the sun-protective behaviors actually cause or increase the risk of fracture,” Dr. Afarideh said in an interview. “The answer to that is a firm ‘No.’ These data are very reassuring and will help clinicians to keep recommending sun protection to the public.”

Study details

Dr. Afarideh and his colleagues from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., looked at data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2017 to 2018, obtaining final information on 3,403 men and women, ages 20-59, who completed a dermatology questionnaire The men and women reported on the three sun-protective habits, and noted whether they followed these practices always or most of the time, sometimes, or never or rarely.

The frequency of the three behaviors was not widespread. Frequent staying in the shade was reported by 31.6% of the sample, wearing long sleeves by 11.8%, and sunscreen use by 26.1%.

The researchers also had data on the participants’ bone mineral density (BMD) scores along with dietary information such as milk consumption, vitamin D supplement use, taking steroid drugs, and exercise activity.

“Moderate sunscreen use was linked with a slightly lower lumbar BMD score,” Dr. Afarideh said, which was “the only significant association that could be interpreted as concerning.” And this was more likely to be seen in older respondents, he said.

However, otherwise they found the practice of the three behaviors was not associated with lower total or site-specific BMD z scores, nor was it linked with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures. (The BMD z score compares an individual’s bone density to the average bone density of someone their same age and gender.)

The focus on fracture risk is the more important outcome, Dr. Afarideh said. And they found no increased risk overall of osteoporotic fractures in those who practiced sun-protective behaviors.

Moderate to frequent staying in the shade was actually linked with a reduced prevalence of spine fractures in the multivariate model (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.86, P = .02). The researchers say that may be attributable to these respondents also being careful in other areas of life, such as avoiding falls and not participating in high-risk activities that would increase the chance of fractures. “However, this is just an assumption,” Dr. Afarideh said.

Expert perspectives

Other dermatologists not involved in the new research said the study results provide some “real-world” information that’s valuable for clinicians to share with patients.

“I think this is an important study on multiple levels,” said Henry W. Lim, MD, a former president of the American Academy of Dermatology who is a member of the department of dermatology and senior vice president of academic affairs at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit. “It is a well-done study, involving a large number. It is a real-life situation, asking people their photo protective behaviors and then looking at their bone mineral density.” The bottom line, he said: “Bone health is not affected by photo protection habits in real life.”

The findings are important but not surprising, said Antony R. Young, PhD, emeritus professor of experimental photobiology at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, King’s College, London, who has researched sunscreens and vitamin D status. “My study showed that correct sunscreen use, albeit with a relatively low SPF of 15, did prevent sunburn in a high UVR [ultraviolet radiation] environment but did allow very good vitamin D synthesis. I think this is because the necessary dose of UVB is very low.”

Michele Green, MD, a New York dermatologist and clinical staff member at Lenox Hill Hospital there, said she often hears concerns about bone health from patients. “Every week, patients ask, ‘Why would I wear sunblock? Don’t I need sun for bone health? Don’t I need it for vitamin D?’’’

Now, she said, ‘’Dermatologists can point to the study and say ‘Don’t worry.’ It clarifies that using sunscreen won’t cause you to have osteoporosis.’’

Dr. Afarideh, who was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Mayo Clinic, and his coauthors, Megha M. Tollefson, MD, and Julio C. Sartori-Valinotti, of the Mayo Clinic, and Dr. Green had no disclosures. Dr. Lim and Dr. Young consult for the sunscreen industry.

Using sunscreen and following other sun-protective behaviors such as wearing long sleeves or staying in the shade do not decrease bone mineral density overall or increase the risk of osteoporotic fracture, according to a new study that included more than 3,000 men and women.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

“We have objective data for the first time, and in a large-scale representative population of the U.S. adults, to indicate sun protection is not associated with negative bone-related outcomes,” said study lead author Mohsen Afarideh, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the autoimmune skin diseases unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, goes a step further than previous research by others that has found sunscreen use does not compromise vitamin D synthesis and has little effect on circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

In the new study, researchers looked at three sun-protective behaviors – sunscreen use, staying in the shade, wearing long sleeves – and their effects on bone mineral density and the risk of fractures.

While the effects of sun-protective habits on blood levels of vitamin D and BMD scores are important, ‘’what we are more interested to know is if the sun-protective behaviors actually cause or increase the risk of fracture,” Dr. Afarideh said in an interview. “The answer to that is a firm ‘No.’ These data are very reassuring and will help clinicians to keep recommending sun protection to the public.”

Study details

Dr. Afarideh and his colleagues from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., looked at data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2017 to 2018, obtaining final information on 3,403 men and women, ages 20-59, who completed a dermatology questionnaire The men and women reported on the three sun-protective habits, and noted whether they followed these practices always or most of the time, sometimes, or never or rarely.

The frequency of the three behaviors was not widespread. Frequent staying in the shade was reported by 31.6% of the sample, wearing long sleeves by 11.8%, and sunscreen use by 26.1%.

The researchers also had data on the participants’ bone mineral density (BMD) scores along with dietary information such as milk consumption, vitamin D supplement use, taking steroid drugs, and exercise activity.

“Moderate sunscreen use was linked with a slightly lower lumbar BMD score,” Dr. Afarideh said, which was “the only significant association that could be interpreted as concerning.” And this was more likely to be seen in older respondents, he said.

However, otherwise they found the practice of the three behaviors was not associated with lower total or site-specific BMD z scores, nor was it linked with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures. (The BMD z score compares an individual’s bone density to the average bone density of someone their same age and gender.)

The focus on fracture risk is the more important outcome, Dr. Afarideh said. And they found no increased risk overall of osteoporotic fractures in those who practiced sun-protective behaviors.

Moderate to frequent staying in the shade was actually linked with a reduced prevalence of spine fractures in the multivariate model (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.86, P = .02). The researchers say that may be attributable to these respondents also being careful in other areas of life, such as avoiding falls and not participating in high-risk activities that would increase the chance of fractures. “However, this is just an assumption,” Dr. Afarideh said.

Expert perspectives

Other dermatologists not involved in the new research said the study results provide some “real-world” information that’s valuable for clinicians to share with patients.

“I think this is an important study on multiple levels,” said Henry W. Lim, MD, a former president of the American Academy of Dermatology who is a member of the department of dermatology and senior vice president of academic affairs at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit. “It is a well-done study, involving a large number. It is a real-life situation, asking people their photo protective behaviors and then looking at their bone mineral density.” The bottom line, he said: “Bone health is not affected by photo protection habits in real life.”

The findings are important but not surprising, said Antony R. Young, PhD, emeritus professor of experimental photobiology at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, King’s College, London, who has researched sunscreens and vitamin D status. “My study showed that correct sunscreen use, albeit with a relatively low SPF of 15, did prevent sunburn in a high UVR [ultraviolet radiation] environment but did allow very good vitamin D synthesis. I think this is because the necessary dose of UVB is very low.”

Michele Green, MD, a New York dermatologist and clinical staff member at Lenox Hill Hospital there, said she often hears concerns about bone health from patients. “Every week, patients ask, ‘Why would I wear sunblock? Don’t I need sun for bone health? Don’t I need it for vitamin D?’’’

Now, she said, ‘’Dermatologists can point to the study and say ‘Don’t worry.’ It clarifies that using sunscreen won’t cause you to have osteoporosis.’’

Dr. Afarideh, who was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Mayo Clinic, and his coauthors, Megha M. Tollefson, MD, and Julio C. Sartori-Valinotti, of the Mayo Clinic, and Dr. Green had no disclosures. Dr. Lim and Dr. Young consult for the sunscreen industry.

Using sunscreen and following other sun-protective behaviors such as wearing long sleeves or staying in the shade do not decrease bone mineral density overall or increase the risk of osteoporotic fracture, according to a new study that included more than 3,000 men and women.

Aja Koska/Getty Images

“We have objective data for the first time, and in a large-scale representative population of the U.S. adults, to indicate sun protection is not associated with negative bone-related outcomes,” said study lead author Mohsen Afarideh, MD, MPH, a postdoctoral research fellow at the autoimmune skin diseases unit at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

The study, published online in JAMA Dermatology, goes a step further than previous research by others that has found sunscreen use does not compromise vitamin D synthesis and has little effect on circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels.

In the new study, researchers looked at three sun-protective behaviors – sunscreen use, staying in the shade, wearing long sleeves – and their effects on bone mineral density and the risk of fractures.

While the effects of sun-protective habits on blood levels of vitamin D and BMD scores are important, ‘’what we are more interested to know is if the sun-protective behaviors actually cause or increase the risk of fracture,” Dr. Afarideh said in an interview. “The answer to that is a firm ‘No.’ These data are very reassuring and will help clinicians to keep recommending sun protection to the public.”

Study details

Dr. Afarideh and his colleagues from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., looked at data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) from 2017 to 2018, obtaining final information on 3,403 men and women, ages 20-59, who completed a dermatology questionnaire The men and women reported on the three sun-protective habits, and noted whether they followed these practices always or most of the time, sometimes, or never or rarely.

The frequency of the three behaviors was not widespread. Frequent staying in the shade was reported by 31.6% of the sample, wearing long sleeves by 11.8%, and sunscreen use by 26.1%.

The researchers also had data on the participants’ bone mineral density (BMD) scores along with dietary information such as milk consumption, vitamin D supplement use, taking steroid drugs, and exercise activity.

“Moderate sunscreen use was linked with a slightly lower lumbar BMD score,” Dr. Afarideh said, which was “the only significant association that could be interpreted as concerning.” And this was more likely to be seen in older respondents, he said.

However, otherwise they found the practice of the three behaviors was not associated with lower total or site-specific BMD z scores, nor was it linked with an increased risk of osteoporotic fractures. (The BMD z score compares an individual’s bone density to the average bone density of someone their same age and gender.)

The focus on fracture risk is the more important outcome, Dr. Afarideh said. And they found no increased risk overall of osteoporotic fractures in those who practiced sun-protective behaviors.

Moderate to frequent staying in the shade was actually linked with a reduced prevalence of spine fractures in the multivariate model (odds ratio, 0.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.86, P = .02). The researchers say that may be attributable to these respondents also being careful in other areas of life, such as avoiding falls and not participating in high-risk activities that would increase the chance of fractures. “However, this is just an assumption,” Dr. Afarideh said.

Expert perspectives

Other dermatologists not involved in the new research said the study results provide some “real-world” information that’s valuable for clinicians to share with patients.

“I think this is an important study on multiple levels,” said Henry W. Lim, MD, a former president of the American Academy of Dermatology who is a member of the department of dermatology and senior vice president of academic affairs at Henry Ford Health System, Detroit. “It is a well-done study, involving a large number. It is a real-life situation, asking people their photo protective behaviors and then looking at their bone mineral density.” The bottom line, he said: “Bone health is not affected by photo protection habits in real life.”

The findings are important but not surprising, said Antony R. Young, PhD, emeritus professor of experimental photobiology at St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, King’s College, London, who has researched sunscreens and vitamin D status. “My study showed that correct sunscreen use, albeit with a relatively low SPF of 15, did prevent sunburn in a high UVR [ultraviolet radiation] environment but did allow very good vitamin D synthesis. I think this is because the necessary dose of UVB is very low.”

Michele Green, MD, a New York dermatologist and clinical staff member at Lenox Hill Hospital there, said she often hears concerns about bone health from patients. “Every week, patients ask, ‘Why would I wear sunblock? Don’t I need sun for bone health? Don’t I need it for vitamin D?’’’

Now, she said, ‘’Dermatologists can point to the study and say ‘Don’t worry.’ It clarifies that using sunscreen won’t cause you to have osteoporosis.’’

Dr. Afarideh, who was a postdoctoral research fellow at the Mayo Clinic, and his coauthors, Megha M. Tollefson, MD, and Julio C. Sartori-Valinotti, of the Mayo Clinic, and Dr. Green had no disclosures. Dr. Lim and Dr. Young consult for the sunscreen industry.

The Food and Drug Administration on Oct. 27 announced stronger safety requirements for breast implants, restricting sales of implants only to providers and health facilities that review potential risks of the devices with patients before surgery, via a “Patient Decision Checklist.” The agency also placed a boxed warning – the strongest warning that the FDA requires – on all legally marketed breast implants.

“Protecting patients’ health when they are treated with a medical device is our most important priority,” Binita Ashar, MD, director of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a press release. “In recent years, the FDA has sought more ways to increase patients’ access to clear and understandable information about the benefits and risks of breast implants. By strengthening the safety requirements for manufacturers, the FDA is working to close information gaps for anyone who may be considering breast implant surgery.”

This announcement comes 10 years after the FDA issued a comprehensive safety update on silicone gel–filled implants, which reported a possible association between these devices and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). The studies reviewed in the 2011 document also noted that a “significant percentage of women who receive silicone gel–filled breast implants experience complications and adverse outcomes,” the most common being repeat operation, implant removal, rupture, or capsular contracture (scar tissue tightening around the implant).

Breast augmentation has been one of the top five cosmetic procedures in the United States since 2006, according to the American Society for Plastic Surgery, with more than 400,000 people getting breast implants in 2019. Nearly 300,000 were for cosmetic reasons, and more than 100,000 were for breast reconstruction after mastectomies.

In 2019, the FDA proposed adding a boxed warning for breast implants, stating that the devices do not last an entire lifetime; that over time the risk for complications increases; and that breast implants have been associated with ALCL, and also may be associated with systemic symptoms such as fatigue, joint pain, and brain fog. The Oct. 27 FDA action now requires that manufacturers update breast implant packaging to include that information in a boxed warning, as well as the following:

• A patient-decision checklist
• Updated silicone gel–filled breast implant rupture screening recommendations
• A device description including materials used in the device
• Patient device ID cards

The updated label changes must be present on manufacturers’ websites in 30 days, the FDA said.

The new requirements have received largely positive reactions from both physicians and patient organizations. In an emailed statement to this news organization, Lynn Jeffers, MD, MBA, the immediate past president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, said that “ASPS has always supported patients being fully informed about their choices and the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the options available. “We look forward to our continued collaboration with the FDA on the safety of implants and other devices.”

Maria Gmitro, president and cofounder of the Breast Implant Safety Alliance, an all-volunteer nonprofit based in Charleston, S.C., said that some of the language in the patient checklist could be stronger, especially when referring to breast implant–associated ALCL.

To inform patients of risks more clearly, “it’s the words like ‘associated with’ that we feel need to be stronger” she said in an interview. She also noted that women who already have breast implants may not be aware of these potential complications, which these new FDA requirements do not address.

But overall, the nonprofit was “thrilled” with the announcement, Ms. Gmitro said. “Placing restrictions on breast implants is a really big step, and we applaud the FDA’s efforts. This is information that every patient considering breast implants should know, and we’ve been advocating for better informed consent.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Oct. 27 announced stronger safety requirements for breast implants, restricting sales of implants only to providers and health facilities that review potential risks of the devices with patients before surgery, via a “Patient Decision Checklist.” The agency also placed a boxed warning – the strongest warning that the FDA requires – on all legally marketed breast implants.

“Protecting patients’ health when they are treated with a medical device is our most important priority,” Binita Ashar, MD, director of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a press release. “In recent years, the FDA has sought more ways to increase patients’ access to clear and understandable information about the benefits and risks of breast implants. By strengthening the safety requirements for manufacturers, the FDA is working to close information gaps for anyone who may be considering breast implant surgery.”

This announcement comes 10 years after the FDA issued a comprehensive safety update on silicone gel–filled implants, which reported a possible association between these devices and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). The studies reviewed in the 2011 document also noted that a “significant percentage of women who receive silicone gel–filled breast implants experience complications and adverse outcomes,” the most common being repeat operation, implant removal, rupture, or capsular contracture (scar tissue tightening around the implant).

Breast augmentation has been one of the top five cosmetic procedures in the United States since 2006, according to the American Society for Plastic Surgery, with more than 400,000 people getting breast implants in 2019. Nearly 300,000 were for cosmetic reasons, and more than 100,000 were for breast reconstruction after mastectomies.

In 2019, the FDA proposed adding a boxed warning for breast implants, stating that the devices do not last an entire lifetime; that over time the risk for complications increases; and that breast implants have been associated with ALCL, and also may be associated with systemic symptoms such as fatigue, joint pain, and brain fog. The Oct. 27 FDA action now requires that manufacturers update breast implant packaging to include that information in a boxed warning, as well as the following:

• A patient-decision checklist
• Updated silicone gel–filled breast implant rupture screening recommendations
• A device description including materials used in the device
• Patient device ID cards

The updated label changes must be present on manufacturers’ websites in 30 days, the FDA said.

The new requirements have received largely positive reactions from both physicians and patient organizations. In an emailed statement to this news organization, Lynn Jeffers, MD, MBA, the immediate past president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, said that “ASPS has always supported patients being fully informed about their choices and the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the options available. “We look forward to our continued collaboration with the FDA on the safety of implants and other devices.”

Maria Gmitro, president and cofounder of the Breast Implant Safety Alliance, an all-volunteer nonprofit based in Charleston, S.C., said that some of the language in the patient checklist could be stronger, especially when referring to breast implant–associated ALCL.

To inform patients of risks more clearly, “it’s the words like ‘associated with’ that we feel need to be stronger” she said in an interview. She also noted that women who already have breast implants may not be aware of these potential complications, which these new FDA requirements do not address.

But overall, the nonprofit was “thrilled” with the announcement, Ms. Gmitro said. “Placing restrictions on breast implants is a really big step, and we applaud the FDA’s efforts. This is information that every patient considering breast implants should know, and we’ve been advocating for better informed consent.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Oct. 27 announced stronger safety requirements for breast implants, restricting sales of implants only to providers and health facilities that review potential risks of the devices with patients before surgery, via a “Patient Decision Checklist.” The agency also placed a boxed warning – the strongest warning that the FDA requires – on all legally marketed breast implants.

“Protecting patients’ health when they are treated with a medical device is our most important priority,” Binita Ashar, MD, director of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a press release. “In recent years, the FDA has sought more ways to increase patients’ access to clear and understandable information about the benefits and risks of breast implants. By strengthening the safety requirements for manufacturers, the FDA is working to close information gaps for anyone who may be considering breast implant surgery.”

This announcement comes 10 years after the FDA issued a comprehensive safety update on silicone gel–filled implants, which reported a possible association between these devices and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). The studies reviewed in the 2011 document also noted that a “significant percentage of women who receive silicone gel–filled breast implants experience complications and adverse outcomes,” the most common being repeat operation, implant removal, rupture, or capsular contracture (scar tissue tightening around the implant).

Breast augmentation has been one of the top five cosmetic procedures in the United States since 2006, according to the American Society for Plastic Surgery, with more than 400,000 people getting breast implants in 2019. Nearly 300,000 were for cosmetic reasons, and more than 100,000 were for breast reconstruction after mastectomies.

In 2019, the FDA proposed adding a boxed warning for breast implants, stating that the devices do not last an entire lifetime; that over time the risk for complications increases; and that breast implants have been associated with ALCL, and also may be associated with systemic symptoms such as fatigue, joint pain, and brain fog. The Oct. 27 FDA action now requires that manufacturers update breast implant packaging to include that information in a boxed warning, as well as the following:

• A patient-decision checklist
• Updated silicone gel–filled breast implant rupture screening recommendations
• A device description including materials used in the device
• Patient device ID cards

The updated label changes must be present on manufacturers’ websites in 30 days, the FDA said.

The new requirements have received largely positive reactions from both physicians and patient organizations. In an emailed statement to this news organization, Lynn Jeffers, MD, MBA, the immediate past president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, said that “ASPS has always supported patients being fully informed about their choices and the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the options available. “We look forward to our continued collaboration with the FDA on the safety of implants and other devices.”

Maria Gmitro, president and cofounder of the Breast Implant Safety Alliance, an all-volunteer nonprofit based in Charleston, S.C., said that some of the language in the patient checklist could be stronger, especially when referring to breast implant–associated ALCL.

To inform patients of risks more clearly, “it’s the words like ‘associated with’ that we feel need to be stronger” she said in an interview. She also noted that women who already have breast implants may not be aware of these potential complications, which these new FDA requirements do not address.

But overall, the nonprofit was “thrilled” with the announcement, Ms. Gmitro said. “Placing restrictions on breast implants is a really big step, and we applaud the FDA’s efforts. This is information that every patient considering breast implants should know, and we’ve been advocating for better informed consent.”

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

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as biologics may carry an increased risk for preterm birth or cesarean delivery for pregnant women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to a recent study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

zoranm/Getty Images

The risk was particularly high for women with PsA who received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), according to Katarina Remaeus, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and colleagues.

“The results may indicate that a more severe or active PsA disease that requires antirheumatic treatment during pregnancy, especially bDMARDs, is associated with increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to non-PsA pregnancies,” Dr. Remaeus and colleagues write in their study. “The risk of preterm birth in PsA pregnancies is further influenced by parity with the most increased risks observed in first pregnancies.”

In a nationwide, register-based cohort study, the researchers evaluated 921 pregnancies of women with PsA between 2007 and 2017, comparing them to the pregnancies of 9,210 women without PsA over the same time frame. The pregnancies for women with PsA were further categorized based on whether the women had not received antirheumatic treatment in the year prior to and/or during pregnancy (495 pregnancies) or had received antirheumatic treatment at any point in the year before and/or during pregnancy (426 pregnancies).

Of the women in the PsA group who were treated in the year prior to pregnancy (170 women), 39.4% received monotherapy with a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) such as an antimalarial, methotrexate, or sulfasalazine; 24.1% received oral corticosteroids, and 15.9% received a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), whereas about 20% of women received two or more antirheumatic drugs.

In the group of women treated during pregnancy (256 women), 153 did not receive bDMARDs; of these, 41.8% had monotherapy with either a csDMARD or corticosteroids, whereas the group treated with bDMARDs received TNFi monotherapy (43.7%) or TNFi with corticosteroids (35.9%), TNFi with csDMARD (9.7%), or TNFi with csDMARD plus corticosteroids (9.7%).

A majority of women in both groups (70.1%) were between ages 30 and 34 years (37.1%) or older than age 35 years (33%) and had delivered more than one child (63.2%). Women in the PsA group were more likely to be born in a Nordic country (91.8% vs. 82.8%), to have a body mass index between 30.0 and 60.0 kg/m² (19.9% vs. 12.6%), to be a smoker (9.2% vs. 5.3%), to have hypertension (1.4% vs. 0.8%) or diabetes (1.3% vs. 0.5%) prior to pregnancy, and to have a higher level of education (>12 years; 50.1% vs. 43.3%), compared with women in the non-PsA group.

The results showed women in the PsA group were more likely to experience preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.24) and undergo an elective (aOR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.43-2.20) or emergency C-section (aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.84). The group at highest risk for preterm birth with regard to parity was women with PsA having their first child (aOR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.43-10.95).

Women who received antirheumatic treatment were at greater risk for experiencing preterm birth (aOR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.49-3.56), and this risk was even higher for treatment with bDMARDs, compared with women without PsA (aOR, 4.49; 95% CI, 2.60-7.79). Use of bDMARDs also was associated with higher risks for spontaneous preterm birth (aOR, 4.73; 95% CI, 2.53-8.87), preterm birth between 32 and 36 weeks’ gestation (aOR, 5.06; 95% CI, 2.91-8.79), elective C-section (aOR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.61-4.59), emergency C-section (aOR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.04-4.07), and preeclampsia (aOR, 2.88, 95% CI, 1.35-6.17).

The researchers note that women with PsA should be evaluated for preterm birth particularly if they are having their first child, and “from a clinical point of view, all women with PsA, regardless of antirheumatic treatment, should be counseled about pregnancy outcomes and receive individualized monitoring during pregnancy.”

Are adverse outcomes linked to disease activity or treatment?

Patients in the study had a higher risk of adverse outcomes when they had a PsA diagnosis, and when they received antirheumatic treatment – but were the adverse outcomes associated with a patient’s high disease activity or need for antirheumatic treatment?

“Our interpretation is that a PsA disease that requires continued antirheumatic treatment during pregnancy is more severe than PsA that does not require treatment,” Dr. Remaeus and colleagues write. “Thus, the increased risk of adverse outcomes in pregnancies with maternal antirheumatic treatment is probably attributed to disease severity rather than an effect of the medication itself.”

Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, of the German Rheumatism Research Centre in Berlin, told this news organization that the results of the study are important because it is one of the first to report differences in risk in pregnancy outcomes for women with and without PsA.

“The information is relevant to guide rheumatologists in advising patients with PsA when planning the first or subsequent pregnancies,” she said. “The results are reassuring in reporting that the elevated risk for PsA patients for adverse pregnancy outcomes is low in patients not in need of antirheumatic medication, presumably in low-disease activity.”

However, the study is still unclear on whether the association with adverse pregnancy outcomes in patients is the result of higher disease activity or the need for antirheumatic treatment, she explained.

“It was only hypothesized that those patients under bDMARD treatment are/were in high disease activity. There [is] no information on disease activity in the data sources, which limits the results,” she said. “The investigation still does not solve the important question – if adverse pregnancy outcomes are rather related to high disease activity or the medication to treat this situation.”

There was no specific funding for this study. The study authors and Dr. Strangfeld have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as biologics may carry an increased risk for preterm birth or cesarean delivery for pregnant women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to a recent study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

zoranm/Getty Images

The risk was particularly high for women with PsA who received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), according to Katarina Remaeus, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and colleagues.

“The results may indicate that a more severe or active PsA disease that requires antirheumatic treatment during pregnancy, especially bDMARDs, is associated with increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to non-PsA pregnancies,” Dr. Remaeus and colleagues write in their study. “The risk of preterm birth in PsA pregnancies is further influenced by parity with the most increased risks observed in first pregnancies.”

In a nationwide, register-based cohort study, the researchers evaluated 921 pregnancies of women with PsA between 2007 and 2017, comparing them to the pregnancies of 9,210 women without PsA over the same time frame. The pregnancies for women with PsA were further categorized based on whether the women had not received antirheumatic treatment in the year prior to and/or during pregnancy (495 pregnancies) or had received antirheumatic treatment at any point in the year before and/or during pregnancy (426 pregnancies).

Of the women in the PsA group who were treated in the year prior to pregnancy (170 women), 39.4% received monotherapy with a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) such as an antimalarial, methotrexate, or sulfasalazine; 24.1% received oral corticosteroids, and 15.9% received a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), whereas about 20% of women received two or more antirheumatic drugs.

In the group of women treated during pregnancy (256 women), 153 did not receive bDMARDs; of these, 41.8% had monotherapy with either a csDMARD or corticosteroids, whereas the group treated with bDMARDs received TNFi monotherapy (43.7%) or TNFi with corticosteroids (35.9%), TNFi with csDMARD (9.7%), or TNFi with csDMARD plus corticosteroids (9.7%).

A majority of women in both groups (70.1%) were between ages 30 and 34 years (37.1%) or older than age 35 years (33%) and had delivered more than one child (63.2%). Women in the PsA group were more likely to be born in a Nordic country (91.8% vs. 82.8%), to have a body mass index between 30.0 and 60.0 kg/m² (19.9% vs. 12.6%), to be a smoker (9.2% vs. 5.3%), to have hypertension (1.4% vs. 0.8%) or diabetes (1.3% vs. 0.5%) prior to pregnancy, and to have a higher level of education (>12 years; 50.1% vs. 43.3%), compared with women in the non-PsA group.

The results showed women in the PsA group were more likely to experience preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.24) and undergo an elective (aOR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.43-2.20) or emergency C-section (aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.84). The group at highest risk for preterm birth with regard to parity was women with PsA having their first child (aOR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.43-10.95).

Women who received antirheumatic treatment were at greater risk for experiencing preterm birth (aOR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.49-3.56), and this risk was even higher for treatment with bDMARDs, compared with women without PsA (aOR, 4.49; 95% CI, 2.60-7.79). Use of bDMARDs also was associated with higher risks for spontaneous preterm birth (aOR, 4.73; 95% CI, 2.53-8.87), preterm birth between 32 and 36 weeks’ gestation (aOR, 5.06; 95% CI, 2.91-8.79), elective C-section (aOR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.61-4.59), emergency C-section (aOR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.04-4.07), and preeclampsia (aOR, 2.88, 95% CI, 1.35-6.17).

The researchers note that women with PsA should be evaluated for preterm birth particularly if they are having their first child, and “from a clinical point of view, all women with PsA, regardless of antirheumatic treatment, should be counseled about pregnancy outcomes and receive individualized monitoring during pregnancy.”

Are adverse outcomes linked to disease activity or treatment?

Patients in the study had a higher risk of adverse outcomes when they had a PsA diagnosis, and when they received antirheumatic treatment – but were the adverse outcomes associated with a patient’s high disease activity or need for antirheumatic treatment?

“Our interpretation is that a PsA disease that requires continued antirheumatic treatment during pregnancy is more severe than PsA that does not require treatment,” Dr. Remaeus and colleagues write. “Thus, the increased risk of adverse outcomes in pregnancies with maternal antirheumatic treatment is probably attributed to disease severity rather than an effect of the medication itself.”

Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, of the German Rheumatism Research Centre in Berlin, told this news organization that the results of the study are important because it is one of the first to report differences in risk in pregnancy outcomes for women with and without PsA.

“The information is relevant to guide rheumatologists in advising patients with PsA when planning the first or subsequent pregnancies,” she said. “The results are reassuring in reporting that the elevated risk for PsA patients for adverse pregnancy outcomes is low in patients not in need of antirheumatic medication, presumably in low-disease activity.”

However, the study is still unclear on whether the association with adverse pregnancy outcomes in patients is the result of higher disease activity or the need for antirheumatic treatment, she explained.

“It was only hypothesized that those patients under bDMARD treatment are/were in high disease activity. There [is] no information on disease activity in the data sources, which limits the results,” she said. “The investigation still does not solve the important question – if adverse pregnancy outcomes are rather related to high disease activity or the medication to treat this situation.”

There was no specific funding for this study. The study authors and Dr. Strangfeld have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) such as biologics may carry an increased risk for preterm birth or cesarean delivery for pregnant women with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), according to a recent study published in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

zoranm/Getty Images

The risk was particularly high for women with PsA who received biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), according to Katarina Remaeus, PhD, of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm and colleagues.

“The results may indicate that a more severe or active PsA disease that requires antirheumatic treatment during pregnancy, especially bDMARDs, is associated with increased risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to non-PsA pregnancies,” Dr. Remaeus and colleagues write in their study. “The risk of preterm birth in PsA pregnancies is further influenced by parity with the most increased risks observed in first pregnancies.”

In a nationwide, register-based cohort study, the researchers evaluated 921 pregnancies of women with PsA between 2007 and 2017, comparing them to the pregnancies of 9,210 women without PsA over the same time frame. The pregnancies for women with PsA were further categorized based on whether the women had not received antirheumatic treatment in the year prior to and/or during pregnancy (495 pregnancies) or had received antirheumatic treatment at any point in the year before and/or during pregnancy (426 pregnancies).

Of the women in the PsA group who were treated in the year prior to pregnancy (170 women), 39.4% received monotherapy with a conventional synthetic DMARD (csDMARD) such as an antimalarial, methotrexate, or sulfasalazine; 24.1% received oral corticosteroids, and 15.9% received a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi), whereas about 20% of women received two or more antirheumatic drugs.

In the group of women treated during pregnancy (256 women), 153 did not receive bDMARDs; of these, 41.8% had monotherapy with either a csDMARD or corticosteroids, whereas the group treated with bDMARDs received TNFi monotherapy (43.7%) or TNFi with corticosteroids (35.9%), TNFi with csDMARD (9.7%), or TNFi with csDMARD plus corticosteroids (9.7%).

A majority of women in both groups (70.1%) were between ages 30 and 34 years (37.1%) or older than age 35 years (33%) and had delivered more than one child (63.2%). Women in the PsA group were more likely to be born in a Nordic country (91.8% vs. 82.8%), to have a body mass index between 30.0 and 60.0 kg/m² (19.9% vs. 12.6%), to be a smoker (9.2% vs. 5.3%), to have hypertension (1.4% vs. 0.8%) or diabetes (1.3% vs. 0.5%) prior to pregnancy, and to have a higher level of education (>12 years; 50.1% vs. 43.3%), compared with women in the non-PsA group.

The results showed women in the PsA group were more likely to experience preterm birth (adjusted odds ratio, 1.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.24) and undergo an elective (aOR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.43-2.20) or emergency C-section (aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.10-1.84). The group at highest risk for preterm birth with regard to parity was women with PsA having their first child (aOR, 3.95; 95% CI, 1.43-10.95).

Women who received antirheumatic treatment were at greater risk for experiencing preterm birth (aOR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.49-3.56), and this risk was even higher for treatment with bDMARDs, compared with women without PsA (aOR, 4.49; 95% CI, 2.60-7.79). Use of bDMARDs also was associated with higher risks for spontaneous preterm birth (aOR, 4.73; 95% CI, 2.53-8.87), preterm birth between 32 and 36 weeks’ gestation (aOR, 5.06; 95% CI, 2.91-8.79), elective C-section (aOR, 2.72; 95% CI, 1.61-4.59), emergency C-section (aOR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.04-4.07), and preeclampsia (aOR, 2.88, 95% CI, 1.35-6.17).

The researchers note that women with PsA should be evaluated for preterm birth particularly if they are having their first child, and “from a clinical point of view, all women with PsA, regardless of antirheumatic treatment, should be counseled about pregnancy outcomes and receive individualized monitoring during pregnancy.”

Are adverse outcomes linked to disease activity or treatment?

Patients in the study had a higher risk of adverse outcomes when they had a PsA diagnosis, and when they received antirheumatic treatment – but were the adverse outcomes associated with a patient’s high disease activity or need for antirheumatic treatment?

“Our interpretation is that a PsA disease that requires continued antirheumatic treatment during pregnancy is more severe than PsA that does not require treatment,” Dr. Remaeus and colleagues write. “Thus, the increased risk of adverse outcomes in pregnancies with maternal antirheumatic treatment is probably attributed to disease severity rather than an effect of the medication itself.”

Anja Strangfeld, MD, PhD, of the German Rheumatism Research Centre in Berlin, told this news organization that the results of the study are important because it is one of the first to report differences in risk in pregnancy outcomes for women with and without PsA.

“The information is relevant to guide rheumatologists in advising patients with PsA when planning the first or subsequent pregnancies,” she said. “The results are reassuring in reporting that the elevated risk for PsA patients for adverse pregnancy outcomes is low in patients not in need of antirheumatic medication, presumably in low-disease activity.”

However, the study is still unclear on whether the association with adverse pregnancy outcomes in patients is the result of higher disease activity or the need for antirheumatic treatment, she explained.

“It was only hypothesized that those patients under bDMARD treatment are/were in high disease activity. There [is] no information on disease activity in the data sources, which limits the results,” she said. “The investigation still does not solve the important question – if adverse pregnancy outcomes are rather related to high disease activity or the medication to treat this situation.”

There was no specific funding for this study. The study authors and Dr. Strangfeld have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

Researchers writing in the British Journal of Dermatology confirm the long-term use of hydrochlorothiazide is associated with a dose-dependent, twofold increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma, compared with calcium channel blocker use.

The findings were originally reported in two Danish case-control studies in which physicians reported a fourfold increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma, and a moderate increased risk of basal cell carcinoma and cutaneous malignant melanoma in patients who used hydrochlorothiazide long-term.

And, while the new study did not find an increased risk of basal cell carcinoma and cutaneous malignant melanoma among long-term users of hydrochlorothiazide, they suggest that bendroflumethiazide “may be a safer alternative for patients at increased risk of skin cancer.” The long-term use of indapamide was associated with a moderately increased risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma but did not alter the risk of either squamous cell or basal cell carcinoma

“Our results suggest that bendroflumethiazide may be a safer alternative to hydrochlorothiazide and indapamide, especially for patients at increased risk of skin cancer, but future studies are needed to rule out a causal association between bendroflumethiazide and cutaneous malignant melanoma,” wrote authors who were led by Christoph R. Meier, PhD, a professor in pharmacy with University Hospital Basel (Switzerland) and a contributor to the Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program.

This study adds to existing evidence that there is a dose-dependent increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma in users of high cumulative doses of hydrochlorothiazide, compared with non–hydrochlorothiazide users.

The study, an observational cohort study, was published earlier this year. It is based on data from the U.K.-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink. It included 271,154 new users of thiazides and thiazidelike diuretics, the majority at 87.6% having been prescribed bendroflumethiazide, 5.8% indapamide, and 3.6% hydrochlorothiazide. Outcomes were compared to those observed in 275,263 users of calcium channel blockers.

“The three primary outcomes of interest were a first-time diagnosis of cutaneous malignant melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, or squamous cell carcinoma,” the authors wrote.

Incidence rates and incidence rate ratios were estimated for both short-term and long-term users of thiazidelike diuretics and calcium channel blockers, while a propensity score (PS) analysis was done in order to control for 23 baseline covariates. The mean follow-up after PS weighting was 3.9 years for indapamide users and 5.5 years for hydrochlorothiazide users. Overall, the incidence rate ratios of squamous cell carcinoma were not markedly increased for either short-term or long-term users of thiazidelike diuretics, the authors reported.

In contrast, the incidence rate ratios of squamous cell carcinoma for hydrochlorothiazide users were increased by 29% for short-term users at an IRR of 1.29 while they were increased by almost twofold for long-term hydrochlorothiazide users at an IRR of 1.95.

Long-term use of hydrochlorothiazide was again associated with a 64% increased risk of basal cell carcinoma, compared with users of a renin-angiotensin inhibitor at a weighted IRR of 1.64.

In contrast, weighted incident rate ratios for basal cell carcinoma for both short-term and long-term thiazide users were not significantly different and results were similar for patients who took hydrochlorothiazide, indapamide, or bendroflumethiazide.

Weighted overall incident rate ratios for cutaneous malignant melanoma were not significantly different for either short-term or long-term users of thiazidelike diuretics, compared with calcium channel blocker users.

However, there was a 43% increased risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma among long-term indapamide users at a weighted IRR of 1.43, compared with calcium channel blocker users, the authors reported.

“Given the biological plausibility and the severe clinical implications of cutaneous malignant melanoma, this finding should be considered carefully,” they cautioned.

Limitations to the study include the fact that the database analyzed does not have information on sun exposure, skin characteristics, or socioeconomic status which may affect the amount of sun exposure participants received.

The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare.

Researchers writing in the British Journal of Dermatology confirm the long-term use of hydrochlorothiazide is associated with a dose-dependent, twofold increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma, compared with calcium channel blocker use.

The findings were originally reported in two Danish case-control studies in which physicians reported a fourfold increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma, and a moderate increased risk of basal cell carcinoma and cutaneous malignant melanoma in patients who used hydrochlorothiazide long-term.

And, while the new study did not find an increased risk of basal cell carcinoma and cutaneous malignant melanoma among long-term users of hydrochlorothiazide, they suggest that bendroflumethiazide “may be a safer alternative for patients at increased risk of skin cancer.” The long-term use of indapamide was associated with a moderately increased risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma but did not alter the risk of either squamous cell or basal cell carcinoma

“Our results suggest that bendroflumethiazide may be a safer alternative to hydrochlorothiazide and indapamide, especially for patients at increased risk of skin cancer, but future studies are needed to rule out a causal association between bendroflumethiazide and cutaneous malignant melanoma,” wrote authors who were led by Christoph R. Meier, PhD, a professor in pharmacy with University Hospital Basel (Switzerland) and a contributor to the Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program.

This study adds to existing evidence that there is a dose-dependent increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma in users of high cumulative doses of hydrochlorothiazide, compared with non–hydrochlorothiazide users.

The study, an observational cohort study, was published earlier this year. It is based on data from the U.K.-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink. It included 271,154 new users of thiazides and thiazidelike diuretics, the majority at 87.6% having been prescribed bendroflumethiazide, 5.8% indapamide, and 3.6% hydrochlorothiazide. Outcomes were compared to those observed in 275,263 users of calcium channel blockers.

“The three primary outcomes of interest were a first-time diagnosis of cutaneous malignant melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, or squamous cell carcinoma,” the authors wrote.

Incidence rates and incidence rate ratios were estimated for both short-term and long-term users of thiazidelike diuretics and calcium channel blockers, while a propensity score (PS) analysis was done in order to control for 23 baseline covariates. The mean follow-up after PS weighting was 3.9 years for indapamide users and 5.5 years for hydrochlorothiazide users. Overall, the incidence rate ratios of squamous cell carcinoma were not markedly increased for either short-term or long-term users of thiazidelike diuretics, the authors reported.

In contrast, the incidence rate ratios of squamous cell carcinoma for hydrochlorothiazide users were increased by 29% for short-term users at an IRR of 1.29 while they were increased by almost twofold for long-term hydrochlorothiazide users at an IRR of 1.95.

Long-term use of hydrochlorothiazide was again associated with a 64% increased risk of basal cell carcinoma, compared with users of a renin-angiotensin inhibitor at a weighted IRR of 1.64.

In contrast, weighted incident rate ratios for basal cell carcinoma for both short-term and long-term thiazide users were not significantly different and results were similar for patients who took hydrochlorothiazide, indapamide, or bendroflumethiazide.

Weighted overall incident rate ratios for cutaneous malignant melanoma were not significantly different for either short-term or long-term users of thiazidelike diuretics, compared with calcium channel blocker users.

However, there was a 43% increased risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma among long-term indapamide users at a weighted IRR of 1.43, compared with calcium channel blocker users, the authors reported.

“Given the biological plausibility and the severe clinical implications of cutaneous malignant melanoma, this finding should be considered carefully,” they cautioned.

Limitations to the study include the fact that the database analyzed does not have information on sun exposure, skin characteristics, or socioeconomic status which may affect the amount of sun exposure participants received.

The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare.

Researchers writing in the British Journal of Dermatology confirm the long-term use of hydrochlorothiazide is associated with a dose-dependent, twofold increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma, compared with calcium channel blocker use.

The findings were originally reported in two Danish case-control studies in which physicians reported a fourfold increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma, and a moderate increased risk of basal cell carcinoma and cutaneous malignant melanoma in patients who used hydrochlorothiazide long-term.

And, while the new study did not find an increased risk of basal cell carcinoma and cutaneous malignant melanoma among long-term users of hydrochlorothiazide, they suggest that bendroflumethiazide “may be a safer alternative for patients at increased risk of skin cancer.” The long-term use of indapamide was associated with a moderately increased risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma but did not alter the risk of either squamous cell or basal cell carcinoma

“Our results suggest that bendroflumethiazide may be a safer alternative to hydrochlorothiazide and indapamide, especially for patients at increased risk of skin cancer, but future studies are needed to rule out a causal association between bendroflumethiazide and cutaneous malignant melanoma,” wrote authors who were led by Christoph R. Meier, PhD, a professor in pharmacy with University Hospital Basel (Switzerland) and a contributor to the Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program.

This study adds to existing evidence that there is a dose-dependent increased risk of squamous cell carcinoma in users of high cumulative doses of hydrochlorothiazide, compared with non–hydrochlorothiazide users.

The study, an observational cohort study, was published earlier this year. It is based on data from the U.K.-based Clinical Practice Research Datalink. It included 271,154 new users of thiazides and thiazidelike diuretics, the majority at 87.6% having been prescribed bendroflumethiazide, 5.8% indapamide, and 3.6% hydrochlorothiazide. Outcomes were compared to those observed in 275,263 users of calcium channel blockers.

“The three primary outcomes of interest were a first-time diagnosis of cutaneous malignant melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, or squamous cell carcinoma,” the authors wrote.

Incidence rates and incidence rate ratios were estimated for both short-term and long-term users of thiazidelike diuretics and calcium channel blockers, while a propensity score (PS) analysis was done in order to control for 23 baseline covariates. The mean follow-up after PS weighting was 3.9 years for indapamide users and 5.5 years for hydrochlorothiazide users. Overall, the incidence rate ratios of squamous cell carcinoma were not markedly increased for either short-term or long-term users of thiazidelike diuretics, the authors reported.

In contrast, the incidence rate ratios of squamous cell carcinoma for hydrochlorothiazide users were increased by 29% for short-term users at an IRR of 1.29 while they were increased by almost twofold for long-term hydrochlorothiazide users at an IRR of 1.95.

Long-term use of hydrochlorothiazide was again associated with a 64% increased risk of basal cell carcinoma, compared with users of a renin-angiotensin inhibitor at a weighted IRR of 1.64.

In contrast, weighted incident rate ratios for basal cell carcinoma for both short-term and long-term thiazide users were not significantly different and results were similar for patients who took hydrochlorothiazide, indapamide, or bendroflumethiazide.

Weighted overall incident rate ratios for cutaneous malignant melanoma were not significantly different for either short-term or long-term users of thiazidelike diuretics, compared with calcium channel blocker users.

However, there was a 43% increased risk of cutaneous malignant melanoma among long-term indapamide users at a weighted IRR of 1.43, compared with calcium channel blocker users, the authors reported.

“Given the biological plausibility and the severe clinical implications of cutaneous malignant melanoma, this finding should be considered carefully,” they cautioned.

Limitations to the study include the fact that the database analyzed does not have information on sun exposure, skin characteristics, or socioeconomic status which may affect the amount of sun exposure participants received.

The authors had no conflicts of interest to declare.

Checkpoint inhibitor use as adjuvant therapy for patients with high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) may eventually overtake the use of cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents, say the authors of a clinical review recently published in the journal Head and Neck.

The review, led by Jason G. Newman, MD, director of head and neck surgery at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, includes evidence-based research findings from the last 10 years which describe the possible roles for adjuvant radiation, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and/or targeted therapy in the management of high-risk cSCC.

Dr. Newman and colleagues wrote that more data – and high-quality data – are needed for physicians to determine with more confidence which adjuvant therapies would be best for specific patients with high-risk cSCC. But without that data, uncertainty in treatment decisions will persist.

“The requirements for and efficacy of adjuvant therapies in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma are unclear, and the gap in evidence for practice decisions regarding adjuvant therapy in patients with high-risk cSCC has been apparent for more than a decade,” they wrote.

While surgical excision with clear margins of the primary cSCC lesion remains the standard of care, certain high-risk factors necessitate adjuvant therapy, the authors wrote. However, since the evidence consists of small retrospective studies with conflicting results, it is unclear which patients might benefit from adjuvant therapy. This review included recent and current trials in cutaneous SCC and the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

According to the review, adjuvant radiation therapy is usually considered with high-risk features, such as perineural invasion, lymph node metastasis and extracapsular/extranodal extension, if the patient is otherwise at high risk for metastasis or recurrence, or if further surgery is not possible.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society for Radiation Oncology do not recommend adjuvant radiation therapy for most patients with cSCC. However, adjuvant radiation therapy with or without systemic therapy may be considered in locally advanced disease, when further surgery is not an option, or if there is regional lymph node metastasis, but multidisciplinary consultation is recommended.

Regarding checkpoint inhibitors, the NCCN, ACR, and ASTRO do not recommend the use of systemic therapy for local disease amenable to surgery. Potential use of a checkpoint inhibitor with radiation therapy in a clinical trial is recommended for residual disease in locally advanced cSCC as palliative care when other options are not available. While the use of cemiplimab or pembrolizumab are preferred in regional recurrence when curative surgery and radiation therapy are not an option, a targeted therapy can be considered if this is not feasible.

“Given the current activity of checkpoint inhibition in this disease, enthusiasm for the addition of cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents in the adjuvant setting may be on the decline,” the authors wrote. “Multidisciplinary approaches will most likely continue to be recommended in complicated cases, including those involving immunosuppression.”

The authors said that further study is needed on prognostic testing, such as gene expression profile testing or sentinel lymph node biopsy, as such testing early in disease could identify patients who would likely benefit from adjuvant therapy. They added that the need to identify patients at early stages of disease who are at high risk for metastasis continues to remain critical.

Checkpoint inhibitor use as adjuvant therapy for patients with high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) may eventually overtake the use of cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents, say the authors of a clinical review recently published in the journal Head and Neck.

The review, led by Jason G. Newman, MD, director of head and neck surgery at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, includes evidence-based research findings from the last 10 years which describe the possible roles for adjuvant radiation, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and/or targeted therapy in the management of high-risk cSCC.

Dr. Newman and colleagues wrote that more data – and high-quality data – are needed for physicians to determine with more confidence which adjuvant therapies would be best for specific patients with high-risk cSCC. But without that data, uncertainty in treatment decisions will persist.

“The requirements for and efficacy of adjuvant therapies in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma are unclear, and the gap in evidence for practice decisions regarding adjuvant therapy in patients with high-risk cSCC has been apparent for more than a decade,” they wrote.

While surgical excision with clear margins of the primary cSCC lesion remains the standard of care, certain high-risk factors necessitate adjuvant therapy, the authors wrote. However, since the evidence consists of small retrospective studies with conflicting results, it is unclear which patients might benefit from adjuvant therapy. This review included recent and current trials in cutaneous SCC and the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

According to the review, adjuvant radiation therapy is usually considered with high-risk features, such as perineural invasion, lymph node metastasis and extracapsular/extranodal extension, if the patient is otherwise at high risk for metastasis or recurrence, or if further surgery is not possible.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society for Radiation Oncology do not recommend adjuvant radiation therapy for most patients with cSCC. However, adjuvant radiation therapy with or without systemic therapy may be considered in locally advanced disease, when further surgery is not an option, or if there is regional lymph node metastasis, but multidisciplinary consultation is recommended.

Regarding checkpoint inhibitors, the NCCN, ACR, and ASTRO do not recommend the use of systemic therapy for local disease amenable to surgery. Potential use of a checkpoint inhibitor with radiation therapy in a clinical trial is recommended for residual disease in locally advanced cSCC as palliative care when other options are not available. While the use of cemiplimab or pembrolizumab are preferred in regional recurrence when curative surgery and radiation therapy are not an option, a targeted therapy can be considered if this is not feasible.

“Given the current activity of checkpoint inhibition in this disease, enthusiasm for the addition of cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents in the adjuvant setting may be on the decline,” the authors wrote. “Multidisciplinary approaches will most likely continue to be recommended in complicated cases, including those involving immunosuppression.”

The authors said that further study is needed on prognostic testing, such as gene expression profile testing or sentinel lymph node biopsy, as such testing early in disease could identify patients who would likely benefit from adjuvant therapy. They added that the need to identify patients at early stages of disease who are at high risk for metastasis continues to remain critical.

Checkpoint inhibitor use as adjuvant therapy for patients with high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) may eventually overtake the use of cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents, say the authors of a clinical review recently published in the journal Head and Neck.

The review, led by Jason G. Newman, MD, director of head and neck surgery at Penn Medicine, Philadelphia, includes evidence-based research findings from the last 10 years which describe the possible roles for adjuvant radiation, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, and/or targeted therapy in the management of high-risk cSCC.

Dr. Newman and colleagues wrote that more data – and high-quality data – are needed for physicians to determine with more confidence which adjuvant therapies would be best for specific patients with high-risk cSCC. But without that data, uncertainty in treatment decisions will persist.

“The requirements for and efficacy of adjuvant therapies in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma are unclear, and the gap in evidence for practice decisions regarding adjuvant therapy in patients with high-risk cSCC has been apparent for more than a decade,” they wrote.

While surgical excision with clear margins of the primary cSCC lesion remains the standard of care, certain high-risk factors necessitate adjuvant therapy, the authors wrote. However, since the evidence consists of small retrospective studies with conflicting results, it is unclear which patients might benefit from adjuvant therapy. This review included recent and current trials in cutaneous SCC and the role of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

According to the review, adjuvant radiation therapy is usually considered with high-risk features, such as perineural invasion, lymph node metastasis and extracapsular/extranodal extension, if the patient is otherwise at high risk for metastasis or recurrence, or if further surgery is not possible.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network, the American College of Radiology, and the American Society for Radiation Oncology do not recommend adjuvant radiation therapy for most patients with cSCC. However, adjuvant radiation therapy with or without systemic therapy may be considered in locally advanced disease, when further surgery is not an option, or if there is regional lymph node metastasis, but multidisciplinary consultation is recommended.

Regarding checkpoint inhibitors, the NCCN, ACR, and ASTRO do not recommend the use of systemic therapy for local disease amenable to surgery. Potential use of a checkpoint inhibitor with radiation therapy in a clinical trial is recommended for residual disease in locally advanced cSCC as palliative care when other options are not available. While the use of cemiplimab or pembrolizumab are preferred in regional recurrence when curative surgery and radiation therapy are not an option, a targeted therapy can be considered if this is not feasible.

“Given the current activity of checkpoint inhibition in this disease, enthusiasm for the addition of cytotoxic chemotherapeutic agents in the adjuvant setting may be on the decline,” the authors wrote. “Multidisciplinary approaches will most likely continue to be recommended in complicated cases, including those involving immunosuppression.”

The authors said that further study is needed on prognostic testing, such as gene expression profile testing or sentinel lymph node biopsy, as such testing early in disease could identify patients who would likely benefit from adjuvant therapy. They added that the need to identify patients at early stages of disease who are at high risk for metastasis continues to remain critical.