MDedge Dermatology

A common inert ingredient may be the culprit behind the rare allergic reactions reported among individuals who have received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, according to investigators at a large regional health center that was among the first to administer the shots.

Blood samples from 10 of 11 individuals with suspected allergic reactions reacted to polyethylene glycol (PEG), a component of both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA  vaccines, according to a report in JAMA Network Open.

In total, only 22 individuals had suspected allergic reactions out of nearly 39,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, the investigators reported, noting that the reactions were generally mild and all fully resolved.

Those findings should be reassuring to individuals who are reticent to sign up for a COVID-19 vaccine because of fear of an allergic reaction, said study senior author Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, director of the Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University.

“We’re hoping that this word will get out and then that the companies could also think about making vaccines that have other products in them that don’t include polyethylene glycol,” Dr. Nadeau said in an interview.

PEG is a compound used in many products, including pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and food. In the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, PEG serves to stabilize the lipid nanoparticles that help protect and transport mRNA. However, its use in this setting has been linked to allergic reactions in this and previous studies.

No immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies to PEG were detected among the 22 individuals with suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but PEG immunoglobulin G (IgG) was present. That suggests non-IgE mediated allergic reactions to PEG may be implicated for the majority of cases, Dr. Nadeau said.

This case series provides interesting new evidence to confirm previous reports that a mechanism other than the classic IgE-mediated allergic response is behind the suspected allergic reactions that are occurring after mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, said Aleena Banerji, MD, associate professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and clinical director of the Drug Allergy Program at Massachusetts General Hospital.

“We need to further understand the mechanism of these reactions, but what we know is that IGE mediated allergy to excipients like PEG is probably not the main cause,” Dr. Banerji, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

In a recent research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Banerji and coauthors reported that all individuals with immediate suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine went on to tolerate the second dose, with mild symptoms reported in the minority of patients (32 out of 159, or about 20%).

“Again, that is very consistent with not having an IgE-mediated allergy, so it seems to all be fitting with that picture,” Dr. Banerji said.

The case series by Dr. Nadeau and coauthors was based on review of nearly 39,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered between December 18, 2020 and January 26, 2021. Most mRNA vaccine recipients were Stanford-affiliated health care workers, according to the report.

Among recipients of those doses, they identified 148 individuals who had anaphylaxis-related ICD-10 codes recorded over the same time period. In a review of medical records, investigators pinpointed 22 individuals as having suspected allergy and invited them to participate in follow-up allergy testing.

A total of 11 individuals underwent skin prick testing, but none of them tested positive to PEG or to polysorbate 80, another excipient that has been linked to vaccine-related allergic reactions. One of the patients tested positive to the same mRNA vaccine they had previously received, according to the report.

Those same 11 individuals also underwent basophil activation testing (BAT). In contrast to the skin testing results, BAT results were positive for PEG in 10 of 11 cases (or 91%) and positive for their administered vaccine in all 11 cases, the report shows.

High levels of IgG to PEG were identified in blood samples of individuals with an allergy to the vaccine. Investigators said it’s possible that the BAT results were activated due to IgG via complement activation–related pseudoallergy, or CARPA, as has been hypothesized by some other investigators.

The negative skin prick testing results for PEG, which contrast with the positive BAT results to PEG, suggest that the former may not be appropriate for use as a predictive marker of potential vaccine allergy, according to Dr. Nadeau.

“The take-home message for doctors is to be careful,” she said. “Don’t assume that just because the person skin-tests negative to PEG or to the vaccine itself that you’re out of the woods, because the skin test would be often negative in those scenarios.”

The study was supported by a grants from the Asthma and Allergic Diseases Cooperative Research Centers, a grant from the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease SARS Vaccine study, the Parker Foundation, the Crown Foundation, and the Sunshine Foundation. Dr. Nadeau reports numerous conflicts with various sources in the industry. Dr. Banerji has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A common inert ingredient may be the culprit behind the rare allergic reactions reported among individuals who have received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, according to investigators at a large regional health center that was among the first to administer the shots.

Blood samples from 10 of 11 individuals with suspected allergic reactions reacted to polyethylene glycol (PEG), a component of both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA  vaccines, according to a report in JAMA Network Open.

In total, only 22 individuals had suspected allergic reactions out of nearly 39,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, the investigators reported, noting that the reactions were generally mild and all fully resolved.

Those findings should be reassuring to individuals who are reticent to sign up for a COVID-19 vaccine because of fear of an allergic reaction, said study senior author Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, director of the Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University.

“We’re hoping that this word will get out and then that the companies could also think about making vaccines that have other products in them that don’t include polyethylene glycol,” Dr. Nadeau said in an interview.

PEG is a compound used in many products, including pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and food. In the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, PEG serves to stabilize the lipid nanoparticles that help protect and transport mRNA. However, its use in this setting has been linked to allergic reactions in this and previous studies.

No immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies to PEG were detected among the 22 individuals with suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but PEG immunoglobulin G (IgG) was present. That suggests non-IgE mediated allergic reactions to PEG may be implicated for the majority of cases, Dr. Nadeau said.

This case series provides interesting new evidence to confirm previous reports that a mechanism other than the classic IgE-mediated allergic response is behind the suspected allergic reactions that are occurring after mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, said Aleena Banerji, MD, associate professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and clinical director of the Drug Allergy Program at Massachusetts General Hospital.

“We need to further understand the mechanism of these reactions, but what we know is that IGE mediated allergy to excipients like PEG is probably not the main cause,” Dr. Banerji, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

In a recent research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Banerji and coauthors reported that all individuals with immediate suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine went on to tolerate the second dose, with mild symptoms reported in the minority of patients (32 out of 159, or about 20%).

“Again, that is very consistent with not having an IgE-mediated allergy, so it seems to all be fitting with that picture,” Dr. Banerji said.

The case series by Dr. Nadeau and coauthors was based on review of nearly 39,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered between December 18, 2020 and January 26, 2021. Most mRNA vaccine recipients were Stanford-affiliated health care workers, according to the report.

Among recipients of those doses, they identified 148 individuals who had anaphylaxis-related ICD-10 codes recorded over the same time period. In a review of medical records, investigators pinpointed 22 individuals as having suspected allergy and invited them to participate in follow-up allergy testing.

A total of 11 individuals underwent skin prick testing, but none of them tested positive to PEG or to polysorbate 80, another excipient that has been linked to vaccine-related allergic reactions. One of the patients tested positive to the same mRNA vaccine they had previously received, according to the report.

Those same 11 individuals also underwent basophil activation testing (BAT). In contrast to the skin testing results, BAT results were positive for PEG in 10 of 11 cases (or 91%) and positive for their administered vaccine in all 11 cases, the report shows.

High levels of IgG to PEG were identified in blood samples of individuals with an allergy to the vaccine. Investigators said it’s possible that the BAT results were activated due to IgG via complement activation–related pseudoallergy, or CARPA, as has been hypothesized by some other investigators.

The negative skin prick testing results for PEG, which contrast with the positive BAT results to PEG, suggest that the former may not be appropriate for use as a predictive marker of potential vaccine allergy, according to Dr. Nadeau.

“The take-home message for doctors is to be careful,” she said. “Don’t assume that just because the person skin-tests negative to PEG or to the vaccine itself that you’re out of the woods, because the skin test would be often negative in those scenarios.”

The study was supported by a grants from the Asthma and Allergic Diseases Cooperative Research Centers, a grant from the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease SARS Vaccine study, the Parker Foundation, the Crown Foundation, and the Sunshine Foundation. Dr. Nadeau reports numerous conflicts with various sources in the industry. Dr. Banerji has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

A common inert ingredient may be the culprit behind the rare allergic reactions reported among individuals who have received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, according to investigators at a large regional health center that was among the first to administer the shots.

Blood samples from 10 of 11 individuals with suspected allergic reactions reacted to polyethylene glycol (PEG), a component of both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA  vaccines, according to a report in JAMA Network Open.

In total, only 22 individuals had suspected allergic reactions out of nearly 39,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered, the investigators reported, noting that the reactions were generally mild and all fully resolved.

Those findings should be reassuring to individuals who are reticent to sign up for a COVID-19 vaccine because of fear of an allergic reaction, said study senior author Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, director of the Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University.

“We’re hoping that this word will get out and then that the companies could also think about making vaccines that have other products in them that don’t include polyethylene glycol,” Dr. Nadeau said in an interview.

PEG is a compound used in many products, including pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and food. In the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, PEG serves to stabilize the lipid nanoparticles that help protect and transport mRNA. However, its use in this setting has been linked to allergic reactions in this and previous studies.

No immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies to PEG were detected among the 22 individuals with suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, but PEG immunoglobulin G (IgG) was present. That suggests non-IgE mediated allergic reactions to PEG may be implicated for the majority of cases, Dr. Nadeau said.

This case series provides interesting new evidence to confirm previous reports that a mechanism other than the classic IgE-mediated allergic response is behind the suspected allergic reactions that are occurring after mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, said Aleena Banerji, MD, associate professor at Harvard Medical School, Boston, and clinical director of the Drug Allergy Program at Massachusetts General Hospital.

“We need to further understand the mechanism of these reactions, but what we know is that IGE mediated allergy to excipients like PEG is probably not the main cause,” Dr. Banerji, who was not involved in the study, said in an interview.

In a recent research letter published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Banerji and coauthors reported that all individuals with immediate suspected allergic reactions to mRNA COVID-19 vaccine went on to tolerate the second dose, with mild symptoms reported in the minority of patients (32 out of 159, or about 20%).

“Again, that is very consistent with not having an IgE-mediated allergy, so it seems to all be fitting with that picture,” Dr. Banerji said.

The case series by Dr. Nadeau and coauthors was based on review of nearly 39,000 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine doses administered between December 18, 2020 and January 26, 2021. Most mRNA vaccine recipients were Stanford-affiliated health care workers, according to the report.

Among recipients of those doses, they identified 148 individuals who had anaphylaxis-related ICD-10 codes recorded over the same time period. In a review of medical records, investigators pinpointed 22 individuals as having suspected allergy and invited them to participate in follow-up allergy testing.

A total of 11 individuals underwent skin prick testing, but none of them tested positive to PEG or to polysorbate 80, another excipient that has been linked to vaccine-related allergic reactions. One of the patients tested positive to the same mRNA vaccine they had previously received, according to the report.

Those same 11 individuals also underwent basophil activation testing (BAT). In contrast to the skin testing results, BAT results were positive for PEG in 10 of 11 cases (or 91%) and positive for their administered vaccine in all 11 cases, the report shows.

High levels of IgG to PEG were identified in blood samples of individuals with an allergy to the vaccine. Investigators said it’s possible that the BAT results were activated due to IgG via complement activation–related pseudoallergy, or CARPA, as has been hypothesized by some other investigators.

The negative skin prick testing results for PEG, which contrast with the positive BAT results to PEG, suggest that the former may not be appropriate for use as a predictive marker of potential vaccine allergy, according to Dr. Nadeau.

“The take-home message for doctors is to be careful,” she said. “Don’t assume that just because the person skin-tests negative to PEG or to the vaccine itself that you’re out of the woods, because the skin test would be often negative in those scenarios.”

The study was supported by a grants from the Asthma and Allergic Diseases Cooperative Research Centers, a grant from the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease SARS Vaccine study, the Parker Foundation, the Crown Foundation, and the Sunshine Foundation. Dr. Nadeau reports numerous conflicts with various sources in the industry. Dr. Banerji has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) may increase as the severity of psoriasis increases, results from a large analysis of U.S. medical records demonstrated.

Factors that predict the development of psoriasis in patients with psoriasis include nail, inverse, and scalp psoriasis; family history of PsA; as well as severity of skin disease. And like psoriasis, “PsA is associated with a multitude of comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, Crohn’s disease, obesity, diabetes, uveitis, anxiety, and depression, with correspondingly higher healthcare utilization and direct healthcare costs,” wrote corresponding author Joseph F. Merola, MD, MMSc, and colleagues. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “Timely and accurate diagnosis of PsA is important for improved patient outcomes and appropriate disease management and may prevent prolonged inflammation that leads to structural joint damage and worsening physical function,” they added.

The mean time of onset of PsA among patients with psoriasis who develop PsA is 10 years after the first signs of psoriasis appear. An estimated 20%-30% of patients with psoriasis have a concurrent diagnosis of PsA, and the annual incidence of PsA has been reported to be 2.7 cases per 100 patients with psoriasis. While previous studies have suggested that a higher incidence of PsA is associated with greater disease severity, there are limited data in the United States on the topic.

For the study, Dr. Merola, a dermatologist and rheumatologist who directs the Center for Skin and Related Musculoskeletal Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his colleagues drew from the Optum EHR database to identify adult patients newly diagnosed with psoriasis between Jan. 1, 2009, and March 31, 2019. Patients diagnosed with psoriasis or PsA prior to the index date were excluded from the analysis for evaluation of incidence but included for evaluation of prevalence. The patients were followed from the index date until the earliest PsA event, death, or end of study or follow-up, whichever came first. The researchers calculated the incidence of PsA among adults with psoriasis as the number of incident PsA events divided by the number of patient-years (PY) at risk, which was reported as the raw incidence per 100 psoriasis PY. They calculated the prevalence of PsA among adults with psoriasis as “the number of prevalent PsA events divided by the number of eligible patients with [psoriasis] and reported by years in the follow-up period,” which was a median of 3.7 years.

A total of 114,868 patients were included in the analysis. At baseline, their mean age was 54 years, 53% were female, 89% were White, and 39% were obese. Most patients (102,553) were on nonsystemic agents during the year after their psoriasis diagnosis, while 6,345 were on nonbiologic systemic therapies (NBSTs) and 5,970 were on biologics. The researchers classified patients as having mild psoriasis if they were taking nonsystemic agents, moderate disease if they were taking NBSTs, or severe disease if they were taking biologics.

The overall incidence rate of PsA was 2.9 events per 100 PY and increased by severity of disease. When calculated by severity, the incidence was 2.1 events per 100 PY for patients with mild psoriasis, 9.9 events per 100 PY for those with moderate psoriasis, and 17.6 events per 100 PY for those with severe psoriasis.

When the researchers excluded patients diagnosed with PsA up to 1 year after being diagnosed with psoriasis, the overall incidence was lower (1.7 events per 100 PY), with similar trends for categories of treatment severity. Specifically, the incidence was 1.5, 3.1, and 4.7 events per 100 PY among those with mild, moderate, and severe psoriasis, based on their treatment groups, respectively.

Among the 120,523 patients with psoriasis who were eligible for the assessment of prevalence of PsA, the overall 5-year prevalence of PsA was 14.2% and rose with severity of disease: 9.9% in patients with mild psoriasis, 35% in patients with moderate psoriasis, and 54.9% in patients with severe psoriasis.

Other predictors of PsA onset for both index-date cohorts included weight of 90 kg or greater, female gender, age group 25-65 years (compared with the age group over 65 years), and rheumatic risk factors such as wrist pain and unspecified rheumatism.

“To ensure timely diagnosis and treatment for management and prevention of PsA, patients with [psoriasis] should be routinely screened, especially those with more severe disease and other PsA risk factors,” the authors advised.

Dr. Merola and colleagues acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including the potential for selection bias and its reliance on EHR data which “lacked clinical measures of disease severity such as the PASI, and data on BSA were not available for all study participants; therefore, treatment groups were used as a surrogate for disease severity,” they wrote. “As a result, some patients may have been miscategorized, especially patients with severe disease who were untreated.”

The study was sponsored by Novartis. Dr. Merola disclosed that he is a consultant and/or investigator for Merck, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Avotres, and LEO Pharma. Four authors are Novartis employees, or employees of a consulting company that provides services to Novartis; and another author disclosed serving as an investigator or consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

[email protected]

The risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) may increase as the severity of psoriasis increases, results from a large analysis of U.S. medical records demonstrated.

Factors that predict the development of psoriasis in patients with psoriasis include nail, inverse, and scalp psoriasis; family history of PsA; as well as severity of skin disease. And like psoriasis, “PsA is associated with a multitude of comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, Crohn’s disease, obesity, diabetes, uveitis, anxiety, and depression, with correspondingly higher healthcare utilization and direct healthcare costs,” wrote corresponding author Joseph F. Merola, MD, MMSc, and colleagues. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “Timely and accurate diagnosis of PsA is important for improved patient outcomes and appropriate disease management and may prevent prolonged inflammation that leads to structural joint damage and worsening physical function,” they added.

The mean time of onset of PsA among patients with psoriasis who develop PsA is 10 years after the first signs of psoriasis appear. An estimated 20%-30% of patients with psoriasis have a concurrent diagnosis of PsA, and the annual incidence of PsA has been reported to be 2.7 cases per 100 patients with psoriasis. While previous studies have suggested that a higher incidence of PsA is associated with greater disease severity, there are limited data in the United States on the topic.

For the study, Dr. Merola, a dermatologist and rheumatologist who directs the Center for Skin and Related Musculoskeletal Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his colleagues drew from the Optum EHR database to identify adult patients newly diagnosed with psoriasis between Jan. 1, 2009, and March 31, 2019. Patients diagnosed with psoriasis or PsA prior to the index date were excluded from the analysis for evaluation of incidence but included for evaluation of prevalence. The patients were followed from the index date until the earliest PsA event, death, or end of study or follow-up, whichever came first. The researchers calculated the incidence of PsA among adults with psoriasis as the number of incident PsA events divided by the number of patient-years (PY) at risk, which was reported as the raw incidence per 100 psoriasis PY. They calculated the prevalence of PsA among adults with psoriasis as “the number of prevalent PsA events divided by the number of eligible patients with [psoriasis] and reported by years in the follow-up period,” which was a median of 3.7 years.

A total of 114,868 patients were included in the analysis. At baseline, their mean age was 54 years, 53% were female, 89% were White, and 39% were obese. Most patients (102,553) were on nonsystemic agents during the year after their psoriasis diagnosis, while 6,345 were on nonbiologic systemic therapies (NBSTs) and 5,970 were on biologics. The researchers classified patients as having mild psoriasis if they were taking nonsystemic agents, moderate disease if they were taking NBSTs, or severe disease if they were taking biologics.

The overall incidence rate of PsA was 2.9 events per 100 PY and increased by severity of disease. When calculated by severity, the incidence was 2.1 events per 100 PY for patients with mild psoriasis, 9.9 events per 100 PY for those with moderate psoriasis, and 17.6 events per 100 PY for those with severe psoriasis.

When the researchers excluded patients diagnosed with PsA up to 1 year after being diagnosed with psoriasis, the overall incidence was lower (1.7 events per 100 PY), with similar trends for categories of treatment severity. Specifically, the incidence was 1.5, 3.1, and 4.7 events per 100 PY among those with mild, moderate, and severe psoriasis, based on their treatment groups, respectively.

Among the 120,523 patients with psoriasis who were eligible for the assessment of prevalence of PsA, the overall 5-year prevalence of PsA was 14.2% and rose with severity of disease: 9.9% in patients with mild psoriasis, 35% in patients with moderate psoriasis, and 54.9% in patients with severe psoriasis.

Other predictors of PsA onset for both index-date cohorts included weight of 90 kg or greater, female gender, age group 25-65 years (compared with the age group over 65 years), and rheumatic risk factors such as wrist pain and unspecified rheumatism.

“To ensure timely diagnosis and treatment for management and prevention of PsA, patients with [psoriasis] should be routinely screened, especially those with more severe disease and other PsA risk factors,” the authors advised.

Dr. Merola and colleagues acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including the potential for selection bias and its reliance on EHR data which “lacked clinical measures of disease severity such as the PASI, and data on BSA were not available for all study participants; therefore, treatment groups were used as a surrogate for disease severity,” they wrote. “As a result, some patients may have been miscategorized, especially patients with severe disease who were untreated.”

The study was sponsored by Novartis. Dr. Merola disclosed that he is a consultant and/or investigator for Merck, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Avotres, and LEO Pharma. Four authors are Novartis employees, or employees of a consulting company that provides services to Novartis; and another author disclosed serving as an investigator or consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

[email protected]

The risk of developing psoriatic arthritis (PsA) may increase as the severity of psoriasis increases, results from a large analysis of U.S. medical records demonstrated.

Factors that predict the development of psoriasis in patients with psoriasis include nail, inverse, and scalp psoriasis; family history of PsA; as well as severity of skin disease. And like psoriasis, “PsA is associated with a multitude of comorbidities, including cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, Crohn’s disease, obesity, diabetes, uveitis, anxiety, and depression, with correspondingly higher healthcare utilization and direct healthcare costs,” wrote corresponding author Joseph F. Merola, MD, MMSc, and colleagues. The study was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. “Timely and accurate diagnosis of PsA is important for improved patient outcomes and appropriate disease management and may prevent prolonged inflammation that leads to structural joint damage and worsening physical function,” they added.

The mean time of onset of PsA among patients with psoriasis who develop PsA is 10 years after the first signs of psoriasis appear. An estimated 20%-30% of patients with psoriasis have a concurrent diagnosis of PsA, and the annual incidence of PsA has been reported to be 2.7 cases per 100 patients with psoriasis. While previous studies have suggested that a higher incidence of PsA is associated with greater disease severity, there are limited data in the United States on the topic.

For the study, Dr. Merola, a dermatologist and rheumatologist who directs the Center for Skin and Related Musculoskeletal Diseases at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, and his colleagues drew from the Optum EHR database to identify adult patients newly diagnosed with psoriasis between Jan. 1, 2009, and March 31, 2019. Patients diagnosed with psoriasis or PsA prior to the index date were excluded from the analysis for evaluation of incidence but included for evaluation of prevalence. The patients were followed from the index date until the earliest PsA event, death, or end of study or follow-up, whichever came first. The researchers calculated the incidence of PsA among adults with psoriasis as the number of incident PsA events divided by the number of patient-years (PY) at risk, which was reported as the raw incidence per 100 psoriasis PY. They calculated the prevalence of PsA among adults with psoriasis as “the number of prevalent PsA events divided by the number of eligible patients with [psoriasis] and reported by years in the follow-up period,” which was a median of 3.7 years.

A total of 114,868 patients were included in the analysis. At baseline, their mean age was 54 years, 53% were female, 89% were White, and 39% were obese. Most patients (102,553) were on nonsystemic agents during the year after their psoriasis diagnosis, while 6,345 were on nonbiologic systemic therapies (NBSTs) and 5,970 were on biologics. The researchers classified patients as having mild psoriasis if they were taking nonsystemic agents, moderate disease if they were taking NBSTs, or severe disease if they were taking biologics.

The overall incidence rate of PsA was 2.9 events per 100 PY and increased by severity of disease. When calculated by severity, the incidence was 2.1 events per 100 PY for patients with mild psoriasis, 9.9 events per 100 PY for those with moderate psoriasis, and 17.6 events per 100 PY for those with severe psoriasis.

When the researchers excluded patients diagnosed with PsA up to 1 year after being diagnosed with psoriasis, the overall incidence was lower (1.7 events per 100 PY), with similar trends for categories of treatment severity. Specifically, the incidence was 1.5, 3.1, and 4.7 events per 100 PY among those with mild, moderate, and severe psoriasis, based on their treatment groups, respectively.

Among the 120,523 patients with psoriasis who were eligible for the assessment of prevalence of PsA, the overall 5-year prevalence of PsA was 14.2% and rose with severity of disease: 9.9% in patients with mild psoriasis, 35% in patients with moderate psoriasis, and 54.9% in patients with severe psoriasis.

Other predictors of PsA onset for both index-date cohorts included weight of 90 kg or greater, female gender, age group 25-65 years (compared with the age group over 65 years), and rheumatic risk factors such as wrist pain and unspecified rheumatism.

“To ensure timely diagnosis and treatment for management and prevention of PsA, patients with [psoriasis] should be routinely screened, especially those with more severe disease and other PsA risk factors,” the authors advised.

Dr. Merola and colleagues acknowledged certain limitations of their analysis, including the potential for selection bias and its reliance on EHR data which “lacked clinical measures of disease severity such as the PASI, and data on BSA were not available for all study participants; therefore, treatment groups were used as a surrogate for disease severity,” they wrote. “As a result, some patients may have been miscategorized, especially patients with severe disease who were untreated.”

The study was sponsored by Novartis. Dr. Merola disclosed that he is a consultant and/or investigator for Merck, AbbVie, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Janssen, UCB, Celgene, Sanofi, Regeneron, Arena, Sun Pharmaceuticals, Biogen, Pfizer, EMD Serono, Avotres, and LEO Pharma. Four authors are Novartis employees, or employees of a consulting company that provides services to Novartis; and another author disclosed serving as an investigator or consultant for several pharmaceutical companies, including Novartis.

[email protected]

The Diagnosis: Nodular Hidradenoma

A biopsy of the nodule showed a large, fungating, well-circumscribed, multilobulated neoplasm composed of primarily monotonous eosinophilic cells in a background of keloidal stroma (Figure). There was a minority population of small, monotonous, clear cells within the lobules, and no glandular structures were noted. Neither cytological nor architectural atypia were evident. MART-1/Melan-A and S-100 stains were negative, consistent with a diagnosis of benign nodular hidradenoma.

Nodular hidradenoma (also known as acrospiroma, solid-cystic hidradenoma, clear cell hidradenoma, and eccrine sweat gland adenoma) is a benign adnexal tumor of the apocrine or eccrine glands.^1,2 Nodular hidradenoma can arise at any cutaneous site but most commonly arises on the head and anterior portion of the trunk and rarely on the extremities.² It presents as a solitary nodular, cystic, or pedunculated mass that can reach up to several centimeters in diameter.^2,3 Nodular hidradenoma more commonly affects women compared to men with a ratio of 1.7 to 1 and commonly presents between the third and fifth decades of life, with an average age at presentation of 37.2 years.^2,4 There can be associated skin changes, including smoothening, thickening, ulceration, and bluish discoloration. Dermoscopy commonly shows a pinkish homogenous area that extends throughout the entire lesion. This homogenous area less commonly can be bluish, brownish, or pink-blue. Most nodular hidradenomas also can exhibit vascularization, with arborizing telangiectases, polymorphous atypical vessels, and linear irregular vessels being most common; however, this is not specific to nodular hidradenoma.3 Occasionally, tumors can drain serous or hemorrhagic fluid. Nodular hidradenoma commonly is a slow-growing tumor.⁵ Rapid increase in tumor size can be indicative of malignant transformation, hemorrhage into the tumor, or trauma to the area.²

Histologically, nodular hidradenoma consists of a circumscribed, nonencapsulated, multilobular tumor commonly found in the dermis and sometimes extending into the subcutaneous tissue. There usually is no epidermal attachment, and the overlying epidermis largely is normal. The tumor consists of large multilobulated areas of epithelial cells, tubular lamina, and large cystic areas filled with homogenous eosinophilic material.¹ It notably is composed of 2 epithelial cell types: (1) fusiform cells with elongated vesicular nuclei and basophilic cytoplasm, and (2) large polygonal cells with round eccentric nuclei and eosinophilic, periodic acid–Schiff–positive cytoplasm that washes away during fixation, giving the appearance of clear cells.⁵ Both types of cells are small, monotonous, and void of mitosis or dyskeratosis. Although there can be ducts with apocrine secretion present within the lobulated tumor, they are not consistently found. Due to the varying features that are neither mandatory nor consistent to arrive at this diagnosis, some dermatopathologists view the term hidradenoma as a catch-all term that includes several different types of benign sweat gland tumors. Some authors divide the terminology into apocrine hidradenoma and eccrine hidradenoma based on whether the tumor is composed of solely clear mucinous cells, or poroid and cuticular cells, respectively.

Although nodular hidradenoma classically is a benign tumor, total surgical excision is recommended due to the rare risk for malignant transformation. Rarely, longstanding hidradenomas can metastasize to lymph nodes, bone, or viscera; in these instances, metastatic hidradenoma has a 5-year survival rate of 30%. Recurrence may occur in tumors that are inadequately excised, and the rate of recurrence is estimated to be approximately 10% of surgically excised tumors.⁵ However, utilization of Mohs micrographic surgery for excision of nodular hidradenoma is associated with a reduced recurrence rate.⁶

Keloids present as painful, sometimes pruritic, raised scars that extend beyond the boundary of the initial injury, commonly arising on the shoulder, upper arm, and chest. Histopathology reveals nodules of thick hyalinized collagen bundles, keloidal collagen with mucinous ground substance, and few fibroblasts.⁷

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma to the skin most commonly presents on the face and scalp as a nodular, rapidly growing, round to oval lesion that is flesh colored to reddish purple in a patient with history of renal cell carcinoma.⁸ Histopathology shows clusters of atypical, nucleated clear cells surrounded by chicken wire vasculature.^8,9

Verruca vulgaris is caused by human papillomavirus and most commonly occurs on the hands and feet. It presents as a pink to white, sessile lesion with a verrucous surface and exophytic growths. Histopathology shows acanthosis; hypergranulosis; exophytic projections with a fibrovascular core; inward cupping of the rete ridges; and koilocytes, which are cells with an eccentric, raisinlike nucleus and vacuolated cytoplasm in the granular layer of the epidermis.¹⁰

Similar to nodular hidradenoma, nodular melanoma most commonly presents on the head and neck as a symmetric, elevated, amelanotic nodule, but in contrast to nodular hidradenoma, it typically is confined to a smaller diameter.¹¹ Histologically, it is characterized by sheets of atypical, commonly epithelioid melanocytes with a lack of maturation and brisk mitotic activity extending through the epidermis and dermis with lateral extension limited to less than 3 rete ridges.¹²

The Diagnosis: Nodular Hidradenoma

A biopsy of the nodule showed a large, fungating, well-circumscribed, multilobulated neoplasm composed of primarily monotonous eosinophilic cells in a background of keloidal stroma (Figure). There was a minority population of small, monotonous, clear cells within the lobules, and no glandular structures were noted. Neither cytological nor architectural atypia were evident. MART-1/Melan-A and S-100 stains were negative, consistent with a diagnosis of benign nodular hidradenoma.

Nodular hidradenoma (also known as acrospiroma, solid-cystic hidradenoma, clear cell hidradenoma, and eccrine sweat gland adenoma) is a benign adnexal tumor of the apocrine or eccrine glands.^1,2 Nodular hidradenoma can arise at any cutaneous site but most commonly arises on the head and anterior portion of the trunk and rarely on the extremities.² It presents as a solitary nodular, cystic, or pedunculated mass that can reach up to several centimeters in diameter.^2,3 Nodular hidradenoma more commonly affects women compared to men with a ratio of 1.7 to 1 and commonly presents between the third and fifth decades of life, with an average age at presentation of 37.2 years.^2,4 There can be associated skin changes, including smoothening, thickening, ulceration, and bluish discoloration. Dermoscopy commonly shows a pinkish homogenous area that extends throughout the entire lesion. This homogenous area less commonly can be bluish, brownish, or pink-blue. Most nodular hidradenomas also can exhibit vascularization, with arborizing telangiectases, polymorphous atypical vessels, and linear irregular vessels being most common; however, this is not specific to nodular hidradenoma.3 Occasionally, tumors can drain serous or hemorrhagic fluid. Nodular hidradenoma commonly is a slow-growing tumor.⁵ Rapid increase in tumor size can be indicative of malignant transformation, hemorrhage into the tumor, or trauma to the area.²

Histologically, nodular hidradenoma consists of a circumscribed, nonencapsulated, multilobular tumor commonly found in the dermis and sometimes extending into the subcutaneous tissue. There usually is no epidermal attachment, and the overlying epidermis largely is normal. The tumor consists of large multilobulated areas of epithelial cells, tubular lamina, and large cystic areas filled with homogenous eosinophilic material.¹ It notably is composed of 2 epithelial cell types: (1) fusiform cells with elongated vesicular nuclei and basophilic cytoplasm, and (2) large polygonal cells with round eccentric nuclei and eosinophilic, periodic acid–Schiff–positive cytoplasm that washes away during fixation, giving the appearance of clear cells.⁵ Both types of cells are small, monotonous, and void of mitosis or dyskeratosis. Although there can be ducts with apocrine secretion present within the lobulated tumor, they are not consistently found. Due to the varying features that are neither mandatory nor consistent to arrive at this diagnosis, some dermatopathologists view the term hidradenoma as a catch-all term that includes several different types of benign sweat gland tumors. Some authors divide the terminology into apocrine hidradenoma and eccrine hidradenoma based on whether the tumor is composed of solely clear mucinous cells, or poroid and cuticular cells, respectively.

Although nodular hidradenoma classically is a benign tumor, total surgical excision is recommended due to the rare risk for malignant transformation. Rarely, longstanding hidradenomas can metastasize to lymph nodes, bone, or viscera; in these instances, metastatic hidradenoma has a 5-year survival rate of 30%. Recurrence may occur in tumors that are inadequately excised, and the rate of recurrence is estimated to be approximately 10% of surgically excised tumors.⁵ However, utilization of Mohs micrographic surgery for excision of nodular hidradenoma is associated with a reduced recurrence rate.⁶

Keloids present as painful, sometimes pruritic, raised scars that extend beyond the boundary of the initial injury, commonly arising on the shoulder, upper arm, and chest. Histopathology reveals nodules of thick hyalinized collagen bundles, keloidal collagen with mucinous ground substance, and few fibroblasts.⁷

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma to the skin most commonly presents on the face and scalp as a nodular, rapidly growing, round to oval lesion that is flesh colored to reddish purple in a patient with history of renal cell carcinoma.⁸ Histopathology shows clusters of atypical, nucleated clear cells surrounded by chicken wire vasculature.^8,9

Verruca vulgaris is caused by human papillomavirus and most commonly occurs on the hands and feet. It presents as a pink to white, sessile lesion with a verrucous surface and exophytic growths. Histopathology shows acanthosis; hypergranulosis; exophytic projections with a fibrovascular core; inward cupping of the rete ridges; and koilocytes, which are cells with an eccentric, raisinlike nucleus and vacuolated cytoplasm in the granular layer of the epidermis.¹⁰

Similar to nodular hidradenoma, nodular melanoma most commonly presents on the head and neck as a symmetric, elevated, amelanotic nodule, but in contrast to nodular hidradenoma, it typically is confined to a smaller diameter.¹¹ Histologically, it is characterized by sheets of atypical, commonly epithelioid melanocytes with a lack of maturation and brisk mitotic activity extending through the epidermis and dermis with lateral extension limited to less than 3 rete ridges.¹²

The Diagnosis: Nodular Hidradenoma

A biopsy of the nodule showed a large, fungating, well-circumscribed, multilobulated neoplasm composed of primarily monotonous eosinophilic cells in a background of keloidal stroma (Figure). There was a minority population of small, monotonous, clear cells within the lobules, and no glandular structures were noted. Neither cytological nor architectural atypia were evident. MART-1/Melan-A and S-100 stains were negative, consistent with a diagnosis of benign nodular hidradenoma.

Nodular hidradenoma (also known as acrospiroma, solid-cystic hidradenoma, clear cell hidradenoma, and eccrine sweat gland adenoma) is a benign adnexal tumor of the apocrine or eccrine glands.^1,2 Nodular hidradenoma can arise at any cutaneous site but most commonly arises on the head and anterior portion of the trunk and rarely on the extremities.² It presents as a solitary nodular, cystic, or pedunculated mass that can reach up to several centimeters in diameter.^2,3 Nodular hidradenoma more commonly affects women compared to men with a ratio of 1.7 to 1 and commonly presents between the third and fifth decades of life, with an average age at presentation of 37.2 years.^2,4 There can be associated skin changes, including smoothening, thickening, ulceration, and bluish discoloration. Dermoscopy commonly shows a pinkish homogenous area that extends throughout the entire lesion. This homogenous area less commonly can be bluish, brownish, or pink-blue. Most nodular hidradenomas also can exhibit vascularization, with arborizing telangiectases, polymorphous atypical vessels, and linear irregular vessels being most common; however, this is not specific to nodular hidradenoma.3 Occasionally, tumors can drain serous or hemorrhagic fluid. Nodular hidradenoma commonly is a slow-growing tumor.⁵ Rapid increase in tumor size can be indicative of malignant transformation, hemorrhage into the tumor, or trauma to the area.²

Histologically, nodular hidradenoma consists of a circumscribed, nonencapsulated, multilobular tumor commonly found in the dermis and sometimes extending into the subcutaneous tissue. There usually is no epidermal attachment, and the overlying epidermis largely is normal. The tumor consists of large multilobulated areas of epithelial cells, tubular lamina, and large cystic areas filled with homogenous eosinophilic material.¹ It notably is composed of 2 epithelial cell types: (1) fusiform cells with elongated vesicular nuclei and basophilic cytoplasm, and (2) large polygonal cells with round eccentric nuclei and eosinophilic, periodic acid–Schiff–positive cytoplasm that washes away during fixation, giving the appearance of clear cells.⁵ Both types of cells are small, monotonous, and void of mitosis or dyskeratosis. Although there can be ducts with apocrine secretion present within the lobulated tumor, they are not consistently found. Due to the varying features that are neither mandatory nor consistent to arrive at this diagnosis, some dermatopathologists view the term hidradenoma as a catch-all term that includes several different types of benign sweat gland tumors. Some authors divide the terminology into apocrine hidradenoma and eccrine hidradenoma based on whether the tumor is composed of solely clear mucinous cells, or poroid and cuticular cells, respectively.

Although nodular hidradenoma classically is a benign tumor, total surgical excision is recommended due to the rare risk for malignant transformation. Rarely, longstanding hidradenomas can metastasize to lymph nodes, bone, or viscera; in these instances, metastatic hidradenoma has a 5-year survival rate of 30%. Recurrence may occur in tumors that are inadequately excised, and the rate of recurrence is estimated to be approximately 10% of surgically excised tumors.⁵ However, utilization of Mohs micrographic surgery for excision of nodular hidradenoma is associated with a reduced recurrence rate.⁶

Keloids present as painful, sometimes pruritic, raised scars that extend beyond the boundary of the initial injury, commonly arising on the shoulder, upper arm, and chest. Histopathology reveals nodules of thick hyalinized collagen bundles, keloidal collagen with mucinous ground substance, and few fibroblasts.⁷

Metastatic renal cell carcinoma to the skin most commonly presents on the face and scalp as a nodular, rapidly growing, round to oval lesion that is flesh colored to reddish purple in a patient with history of renal cell carcinoma.⁸ Histopathology shows clusters of atypical, nucleated clear cells surrounded by chicken wire vasculature.^8,9

Verruca vulgaris is caused by human papillomavirus and most commonly occurs on the hands and feet. It presents as a pink to white, sessile lesion with a verrucous surface and exophytic growths. Histopathology shows acanthosis; hypergranulosis; exophytic projections with a fibrovascular core; inward cupping of the rete ridges; and koilocytes, which are cells with an eccentric, raisinlike nucleus and vacuolated cytoplasm in the granular layer of the epidermis.¹⁰

Similar to nodular hidradenoma, nodular melanoma most commonly presents on the head and neck as a symmetric, elevated, amelanotic nodule, but in contrast to nodular hidradenoma, it typically is confined to a smaller diameter.¹¹ Histologically, it is characterized by sheets of atypical, commonly epithelioid melanocytes with a lack of maturation and brisk mitotic activity extending through the epidermis and dermis with lateral extension limited to less than 3 rete ridges.¹²

Confusion continues to circulate in the wake of decisions on booster doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, all announced within 1 week. Many people – including those now eligible and those who officially have to wait for their shot at a third dose – have questions.

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

Multiple agencies are involved in the booster decisions, and they have put out multiple – and sometimes conflicting – messages about booster doses, leaving more questions than answers for many people.

On Sept. 22, the Food and Drug Administration granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a booster dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for those 65 and older and those at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers whose jobs increase their risk for infection – such as frontline health care workers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, then overruled advice from the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to recommend boosters for essential workers such as those working on the front lines during the pandemic.

As it stands now, the CDC recommends that the following groups should get a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine:

• People aged 65 years and older.
• People aged 18 years and older in long-term care settings.
• People aged 50-64 years with underlying medical conditions.

The CDC also recommends that the following groups may receive a booster shot of the Pfizer vaccine, based on their individual benefits and risks:

• People aged 18-49 years with underlying medical conditions.
• People aged 18-64 years at increased risk for COVID-19 exposure and transmission because of occupational or institutional setting.

The CDC currently considers the following groups at increased risk for COVID-19:

• First responders (health care workers, firefighters, police, congregate care staff).
• Education staff (teachers, support staff, day care workers).
• Food and agriculture workers.
• Manufacturing workers.
• Corrections workers.
• U.S. Postal Service workers.
• Public transit workers.
• Grocery store workers.

Health care professionals, among the most trusted sources of COVID-19 information, are likely to encounter a number of patients wondering how all this will work.

“It’s fantastic that boosters will be available for those who the data supports need [them],” Rachael Piltch-Loeb, PhD, said during a media briefing on Sept. 23, held between the FDA and CDC decisions.

“But we’re really in a place where we have a lot more questions and answers about what the next phase of the vaccine availability and updates are going to be in the United States,” added Dr. Piltch-Loeb, preparedness fellow in the division of policy translation and leadership development and a research associate in the department of biostatistics at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

To provide some initial answers, this news organization spoke with multiple COVID-19 experts.

1. What is the biggest concern you are hearing from patients about getting a booster?

“The biggest concerns are that everyone wants it and they don’t know where to get it. In health care’s defense, the CDC just figured out what to do,” said Janet Englund, MD, professor of pediatric infectious diseases and an infectious disease and virology expert at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington.

“Everyone thinks they should be eligible for a booster ... people in their 50s who are not yet 65+, people with young grandchildren, etc.,” she added. “I’m at Seattle Children’s Hospital, so people are asking about booster shots and about getting their children vaccinated.”

Boosters for all COVID-19 vaccines are completely free.

“All COVID-19 vaccines, including booster doses, will be provided free of charge to the U.S. population,” the CDC has said.

2. Will patients need to prove they meet eligibility criteria for a booster shot or will it be the honor system?

“No, patients will only need to attest that they fall into one of the high-risk groups for whom a booster vaccine is authorized,” said Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

Dr. Piltch-Loeb agreed. “It is likely to be an honor system. It is very unlikely that there will be punishments or other ramifications ... if doses are administered, beyond the approved usage.”

3. If a patient who had the Moderna or the Johnson and Johnson vaccination requests a booster, can health care workers give them Pfizer? 

The short answer is no. “This only applies to individuals who have received the Pfizer vaccine,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said.

More data will be needed before other vaccine boosters are authorized, she added.

“My understanding is the Moderna people have just recently submitted their information, all of their data to the FDA and J&J is in line to do that very shortly,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “I would hope that within the next month to 6 weeks, we will get information about both of those vaccines,” Dr. Schaffner said.

4. When are the “mix-and-match” vaccine study results expected to come out?

“We expect that data from the study will be available in the coming weeks,” said Dr. Atmar, who is the national co-principal investigator of a mix-and-match booster trial launched in June 2021.

5. Are side effects of a booster vaccine expected to be about the same as what people experienced during their first or second immunization? 

“I’m expecting the side effects will be similar to the second dose,” Dr. Englund said.

“The data presented ... at ACIP suggests that the side effects from the third shot are either the same or actually less than the first two shots,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, distinguished professor of medicine, epidemiology, and global health, and executive associate dean of Emory University School of Medicine at Grady Health System in Atlanta.

”Everyone reacts very differently to vaccines, regardless of vaccine type,” said Eric Ascher, MD, a family medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “I have had patients (as well as personal experience) where there were none to minimal symptoms, and others who felt they had a mild flu for 24 hours.”

“I expect no side effects greater than what was felt with you prior doses,” he said. “The vaccine is very safe and the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risks of any mild side effects.”

6. Is it unethical to give a booster to someone outside the approved groups if there are doses remaining at the end of the day in an open vial? 

“Offering a booster shot to someone outside of approved groups if remaining doses will go to waste at the end of the day seems like a prudent decision, and relatively harmless action,” said Faith Fletcher, PhD, assistant professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine.

“However, if doses continue to fall in the laps of unapproved groups, we must evaluate the vaccine systems and structures that advantage some groups and disadvantage others,” she added. “We know that the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has not been equitable – and some groups have been left behind.”

“I am not an ethicist and there are many competing concerns that this question addresses,” Dr. Atmar said. For example, “there is not a limitation of vaccine supply in the U.S., so that using leftover vaccine to prevent waste is no longer a major concern in the U.S.”

It could be more of a legal than ethical question, Dr. Atmar said. For an individual outside the authorized groups, legally, the FDA’s EUA for boosting does not allow the vaccine to be administered to this person, he said.

“The rationale for the restricted use in the EUA is that at this time the safety and risks associated with such administration are not known, and the benefits also have not been determined,” Dr. Atmar said. “Members of the ACIP raised concerns about other individuals who may potentially benefit from a booster but are not eligible and the importance of making boosters available to them, but from a legal standpoint – I am also not a lawyer, so this is my understanding – administration of the vaccine is limited to those identified in the EUA.”

7. What is the likelihood that one shot will combine COVID and flu protection in the near future? 

It is not likely, Dr. Englund said. “The reason is that the flu vaccine changes so much, and it already has four different antigens. This is assuming we keep the same method of making the flu vaccine – the answer could be different if the flu vaccine becomes an mRNA vaccine in the future.”

Companies such as Moderna and Novavax are testing single-dose shots for COVID-19 and influenza, but they are still far from having anything ready for this flu season in the United States.

8. Is there any chance a booster shot distributed now will need to be redesigned for a future variant? 

“Absolutely,” Dr. Englund said. “And a booster dose is the time we may want to consider re-engineering a vaccine.”

9. Do you think the FDA/CDC limitations on who is eligible for a booster was in any way influenced by the World Health Organization call for prioritizing shots for the unvaccinated in lower-resource countries?

“This is absolutely still a global problem,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said. “We need to get more vaccine to more countries and more people as soon as possible, because if there’s anything we’ve seen about the variants it is that ... they can come from all different places.”

“That being said, I think that it is unlikely to change the course of action in the U.S.,” she added, when it comes to comparing the global need with the domestic policy priorities of the administration.

Dr. Atmar was more direct. “No,” he said. “The WHO recommends against boosting of anyone. The U.S. decisions about boosting those in this country who are eligible are aimed toward addressing perceived needs domestically at the same time that vaccines are being provided to other countries.

“The philosophy is to address both ‘needs’ at the same time,” Dr. Atmar said.

10. What does the future hold for booster shots?

“Predicting the future is really hard, especially when it involves COVID,” Dr. del Rio said. 

“Having said that, COVID is not the flu, so I doubt there will be need for annual boosters. I think the population eligible for boosters will be expanded ... and the major population not addressed at this point is the people that received either Moderna or J&J [vaccines].”
 

Kelly Davis contributed to this feature. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Confusion continues to circulate in the wake of decisions on booster doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, all announced within 1 week. Many people – including those now eligible and those who officially have to wait for their shot at a third dose – have questions.

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

Multiple agencies are involved in the booster decisions, and they have put out multiple – and sometimes conflicting – messages about booster doses, leaving more questions than answers for many people.

On Sept. 22, the Food and Drug Administration granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a booster dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for those 65 and older and those at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers whose jobs increase their risk for infection – such as frontline health care workers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, then overruled advice from the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to recommend boosters for essential workers such as those working on the front lines during the pandemic.

As it stands now, the CDC recommends that the following groups should get a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine:

• People aged 65 years and older.
• People aged 18 years and older in long-term care settings.
• People aged 50-64 years with underlying medical conditions.

The CDC also recommends that the following groups may receive a booster shot of the Pfizer vaccine, based on their individual benefits and risks:

• People aged 18-49 years with underlying medical conditions.
• People aged 18-64 years at increased risk for COVID-19 exposure and transmission because of occupational or institutional setting.

The CDC currently considers the following groups at increased risk for COVID-19:

• First responders (health care workers, firefighters, police, congregate care staff).
• Education staff (teachers, support staff, day care workers).
• Food and agriculture workers.
• Manufacturing workers.
• Corrections workers.
• U.S. Postal Service workers.
• Public transit workers.
• Grocery store workers.

Health care professionals, among the most trusted sources of COVID-19 information, are likely to encounter a number of patients wondering how all this will work.

“It’s fantastic that boosters will be available for those who the data supports need [them],” Rachael Piltch-Loeb, PhD, said during a media briefing on Sept. 23, held between the FDA and CDC decisions.

“But we’re really in a place where we have a lot more questions and answers about what the next phase of the vaccine availability and updates are going to be in the United States,” added Dr. Piltch-Loeb, preparedness fellow in the division of policy translation and leadership development and a research associate in the department of biostatistics at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

To provide some initial answers, this news organization spoke with multiple COVID-19 experts.

1. What is the biggest concern you are hearing from patients about getting a booster?

“The biggest concerns are that everyone wants it and they don’t know where to get it. In health care’s defense, the CDC just figured out what to do,” said Janet Englund, MD, professor of pediatric infectious diseases and an infectious disease and virology expert at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington.

“Everyone thinks they should be eligible for a booster ... people in their 50s who are not yet 65+, people with young grandchildren, etc.,” she added. “I’m at Seattle Children’s Hospital, so people are asking about booster shots and about getting their children vaccinated.”

Boosters for all COVID-19 vaccines are completely free.

“All COVID-19 vaccines, including booster doses, will be provided free of charge to the U.S. population,” the CDC has said.

2. Will patients need to prove they meet eligibility criteria for a booster shot or will it be the honor system?

“No, patients will only need to attest that they fall into one of the high-risk groups for whom a booster vaccine is authorized,” said Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

Dr. Piltch-Loeb agreed. “It is likely to be an honor system. It is very unlikely that there will be punishments or other ramifications ... if doses are administered, beyond the approved usage.”

3. If a patient who had the Moderna or the Johnson and Johnson vaccination requests a booster, can health care workers give them Pfizer? 

The short answer is no. “This only applies to individuals who have received the Pfizer vaccine,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said.

More data will be needed before other vaccine boosters are authorized, she added.

“My understanding is the Moderna people have just recently submitted their information, all of their data to the FDA and J&J is in line to do that very shortly,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “I would hope that within the next month to 6 weeks, we will get information about both of those vaccines,” Dr. Schaffner said.

4. When are the “mix-and-match” vaccine study results expected to come out?

“We expect that data from the study will be available in the coming weeks,” said Dr. Atmar, who is the national co-principal investigator of a mix-and-match booster trial launched in June 2021.

5. Are side effects of a booster vaccine expected to be about the same as what people experienced during their first or second immunization? 

“I’m expecting the side effects will be similar to the second dose,” Dr. Englund said.

“The data presented ... at ACIP suggests that the side effects from the third shot are either the same or actually less than the first two shots,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, distinguished professor of medicine, epidemiology, and global health, and executive associate dean of Emory University School of Medicine at Grady Health System in Atlanta.

”Everyone reacts very differently to vaccines, regardless of vaccine type,” said Eric Ascher, MD, a family medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “I have had patients (as well as personal experience) where there were none to minimal symptoms, and others who felt they had a mild flu for 24 hours.”

“I expect no side effects greater than what was felt with you prior doses,” he said. “The vaccine is very safe and the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risks of any mild side effects.”

6. Is it unethical to give a booster to someone outside the approved groups if there are doses remaining at the end of the day in an open vial? 

“Offering a booster shot to someone outside of approved groups if remaining doses will go to waste at the end of the day seems like a prudent decision, and relatively harmless action,” said Faith Fletcher, PhD, assistant professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine.

“However, if doses continue to fall in the laps of unapproved groups, we must evaluate the vaccine systems and structures that advantage some groups and disadvantage others,” she added. “We know that the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has not been equitable – and some groups have been left behind.”

“I am not an ethicist and there are many competing concerns that this question addresses,” Dr. Atmar said. For example, “there is not a limitation of vaccine supply in the U.S., so that using leftover vaccine to prevent waste is no longer a major concern in the U.S.”

It could be more of a legal than ethical question, Dr. Atmar said. For an individual outside the authorized groups, legally, the FDA’s EUA for boosting does not allow the vaccine to be administered to this person, he said.

“The rationale for the restricted use in the EUA is that at this time the safety and risks associated with such administration are not known, and the benefits also have not been determined,” Dr. Atmar said. “Members of the ACIP raised concerns about other individuals who may potentially benefit from a booster but are not eligible and the importance of making boosters available to them, but from a legal standpoint – I am also not a lawyer, so this is my understanding – administration of the vaccine is limited to those identified in the EUA.”

7. What is the likelihood that one shot will combine COVID and flu protection in the near future? 

It is not likely, Dr. Englund said. “The reason is that the flu vaccine changes so much, and it already has four different antigens. This is assuming we keep the same method of making the flu vaccine – the answer could be different if the flu vaccine becomes an mRNA vaccine in the future.”

Companies such as Moderna and Novavax are testing single-dose shots for COVID-19 and influenza, but they are still far from having anything ready for this flu season in the United States.

8. Is there any chance a booster shot distributed now will need to be redesigned for a future variant? 

“Absolutely,” Dr. Englund said. “And a booster dose is the time we may want to consider re-engineering a vaccine.”

9. Do you think the FDA/CDC limitations on who is eligible for a booster was in any way influenced by the World Health Organization call for prioritizing shots for the unvaccinated in lower-resource countries?

“This is absolutely still a global problem,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said. “We need to get more vaccine to more countries and more people as soon as possible, because if there’s anything we’ve seen about the variants it is that ... they can come from all different places.”

“That being said, I think that it is unlikely to change the course of action in the U.S.,” she added, when it comes to comparing the global need with the domestic policy priorities of the administration.

Dr. Atmar was more direct. “No,” he said. “The WHO recommends against boosting of anyone. The U.S. decisions about boosting those in this country who are eligible are aimed toward addressing perceived needs domestically at the same time that vaccines are being provided to other countries.

“The philosophy is to address both ‘needs’ at the same time,” Dr. Atmar said.

10. What does the future hold for booster shots?

“Predicting the future is really hard, especially when it involves COVID,” Dr. del Rio said. 

“Having said that, COVID is not the flu, so I doubt there will be need for annual boosters. I think the population eligible for boosters will be expanded ... and the major population not addressed at this point is the people that received either Moderna or J&J [vaccines].”
 

Kelly Davis contributed to this feature. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Confusion continues to circulate in the wake of decisions on booster doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, all announced within 1 week. Many people – including those now eligible and those who officially have to wait for their shot at a third dose – have questions.

Micah Young/istockphoto.com

Multiple agencies are involved in the booster decisions, and they have put out multiple – and sometimes conflicting – messages about booster doses, leaving more questions than answers for many people.

On Sept. 22, the Food and Drug Administration granted an emergency use authorization (EUA) for a booster dose of the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine for those 65 and older and those at high risk for severe illness from the coronavirus, including essential workers whose jobs increase their risk for infection – such as frontline health care workers.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Director Rochelle Walensky, MD, then overruled advice from the agency’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to recommend boosters for essential workers such as those working on the front lines during the pandemic.

As it stands now, the CDC recommends that the following groups should get a third dose of the Pfizer vaccine:

• People aged 65 years and older.
• People aged 18 years and older in long-term care settings.
• People aged 50-64 years with underlying medical conditions.

The CDC also recommends that the following groups may receive a booster shot of the Pfizer vaccine, based on their individual benefits and risks:

• People aged 18-49 years with underlying medical conditions.
• People aged 18-64 years at increased risk for COVID-19 exposure and transmission because of occupational or institutional setting.

The CDC currently considers the following groups at increased risk for COVID-19:

• First responders (health care workers, firefighters, police, congregate care staff).
• Education staff (teachers, support staff, day care workers).
• Food and agriculture workers.
• Manufacturing workers.
• Corrections workers.
• U.S. Postal Service workers.
• Public transit workers.
• Grocery store workers.

Health care professionals, among the most trusted sources of COVID-19 information, are likely to encounter a number of patients wondering how all this will work.

“It’s fantastic that boosters will be available for those who the data supports need [them],” Rachael Piltch-Loeb, PhD, said during a media briefing on Sept. 23, held between the FDA and CDC decisions.

“But we’re really in a place where we have a lot more questions and answers about what the next phase of the vaccine availability and updates are going to be in the United States,” added Dr. Piltch-Loeb, preparedness fellow in the division of policy translation and leadership development and a research associate in the department of biostatistics at the Harvard T. H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston.

To provide some initial answers, this news organization spoke with multiple COVID-19 experts.

1. What is the biggest concern you are hearing from patients about getting a booster?

“The biggest concerns are that everyone wants it and they don’t know where to get it. In health care’s defense, the CDC just figured out what to do,” said Janet Englund, MD, professor of pediatric infectious diseases and an infectious disease and virology expert at Seattle Children’s Hospital in Washington.

“Everyone thinks they should be eligible for a booster ... people in their 50s who are not yet 65+, people with young grandchildren, etc.,” she added. “I’m at Seattle Children’s Hospital, so people are asking about booster shots and about getting their children vaccinated.”

Boosters for all COVID-19 vaccines are completely free.

“All COVID-19 vaccines, including booster doses, will be provided free of charge to the U.S. population,” the CDC has said.

2. Will patients need to prove they meet eligibility criteria for a booster shot or will it be the honor system?

“No, patients will only need to attest that they fall into one of the high-risk groups for whom a booster vaccine is authorized,” said Robert Atmar, MD, professor of infectious diseases at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

Dr. Piltch-Loeb agreed. “It is likely to be an honor system. It is very unlikely that there will be punishments or other ramifications ... if doses are administered, beyond the approved usage.”

3. If a patient who had the Moderna or the Johnson and Johnson vaccination requests a booster, can health care workers give them Pfizer? 

The short answer is no. “This only applies to individuals who have received the Pfizer vaccine,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said.

More data will be needed before other vaccine boosters are authorized, she added.

“My understanding is the Moderna people have just recently submitted their information, all of their data to the FDA and J&J is in line to do that very shortly,” said William Schaffner, MD, professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. “I would hope that within the next month to 6 weeks, we will get information about both of those vaccines,” Dr. Schaffner said.

4. When are the “mix-and-match” vaccine study results expected to come out?

“We expect that data from the study will be available in the coming weeks,” said Dr. Atmar, who is the national co-principal investigator of a mix-and-match booster trial launched in June 2021.

5. Are side effects of a booster vaccine expected to be about the same as what people experienced during their first or second immunization? 

“I’m expecting the side effects will be similar to the second dose,” Dr. Englund said.

“The data presented ... at ACIP suggests that the side effects from the third shot are either the same or actually less than the first two shots,” said Carlos del Rio, MD, distinguished professor of medicine, epidemiology, and global health, and executive associate dean of Emory University School of Medicine at Grady Health System in Atlanta.

”Everyone reacts very differently to vaccines, regardless of vaccine type,” said Eric Ascher, MD, a family medicine physician at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. “I have had patients (as well as personal experience) where there were none to minimal symptoms, and others who felt they had a mild flu for 24 hours.”

“I expect no side effects greater than what was felt with you prior doses,” he said. “The vaccine is very safe and the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risks of any mild side effects.”

6. Is it unethical to give a booster to someone outside the approved groups if there are doses remaining at the end of the day in an open vial? 

“Offering a booster shot to someone outside of approved groups if remaining doses will go to waste at the end of the day seems like a prudent decision, and relatively harmless action,” said Faith Fletcher, PhD, assistant professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine.

“However, if doses continue to fall in the laps of unapproved groups, we must evaluate the vaccine systems and structures that advantage some groups and disadvantage others,” she added. “We know that the distribution of COVID-19 vaccines has not been equitable – and some groups have been left behind.”

“I am not an ethicist and there are many competing concerns that this question addresses,” Dr. Atmar said. For example, “there is not a limitation of vaccine supply in the U.S., so that using leftover vaccine to prevent waste is no longer a major concern in the U.S.”

It could be more of a legal than ethical question, Dr. Atmar said. For an individual outside the authorized groups, legally, the FDA’s EUA for boosting does not allow the vaccine to be administered to this person, he said.

“The rationale for the restricted use in the EUA is that at this time the safety and risks associated with such administration are not known, and the benefits also have not been determined,” Dr. Atmar said. “Members of the ACIP raised concerns about other individuals who may potentially benefit from a booster but are not eligible and the importance of making boosters available to them, but from a legal standpoint – I am also not a lawyer, so this is my understanding – administration of the vaccine is limited to those identified in the EUA.”

7. What is the likelihood that one shot will combine COVID and flu protection in the near future? 

It is not likely, Dr. Englund said. “The reason is that the flu vaccine changes so much, and it already has four different antigens. This is assuming we keep the same method of making the flu vaccine – the answer could be different if the flu vaccine becomes an mRNA vaccine in the future.”

Companies such as Moderna and Novavax are testing single-dose shots for COVID-19 and influenza, but they are still far from having anything ready for this flu season in the United States.

8. Is there any chance a booster shot distributed now will need to be redesigned for a future variant? 

“Absolutely,” Dr. Englund said. “And a booster dose is the time we may want to consider re-engineering a vaccine.”

9. Do you think the FDA/CDC limitations on who is eligible for a booster was in any way influenced by the World Health Organization call for prioritizing shots for the unvaccinated in lower-resource countries?

“This is absolutely still a global problem,” Dr. Piltch-Loeb said. “We need to get more vaccine to more countries and more people as soon as possible, because if there’s anything we’ve seen about the variants it is that ... they can come from all different places.”

“That being said, I think that it is unlikely to change the course of action in the U.S.,” she added, when it comes to comparing the global need with the domestic policy priorities of the administration.

Dr. Atmar was more direct. “No,” he said. “The WHO recommends against boosting of anyone. The U.S. decisions about boosting those in this country who are eligible are aimed toward addressing perceived needs domestically at the same time that vaccines are being provided to other countries.

“The philosophy is to address both ‘needs’ at the same time,” Dr. Atmar said.

10. What does the future hold for booster shots?

“Predicting the future is really hard, especially when it involves COVID,” Dr. del Rio said. 

“Having said that, COVID is not the flu, so I doubt there will be need for annual boosters. I think the population eligible for boosters will be expanded ... and the major population not addressed at this point is the people that received either Moderna or J&J [vaccines].”
 

Kelly Davis contributed to this feature. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Phaeohyphomycosis are caused by dematiaceous (pigmented) mycoses that produce dark colored hyphae due to melanin deposition in their cell walls. There are more than 100 species of dematiaceous fungi that can cause phaeohyphomycosis, including Alternaria, Exophiala, Phialophora, Wangiella, Bipolaris, Curvularia, and Exserohilum.^1,2 The causative fungi are found in plants and soil, so they are commonly seen after activities such as gardening or walking barefoot. Trauma, such as a splinter, typically incites the infection. Infections can present with superficial, cutaneous and subcutaneous involvement.

Donna Bilu Martin, MD

Sporotrichosis, also called Rose gardener’s disease, is a mycosis caused by Sporothrix schenckii. A typical presentation is when a gardener gets pricked by a rose thorn. Classically, a pustule will develop at the site of inoculation, with additional lesions forming along the path of lymphatic drainage (called a “sporotrichoid” pattern) weeks later. Atypical mycobacterial infections, mainly Mycobacterium marinum, may also present in this way. Histopathology and tissue cultures help to differentiate the two.

An incision and drainage with pathology was performed in the office. Upon opening the nodule, a large wood splinter was extracted. Both the foreign body and a punch biopsy of skin were sent in for examination. Pathology revealed polarizable foreign material in association with suppurative inflammation and dematiaceous fungi. PAS (Periodic-acid Schiff) and GMS (Grocott methenamine silver) stain highlighted fungal forms. Cultures were negative.

Local disease may be treated with excision alone. Oral antifungals, such as itraconazole, fluconazole, or ketoconazole may be used, although may require long treatment courses for months. Amphotericin B and flucytosine may be required in systemic cases. Almost all cases of disseminated disease occur in immunocompromised patients. Our patient’s hand resolved after removal of the causative thorn.

This case and these photos were submitted by Dr. Bilu Martin.
 

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Kradin R. Diagnostic Pathology of Infectious Disease, 1st edition (Saunders, Feb. 2, 2010).

2. Bolognia J et al. Dermatology (St. Louis: Mosby/Elsevier, 2008).

Phaeohyphomycosis are caused by dematiaceous (pigmented) mycoses that produce dark colored hyphae due to melanin deposition in their cell walls. There are more than 100 species of dematiaceous fungi that can cause phaeohyphomycosis, including Alternaria, Exophiala, Phialophora, Wangiella, Bipolaris, Curvularia, and Exserohilum.^1,2 The causative fungi are found in plants and soil, so they are commonly seen after activities such as gardening or walking barefoot. Trauma, such as a splinter, typically incites the infection. Infections can present with superficial, cutaneous and subcutaneous involvement.

Donna Bilu Martin, MD

Sporotrichosis, also called Rose gardener’s disease, is a mycosis caused by Sporothrix schenckii. A typical presentation is when a gardener gets pricked by a rose thorn. Classically, a pustule will develop at the site of inoculation, with additional lesions forming along the path of lymphatic drainage (called a “sporotrichoid” pattern) weeks later. Atypical mycobacterial infections, mainly Mycobacterium marinum, may also present in this way. Histopathology and tissue cultures help to differentiate the two.

An incision and drainage with pathology was performed in the office. Upon opening the nodule, a large wood splinter was extracted. Both the foreign body and a punch biopsy of skin were sent in for examination. Pathology revealed polarizable foreign material in association with suppurative inflammation and dematiaceous fungi. PAS (Periodic-acid Schiff) and GMS (Grocott methenamine silver) stain highlighted fungal forms. Cultures were negative.

Local disease may be treated with excision alone. Oral antifungals, such as itraconazole, fluconazole, or ketoconazole may be used, although may require long treatment courses for months. Amphotericin B and flucytosine may be required in systemic cases. Almost all cases of disseminated disease occur in immunocompromised patients. Our patient’s hand resolved after removal of the causative thorn.

This case and these photos were submitted by Dr. Bilu Martin.
 

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Kradin R. Diagnostic Pathology of Infectious Disease, 1st edition (Saunders, Feb. 2, 2010).

2. Bolognia J et al. Dermatology (St. Louis: Mosby/Elsevier, 2008).

Phaeohyphomycosis are caused by dematiaceous (pigmented) mycoses that produce dark colored hyphae due to melanin deposition in their cell walls. There are more than 100 species of dematiaceous fungi that can cause phaeohyphomycosis, including Alternaria, Exophiala, Phialophora, Wangiella, Bipolaris, Curvularia, and Exserohilum.^1,2 The causative fungi are found in plants and soil, so they are commonly seen after activities such as gardening or walking barefoot. Trauma, such as a splinter, typically incites the infection. Infections can present with superficial, cutaneous and subcutaneous involvement.

Donna Bilu Martin, MD

Sporotrichosis, also called Rose gardener’s disease, is a mycosis caused by Sporothrix schenckii. A typical presentation is when a gardener gets pricked by a rose thorn. Classically, a pustule will develop at the site of inoculation, with additional lesions forming along the path of lymphatic drainage (called a “sporotrichoid” pattern) weeks later. Atypical mycobacterial infections, mainly Mycobacterium marinum, may also present in this way. Histopathology and tissue cultures help to differentiate the two.

An incision and drainage with pathology was performed in the office. Upon opening the nodule, a large wood splinter was extracted. Both the foreign body and a punch biopsy of skin were sent in for examination. Pathology revealed polarizable foreign material in association with suppurative inflammation and dematiaceous fungi. PAS (Periodic-acid Schiff) and GMS (Grocott methenamine silver) stain highlighted fungal forms. Cultures were negative.

Local disease may be treated with excision alone. Oral antifungals, such as itraconazole, fluconazole, or ketoconazole may be used, although may require long treatment courses for months. Amphotericin B and flucytosine may be required in systemic cases. Almost all cases of disseminated disease occur in immunocompromised patients. Our patient’s hand resolved after removal of the causative thorn.

This case and these photos were submitted by Dr. Bilu Martin.
 

Dr. Bilu Martin is a board-certified dermatologist in private practice at Premier Dermatology, MD, in Aventura, Fla. More diagnostic cases are available at mdedge.com/dermatology. To submit a case for possible publication, send an email to [email protected].

References

1. Kradin R. Diagnostic Pathology of Infectious Disease, 1st edition (Saunders, Feb. 2, 2010).

2. Bolognia J et al. Dermatology (St. Louis: Mosby/Elsevier, 2008).

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) performed poorly in all dimensions of the European Quality of Life (EQ-5D) scoring of quality of life (QoL) as compared with the general population, thus reflecting the detrimental effect of PsA on QoL.

Major finding: Overall, 87.3% and 69.8% of patients with PsA experienced pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression, respectively. Patients with PsA presented worse results in all dimensions of the EQ-5D scale and had a lower mean QoL score compared to the general population (0.651 vs. 0.793; P < .001) with worsened QoL in patients with concomitant use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (P = .035) and comorbidities (P = .003).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study including 212 adult patients with PsA from a single-center pharmacy in Minas Gerais, Brazil.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Minas Gerais Research Support Foundation and National Council for Scientific and Technological Development. Several of the authors declared receiving educational scholarships, grants, or personal fees from several sources.

Source: Moraes FA et al. Value Health Reg Issues. 2021 Aug 12. doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2021.06.003.

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) performed poorly in all dimensions of the European Quality of Life (EQ-5D) scoring of quality of life (QoL) as compared with the general population, thus reflecting the detrimental effect of PsA on QoL.

Major finding: Overall, 87.3% and 69.8% of patients with PsA experienced pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression, respectively. Patients with PsA presented worse results in all dimensions of the EQ-5D scale and had a lower mean QoL score compared to the general population (0.651 vs. 0.793; P < .001) with worsened QoL in patients with concomitant use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (P = .035) and comorbidities (P = .003).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study including 212 adult patients with PsA from a single-center pharmacy in Minas Gerais, Brazil.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Minas Gerais Research Support Foundation and National Council for Scientific and Technological Development. Several of the authors declared receiving educational scholarships, grants, or personal fees from several sources.

Source: Moraes FA et al. Value Health Reg Issues. 2021 Aug 12. doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2021.06.003.

Key clinical point: Patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) performed poorly in all dimensions of the European Quality of Life (EQ-5D) scoring of quality of life (QoL) as compared with the general population, thus reflecting the detrimental effect of PsA on QoL.

Major finding: Overall, 87.3% and 69.8% of patients with PsA experienced pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression, respectively. Patients with PsA presented worse results in all dimensions of the EQ-5D scale and had a lower mean QoL score compared to the general population (0.651 vs. 0.793; P < .001) with worsened QoL in patients with concomitant use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (P = .035) and comorbidities (P = .003).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study including 212 adult patients with PsA from a single-center pharmacy in Minas Gerais, Brazil.

Disclosures: This study was supported by Minas Gerais Research Support Foundation and National Council for Scientific and Technological Development. Several of the authors declared receiving educational scholarships, grants, or personal fees from several sources.

Source: Moraes FA et al. Value Health Reg Issues. 2021 Aug 12. doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2021.06.003.

Key clinical point: Significant improvement in work productivity was observed in a real-world cohort of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (anti-TNF).

Major finding: At the final follow-up visit, the overall activity impairment decreased from 55.0 ± 21.5 to 16.3 ± 18.2 (P < .001). Moreover, absenteeism, mean presenteeism, and work productivity loss showed significant improvement upon treatment at the 9-month follow-up visit (all P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a noninterventional, prospective, and observational cohort study including 120 patients with PsA who were receiving anti-TNF treatment.

Disclosures: This study was supported by AbbVie. Some of the authors declared receiving speaker’s fees, consulting fees, or research grants from various sources including AbbVie.

Source: Karadag O et al. Clin Rheumatol. 2021 Sep 3. doi: 10.1007/s10067-021-05893-3.

Key clinical point: Significant improvement in work productivity was observed in a real-world cohort of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (anti-TNF).

Major finding: At the final follow-up visit, the overall activity impairment decreased from 55.0 ± 21.5 to 16.3 ± 18.2 (P < .001). Moreover, absenteeism, mean presenteeism, and work productivity loss showed significant improvement upon treatment at the 9-month follow-up visit (all P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a noninterventional, prospective, and observational cohort study including 120 patients with PsA who were receiving anti-TNF treatment.

Disclosures: This study was supported by AbbVie. Some of the authors declared receiving speaker’s fees, consulting fees, or research grants from various sources including AbbVie.

Source: Karadag O et al. Clin Rheumatol. 2021 Sep 3. doi: 10.1007/s10067-021-05893-3.

Key clinical point: Significant improvement in work productivity was observed in a real-world cohort of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) treated with a tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (anti-TNF).

Major finding: At the final follow-up visit, the overall activity impairment decreased from 55.0 ± 21.5 to 16.3 ± 18.2 (P < .001). Moreover, absenteeism, mean presenteeism, and work productivity loss showed significant improvement upon treatment at the 9-month follow-up visit (all P < .001).

Study details: Findings are from a noninterventional, prospective, and observational cohort study including 120 patients with PsA who were receiving anti-TNF treatment.

Disclosures: This study was supported by AbbVie. Some of the authors declared receiving speaker’s fees, consulting fees, or research grants from various sources including AbbVie.

Source: Karadag O et al. Clin Rheumatol. 2021 Sep 3. doi: 10.1007/s10067-021-05893-3.

Key clinical point: Obesity was associated with a higher disease activity and poorer quality of life (QoL) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), thus emphasizing the need to consider obesity during the management of patients with PsA.

Major finding: Patients with obesity had a significantly higher PsA QoL questionnaire and psychological status measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale compared with nonobese patients (P < .001). Even the disease activity index for PsA score was higher in patients with obesity (P < .05), whereas Psoriasis Area and Severity Index was similar between both groups (P = .154).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study including 1,033 patients with PsA, of which 62.9% of patients were nonobese and 37.1% were obese.

Disclosures: This study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Gok K et al. Rheumatol Int. 2021 Aug 28. doi: 10.1007/s00296-021-04971-8.

Key clinical point: Obesity was associated with a higher disease activity and poorer quality of life (QoL) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), thus emphasizing the need to consider obesity during the management of patients with PsA.

Major finding: Patients with obesity had a significantly higher PsA QoL questionnaire and psychological status measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale compared with nonobese patients (P < .001). Even the disease activity index for PsA score was higher in patients with obesity (P < .05), whereas Psoriasis Area and Severity Index was similar between both groups (P = .154).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study including 1,033 patients with PsA, of which 62.9% of patients were nonobese and 37.1% were obese.

Disclosures: This study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Gok K et al. Rheumatol Int. 2021 Aug 28. doi: 10.1007/s00296-021-04971-8.

Key clinical point: Obesity was associated with a higher disease activity and poorer quality of life (QoL) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA), thus emphasizing the need to consider obesity during the management of patients with PsA.

Major finding: Patients with obesity had a significantly higher PsA QoL questionnaire and psychological status measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale compared with nonobese patients (P < .001). Even the disease activity index for PsA score was higher in patients with obesity (P < .05), whereas Psoriasis Area and Severity Index was similar between both groups (P = .154).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study including 1,033 patients with PsA, of which 62.9% of patients were nonobese and 37.1% were obese.

Disclosures: This study did not report any source of funding. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: Gok K et al. Rheumatol Int. 2021 Aug 28. doi: 10.1007/s00296-021-04971-8.

Key clinical point: Endothelial dysfunction (ED) was inversely correlated with the severity of depressive symptoms in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Overall, 40% of PsA patients experienced depressive symptoms according to the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HDS). ED as measured by flow-mediated dilatation was negatively correlated with HDS score (Pearson’s coefficient [ρ] −0.339; P = .016), intensity of pain, and disease activity in PsA score (both ρ, −0.507; P = .001).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study including 50 patients with PsA between 30 and 75 years of age and without any previous history of heart disease or diabetes.

Disclosures: No information on funding was available. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: De Lorenzis E et al. Front Med. 2021 Aug 27. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.669397.

Key clinical point: Endothelial dysfunction (ED) was inversely correlated with the severity of depressive symptoms in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Overall, 40% of PsA patients experienced depressive symptoms according to the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HDS). ED as measured by flow-mediated dilatation was negatively correlated with HDS score (Pearson’s coefficient [ρ] −0.339; P = .016), intensity of pain, and disease activity in PsA score (both ρ, −0.507; P = .001).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study including 50 patients with PsA between 30 and 75 years of age and without any previous history of heart disease or diabetes.

Disclosures: No information on funding was available. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: De Lorenzis E et al. Front Med. 2021 Aug 27. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.669397.

Key clinical point: Endothelial dysfunction (ED) was inversely correlated with the severity of depressive symptoms in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).

Major finding: Overall, 40% of PsA patients experienced depressive symptoms according to the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HDS). ED as measured by flow-mediated dilatation was negatively correlated with HDS score (Pearson’s coefficient [ρ] −0.339; P = .016), intensity of pain, and disease activity in PsA score (both ρ, −0.507; P = .001).

Study details: Findings are from a cross-sectional study including 50 patients with PsA between 30 and 75 years of age and without any previous history of heart disease or diabetes.

Disclosures: No information on funding was available. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.

Source: De Lorenzis E et al. Front Med. 2021 Aug 27. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2021.669397.

Key clinical point: Treatment modification was frequently observed in a cohort of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD), highlighting the need for more effective therapies.

Major finding: Overall, 57.3% of patients were treated with biologic DMARDs either as monotherapy or in combination with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARD), whereas 37.7% and 4.4% of patients were treated with csDMARDs and targeted synthetic DMARDs, respectively. Treatment modifications in the previous year were reported by 48.4% of patients, with major reasons being lack of efficacy (38%) and remission or major improvement in the disease (14%).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective observational cross-sectional study including 316 adults with established PsA and psoriasis who received DMARD treatment for at least 183 days in the previous year.

Disclosures: This work was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb, Germany. Some of the authors declared receiving speaker’s fees and compensation for consultancy or board memberships from Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Daamen and Dr. Rothnie declared being current or previous employees of Bristol Myers Squibb.

Source: Behrens F et al. Mod Rheumatol. 2021 Aug 26. doi: 10.1080/14397595.2020.1816597.

Key clinical point: Treatment modification was frequently observed in a cohort of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD), highlighting the need for more effective therapies.

Major finding: Overall, 57.3% of patients were treated with biologic DMARDs either as monotherapy or in combination with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARD), whereas 37.7% and 4.4% of patients were treated with csDMARDs and targeted synthetic DMARDs, respectively. Treatment modifications in the previous year were reported by 48.4% of patients, with major reasons being lack of efficacy (38%) and remission or major improvement in the disease (14%).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective observational cross-sectional study including 316 adults with established PsA and psoriasis who received DMARD treatment for at least 183 days in the previous year.

Disclosures: This work was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb, Germany. Some of the authors declared receiving speaker’s fees and compensation for consultancy or board memberships from Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Daamen and Dr. Rothnie declared being current or previous employees of Bristol Myers Squibb.

Source: Behrens F et al. Mod Rheumatol. 2021 Aug 26. doi: 10.1080/14397595.2020.1816597.

Key clinical point: Treatment modification was frequently observed in a cohort of patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARD), highlighting the need for more effective therapies.

Major finding: Overall, 57.3% of patients were treated with biologic DMARDs either as monotherapy or in combination with conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARD), whereas 37.7% and 4.4% of patients were treated with csDMARDs and targeted synthetic DMARDs, respectively. Treatment modifications in the previous year were reported by 48.4% of patients, with major reasons being lack of efficacy (38%) and remission or major improvement in the disease (14%).

Study details: Findings are from a retrospective observational cross-sectional study including 316 adults with established PsA and psoriasis who received DMARD treatment for at least 183 days in the previous year.

Disclosures: This work was funded by Bristol Myers Squibb, Germany. Some of the authors declared receiving speaker’s fees and compensation for consultancy or board memberships from Bristol Myers Squibb. Dr. Daamen and Dr. Rothnie declared being current or previous employees of Bristol Myers Squibb.

Source: Behrens F et al. Mod Rheumatol. 2021 Aug 26. doi: 10.1080/14397595.2020.1816597.