MDedge Dermatology

Key clinical point: Difamilast 0.3% and 1% ointments demonstrated superiority over vehicle along with a favorable safety profile when applied twice daily for up to 4 weeks in pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At week 4, the success rate in investigator global assessment score was significantly higher with difamilast 0.3% (44.6%; P = .0005) and 1% (47.1%; P less than .0001) vs vehicle (18.1%) group. Treatment-emergent adverse effects were mostly mild or moderate in severity, with adverse event profiles similar between treatment and vehicle groups.

Study details: Findings are from a double-blind phase 3 trial including 251 patients aged 2-14 years with mild-to-moderate AD who were randomly assigned to receive difamilast 0.3%, difamilast 1%, or vehicle ointment twice daily for 4 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Dr. Saeki and Dr. Baba declared receiving consultation fees from Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Dr. Ito, Dr. Yokota, and Dr. Tsubouchi declared being employees of Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Source: Saeki H et al. Br J Dermatol. 2021 Jul 21. doi: 10.1111/bjd.20655.

Key clinical point: Difamilast 0.3% and 1% ointments demonstrated superiority over vehicle along with a favorable safety profile when applied twice daily for up to 4 weeks in pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At week 4, the success rate in investigator global assessment score was significantly higher with difamilast 0.3% (44.6%; P = .0005) and 1% (47.1%; P less than .0001) vs vehicle (18.1%) group. Treatment-emergent adverse effects were mostly mild or moderate in severity, with adverse event profiles similar between treatment and vehicle groups.

Study details: Findings are from a double-blind phase 3 trial including 251 patients aged 2-14 years with mild-to-moderate AD who were randomly assigned to receive difamilast 0.3%, difamilast 1%, or vehicle ointment twice daily for 4 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Dr. Saeki and Dr. Baba declared receiving consultation fees from Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Dr. Ito, Dr. Yokota, and Dr. Tsubouchi declared being employees of Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Source: Saeki H et al. Br J Dermatol. 2021 Jul 21. doi: 10.1111/bjd.20655.

Key clinical point: Difamilast 0.3% and 1% ointments demonstrated superiority over vehicle along with a favorable safety profile when applied twice daily for up to 4 weeks in pediatric patients with atopic dermatitis (AD).

Major finding: At week 4, the success rate in investigator global assessment score was significantly higher with difamilast 0.3% (44.6%; P = .0005) and 1% (47.1%; P less than .0001) vs vehicle (18.1%) group. Treatment-emergent adverse effects were mostly mild or moderate in severity, with adverse event profiles similar between treatment and vehicle groups.

Study details: Findings are from a double-blind phase 3 trial including 251 patients aged 2-14 years with mild-to-moderate AD who were randomly assigned to receive difamilast 0.3%, difamilast 1%, or vehicle ointment twice daily for 4 weeks.

Disclosures: This study was funded by Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Dr. Saeki and Dr. Baba declared receiving consultation fees from Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. Dr. Ito, Dr. Yokota, and Dr. Tsubouchi declared being employees of Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.

Source: Saeki H et al. Br J Dermatol. 2021 Jul 21. doi: 10.1111/bjd.20655.

Key clinical point: Upadacitinib demonstrated superior efficacy over dupilumab for treatment of adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) with no new safety signals identified.

Major finding: At week 16, a higher proportion of patients achieved 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index with upadacitinib vs dupilumab (71.0% vs 61.1%; P = .006). Rates of serious treatment-emergent adverse events leading to drug discontinuation in upadacitinib vs dupilumab were 2.9% vs 1.2%, with no new safety risks observed for upadacitinib.

Study details: Findings are 24-week results of Heads up, a phase 3b trial including 692 adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive oral upadacitinib, 30 mg once daily, or subcutaneous dupilumab, 300 mg every alternate week.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie. The authors declared serving as speaker, consultant, scientific advisor, clinical study investigator, and/or receiving personal fees and grants from various sources including AbbVie. Four authors declared being employees and/or shareholders of AbbVie.

Source: Blauvelt A et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2021 Aug 4. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.3023.

Key clinical point: Upadacitinib demonstrated superior efficacy over dupilumab for treatment of adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) with no new safety signals identified.

Major finding: At week 16, a higher proportion of patients achieved 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index with upadacitinib vs dupilumab (71.0% vs 61.1%; P = .006). Rates of serious treatment-emergent adverse events leading to drug discontinuation in upadacitinib vs dupilumab were 2.9% vs 1.2%, with no new safety risks observed for upadacitinib.

Study details: Findings are 24-week results of Heads up, a phase 3b trial including 692 adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive oral upadacitinib, 30 mg once daily, or subcutaneous dupilumab, 300 mg every alternate week.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie. The authors declared serving as speaker, consultant, scientific advisor, clinical study investigator, and/or receiving personal fees and grants from various sources including AbbVie. Four authors declared being employees and/or shareholders of AbbVie.

Source: Blauvelt A et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2021 Aug 4. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.3023.

Key clinical point: Upadacitinib demonstrated superior efficacy over dupilumab for treatment of adults with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) with no new safety signals identified.

Major finding: At week 16, a higher proportion of patients achieved 75% improvement in Eczema Area and Severity Index with upadacitinib vs dupilumab (71.0% vs 61.1%; P = .006). Rates of serious treatment-emergent adverse events leading to drug discontinuation in upadacitinib vs dupilumab were 2.9% vs 1.2%, with no new safety risks observed for upadacitinib.

Study details: Findings are 24-week results of Heads up, a phase 3b trial including 692 adults with moderate-to-severe AD who were randomly assigned to receive oral upadacitinib, 30 mg once daily, or subcutaneous dupilumab, 300 mg every alternate week.

Disclosures: This study was funded by AbbVie. The authors declared serving as speaker, consultant, scientific advisor, clinical study investigator, and/or receiving personal fees and grants from various sources including AbbVie. Four authors declared being employees and/or shareholders of AbbVie.

Source: Blauvelt A et al. JAMA Dermatol. 2021 Aug 4. doi: 10.1001/jamadermatol.2021.3023.

To the Editor:

Protothecosis infections are caused by an achlorophyllic algae of the species Prototheca. Prototheca organisms are found mostly in soil and water.¹ Human infections are rare and involve 2 species, Prototheca wickerhamii and Prototheca zopfii. The former most commonly is responsible for human infections, though P zopfii results in more serious systemic infections with a poor prognosis. There are various types of Prototheca infection presentations, with a 2007 review of 117 cases reporting that cutaneous infections are most common (66%), followed by systemic infections (19%), and olecranon bursitis (15%).² Skin lesions most commonly occur on the extremities and face, and they present as vesiculobullous and ulcerative lesions with purulent drainage. The skin lesions also may appear as erythematous plaques or nodules, subcutaneous papules, verrucous or herpetiformis lesions, or pyogenic granuloma–like lesions.³ Protothecosis typically affects immunocompromised individuals, especially those with a history of chronic corticosteroid use, malignancy, diabetes mellitus, AIDS, and/or organ transplant.¹ We present a case of cutaneous protothecosis on the dorsal distal extremity of a 94-year-old woman. History of exposure to soil while gardening was elicited from the patient, and no immunosuppressive history was present aside from the patient’s age. This case may prompt workup for malignancy or immunosuppression in this patient subset.

A 94-year-old woman with a medical history of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) presented with a growing lesion on the dorsal surface of the left fourth digit of 2 months’ duration. The patient reported the lesion was painful, and she noted preceding trauma to the area that was suspected to have occurred while gardening. Physical examination revealed an ulcerated, hypertrophic, erythematous nodule on the dorsal surface of the left fourth metacarpophalangeal joint. The differential diagnosis included SCC, inflamed cyst, verruca vulgaris, and orf virus due to the clinical presentation. A shave biopsy was performed, and the lesion subsequently was treated with electrodesiccation and curettage.

Histopathologic evaluation revealed pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia with a mixed inflammatory infiltrate including lymphocytes and histiocytes. A morula within the dermis was characteristic of a protothecosis infection (Figure 1). On follow-up visit 6 weeks later, the lesion had grown back to its original size and morphology (Figure 2). At this time, the lesion was again treated with shave removal, followed by electrodesiccation and curettage, and the patient was placed on oral fluconazole 200 mg daily for 1 month. When the lesion did not resolve with fluconazole, she was referred to infectious disease as well as general surgery for surgical removal and debridement of the lesion. Unfortunately, the patient was lost to follow-up.

Protothecosis is an infectious disease comprised of achlorophyllic algae found in soil and water that rarely affects humans. When it does affect humans, cutaneous infections are most common. All human cases in which organisms were identified to species level have been caused by P wickerhamii or P zopfii species.² Inoculation is suspected to occur through trauma to affected skin, especially when in the context of contaminated water. Our patient reported history of trauma to the hand, with soil from gardening as the potential aquagenic source of the infection.

The clinical presentation of protothecosis ranges from localized cutaneous to disseminated systemic infections, with most reported cases of systemic disease occurring in immunocompromised individuals. The cutaneous lesions of protothecosis vary greatly in clinical appearance including ulcerative nodules (as in our case), papules, plaques, pustules, and vesicles with erosion or crusting.⁴

Cutaneous protothecosis has the potential to mimic many other skin diseases and lesions, and, given its rarity, it may not be on the radar of dermatologists. Our patient’s lesion was presumed to be a skin cancer and was treated as such because of the history of SCC and clinical presentation. Although excision of individual lesions of protothecosis can be curative, electrodesiccation and curettage does not appear to be an adequate treatment, as the lesion subsequently recurred. It also is possible that this case represents P zopfii infection, as it did not respond to treatment with oral fluconazole, though in vitro studies with fluconazole to both P zopfii and P wickerhamii had variable treatment success.² Also, the histopathologic findings were most consistent with P wickerhamii, revealing small, round, symmetrical morula, compared to P zopfii, which typically will display oval or cylindrical, asymmetrical, random internal segmentation.⁵ This case may warrant determination of species, which can be accomplished by a culture on Sabouraud dextrose agar, carbohydrate and alcohol assimilation test, yeast biochemical card, serological typing by immunoblotting, immunofluorescence study using species-specific antibodies, or amplification by polymerase chain reaction for small subunit ribosomal DNA sequences.^2,6-8

The natural history of isolated skin disease is an indolent progressive course; however, reports do exist noting spontaneous resolution.^4,9 Treatment options for Prototheca infections can be disappointing and consist of both surgical and medical management, or a combination of the 2 approaches. Reports in the literature support the use of antifungals including ketoconazole, voriconazole, itraconazole, fluconazole, and amphotericin B, with the latter displaying the best activity against Prototheca species.² Tetracycline has been used in combination with oral or topical amphotericin B and was found to be synergistic in vitro and in case reports at successfully treating cutaneous protothecosis infections. It is possible that our patient was not treated with fluconazole long enough for it to become therapeutic, as most reported treatment regimens are weeks to months in length. Conversely, it may have been of benefit to transition the patient to topical amphotericin B and tetracycline, as fluconazole failed in this patient. However, treatment successes and failures are limited to case reports/case series and in vitro studies, with prospective studies lacking. Due to the variability with in vitro susceptibility profiles for Prototheca species, it generally is not recommended to pursue in vitro susceptibility testing in the management of Prototheca skin infections due to the inconsistency demonstrated between in vitro activity and clinical response to therapy.²

To the Editor:

Protothecosis infections are caused by an achlorophyllic algae of the species Prototheca. Prototheca organisms are found mostly in soil and water.¹ Human infections are rare and involve 2 species, Prototheca wickerhamii and Prototheca zopfii. The former most commonly is responsible for human infections, though P zopfii results in more serious systemic infections with a poor prognosis. There are various types of Prototheca infection presentations, with a 2007 review of 117 cases reporting that cutaneous infections are most common (66%), followed by systemic infections (19%), and olecranon bursitis (15%).² Skin lesions most commonly occur on the extremities and face, and they present as vesiculobullous and ulcerative lesions with purulent drainage. The skin lesions also may appear as erythematous plaques or nodules, subcutaneous papules, verrucous or herpetiformis lesions, or pyogenic granuloma–like lesions.³ Protothecosis typically affects immunocompromised individuals, especially those with a history of chronic corticosteroid use, malignancy, diabetes mellitus, AIDS, and/or organ transplant.¹ We present a case of cutaneous protothecosis on the dorsal distal extremity of a 94-year-old woman. History of exposure to soil while gardening was elicited from the patient, and no immunosuppressive history was present aside from the patient’s age. This case may prompt workup for malignancy or immunosuppression in this patient subset.

A 94-year-old woman with a medical history of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) presented with a growing lesion on the dorsal surface of the left fourth digit of 2 months’ duration. The patient reported the lesion was painful, and she noted preceding trauma to the area that was suspected to have occurred while gardening. Physical examination revealed an ulcerated, hypertrophic, erythematous nodule on the dorsal surface of the left fourth metacarpophalangeal joint. The differential diagnosis included SCC, inflamed cyst, verruca vulgaris, and orf virus due to the clinical presentation. A shave biopsy was performed, and the lesion subsequently was treated with electrodesiccation and curettage.

Histopathologic evaluation revealed pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia with a mixed inflammatory infiltrate including lymphocytes and histiocytes. A morula within the dermis was characteristic of a protothecosis infection (Figure 1). On follow-up visit 6 weeks later, the lesion had grown back to its original size and morphology (Figure 2). At this time, the lesion was again treated with shave removal, followed by electrodesiccation and curettage, and the patient was placed on oral fluconazole 200 mg daily for 1 month. When the lesion did not resolve with fluconazole, she was referred to infectious disease as well as general surgery for surgical removal and debridement of the lesion. Unfortunately, the patient was lost to follow-up.

Protothecosis is an infectious disease comprised of achlorophyllic algae found in soil and water that rarely affects humans. When it does affect humans, cutaneous infections are most common. All human cases in which organisms were identified to species level have been caused by P wickerhamii or P zopfii species.² Inoculation is suspected to occur through trauma to affected skin, especially when in the context of contaminated water. Our patient reported history of trauma to the hand, with soil from gardening as the potential aquagenic source of the infection.

The clinical presentation of protothecosis ranges from localized cutaneous to disseminated systemic infections, with most reported cases of systemic disease occurring in immunocompromised individuals. The cutaneous lesions of protothecosis vary greatly in clinical appearance including ulcerative nodules (as in our case), papules, plaques, pustules, and vesicles with erosion or crusting.⁴

Cutaneous protothecosis has the potential to mimic many other skin diseases and lesions, and, given its rarity, it may not be on the radar of dermatologists. Our patient’s lesion was presumed to be a skin cancer and was treated as such because of the history of SCC and clinical presentation. Although excision of individual lesions of protothecosis can be curative, electrodesiccation and curettage does not appear to be an adequate treatment, as the lesion subsequently recurred. It also is possible that this case represents P zopfii infection, as it did not respond to treatment with oral fluconazole, though in vitro studies with fluconazole to both P zopfii and P wickerhamii had variable treatment success.² Also, the histopathologic findings were most consistent with P wickerhamii, revealing small, round, symmetrical morula, compared to P zopfii, which typically will display oval or cylindrical, asymmetrical, random internal segmentation.⁵ This case may warrant determination of species, which can be accomplished by a culture on Sabouraud dextrose agar, carbohydrate and alcohol assimilation test, yeast biochemical card, serological typing by immunoblotting, immunofluorescence study using species-specific antibodies, or amplification by polymerase chain reaction for small subunit ribosomal DNA sequences.^2,6-8

The natural history of isolated skin disease is an indolent progressive course; however, reports do exist noting spontaneous resolution.^4,9 Treatment options for Prototheca infections can be disappointing and consist of both surgical and medical management, or a combination of the 2 approaches. Reports in the literature support the use of antifungals including ketoconazole, voriconazole, itraconazole, fluconazole, and amphotericin B, with the latter displaying the best activity against Prototheca species.² Tetracycline has been used in combination with oral or topical amphotericin B and was found to be synergistic in vitro and in case reports at successfully treating cutaneous protothecosis infections. It is possible that our patient was not treated with fluconazole long enough for it to become therapeutic, as most reported treatment regimens are weeks to months in length. Conversely, it may have been of benefit to transition the patient to topical amphotericin B and tetracycline, as fluconazole failed in this patient. However, treatment successes and failures are limited to case reports/case series and in vitro studies, with prospective studies lacking. Due to the variability with in vitro susceptibility profiles for Prototheca species, it generally is not recommended to pursue in vitro susceptibility testing in the management of Prototheca skin infections due to the inconsistency demonstrated between in vitro activity and clinical response to therapy.²

To the Editor:

Protothecosis infections are caused by an achlorophyllic algae of the species Prototheca. Prototheca organisms are found mostly in soil and water.¹ Human infections are rare and involve 2 species, Prototheca wickerhamii and Prototheca zopfii. The former most commonly is responsible for human infections, though P zopfii results in more serious systemic infections with a poor prognosis. There are various types of Prototheca infection presentations, with a 2007 review of 117 cases reporting that cutaneous infections are most common (66%), followed by systemic infections (19%), and olecranon bursitis (15%).² Skin lesions most commonly occur on the extremities and face, and they present as vesiculobullous and ulcerative lesions with purulent drainage. The skin lesions also may appear as erythematous plaques or nodules, subcutaneous papules, verrucous or herpetiformis lesions, or pyogenic granuloma–like lesions.³ Protothecosis typically affects immunocompromised individuals, especially those with a history of chronic corticosteroid use, malignancy, diabetes mellitus, AIDS, and/or organ transplant.¹ We present a case of cutaneous protothecosis on the dorsal distal extremity of a 94-year-old woman. History of exposure to soil while gardening was elicited from the patient, and no immunosuppressive history was present aside from the patient’s age. This case may prompt workup for malignancy or immunosuppression in this patient subset.

A 94-year-old woman with a medical history of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) presented with a growing lesion on the dorsal surface of the left fourth digit of 2 months’ duration. The patient reported the lesion was painful, and she noted preceding trauma to the area that was suspected to have occurred while gardening. Physical examination revealed an ulcerated, hypertrophic, erythematous nodule on the dorsal surface of the left fourth metacarpophalangeal joint. The differential diagnosis included SCC, inflamed cyst, verruca vulgaris, and orf virus due to the clinical presentation. A shave biopsy was performed, and the lesion subsequently was treated with electrodesiccation and curettage.

Histopathologic evaluation revealed pseudoepitheliomatous hyperplasia with a mixed inflammatory infiltrate including lymphocytes and histiocytes. A morula within the dermis was characteristic of a protothecosis infection (Figure 1). On follow-up visit 6 weeks later, the lesion had grown back to its original size and morphology (Figure 2). At this time, the lesion was again treated with shave removal, followed by electrodesiccation and curettage, and the patient was placed on oral fluconazole 200 mg daily for 1 month. When the lesion did not resolve with fluconazole, she was referred to infectious disease as well as general surgery for surgical removal and debridement of the lesion. Unfortunately, the patient was lost to follow-up.

Protothecosis is an infectious disease comprised of achlorophyllic algae found in soil and water that rarely affects humans. When it does affect humans, cutaneous infections are most common. All human cases in which organisms were identified to species level have been caused by P wickerhamii or P zopfii species.² Inoculation is suspected to occur through trauma to affected skin, especially when in the context of contaminated water. Our patient reported history of trauma to the hand, with soil from gardening as the potential aquagenic source of the infection.

The clinical presentation of protothecosis ranges from localized cutaneous to disseminated systemic infections, with most reported cases of systemic disease occurring in immunocompromised individuals. The cutaneous lesions of protothecosis vary greatly in clinical appearance including ulcerative nodules (as in our case), papules, plaques, pustules, and vesicles with erosion or crusting.⁴

Cutaneous protothecosis has the potential to mimic many other skin diseases and lesions, and, given its rarity, it may not be on the radar of dermatologists. Our patient’s lesion was presumed to be a skin cancer and was treated as such because of the history of SCC and clinical presentation. Although excision of individual lesions of protothecosis can be curative, electrodesiccation and curettage does not appear to be an adequate treatment, as the lesion subsequently recurred. It also is possible that this case represents P zopfii infection, as it did not respond to treatment with oral fluconazole, though in vitro studies with fluconazole to both P zopfii and P wickerhamii had variable treatment success.² Also, the histopathologic findings were most consistent with P wickerhamii, revealing small, round, symmetrical morula, compared to P zopfii, which typically will display oval or cylindrical, asymmetrical, random internal segmentation.⁵ This case may warrant determination of species, which can be accomplished by a culture on Sabouraud dextrose agar, carbohydrate and alcohol assimilation test, yeast biochemical card, serological typing by immunoblotting, immunofluorescence study using species-specific antibodies, or amplification by polymerase chain reaction for small subunit ribosomal DNA sequences.^2,6-8

The natural history of isolated skin disease is an indolent progressive course; however, reports do exist noting spontaneous resolution.^4,9 Treatment options for Prototheca infections can be disappointing and consist of both surgical and medical management, or a combination of the 2 approaches. Reports in the literature support the use of antifungals including ketoconazole, voriconazole, itraconazole, fluconazole, and amphotericin B, with the latter displaying the best activity against Prototheca species.² Tetracycline has been used in combination with oral or topical amphotericin B and was found to be synergistic in vitro and in case reports at successfully treating cutaneous protothecosis infections. It is possible that our patient was not treated with fluconazole long enough for it to become therapeutic, as most reported treatment regimens are weeks to months in length. Conversely, it may have been of benefit to transition the patient to topical amphotericin B and tetracycline, as fluconazole failed in this patient. However, treatment successes and failures are limited to case reports/case series and in vitro studies, with prospective studies lacking. Due to the variability with in vitro susceptibility profiles for Prototheca species, it generally is not recommended to pursue in vitro susceptibility testing in the management of Prototheca skin infections due to the inconsistency demonstrated between in vitro activity and clinical response to therapy.²

Bimekizumab has been approved by the European Commission for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults, according to a statement from the manufacturer.

Bimekizumab (Bimzelx), a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody, is the first approved treatment for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)–17A and IL-17F, the statement from UCB said.

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision on approval of bimekizumab for treating psoriasis on Oct. 15.

Approval in the EU was based on data from three phase 3 trials including a total of 1,480 adult patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, which found that those treated with bimekizumab experienced significantly greater skin clearance, compared with placebo, ustekinumab, and adalimumab, with a favorable safety profile, according to the company.

In all three studies (BE VIVID, BE READY, and BE SURE), more than 80% of patients treated with bimekizumab showed improved skin clearance after 16 weeks, significantly more than those treated with ustekinumab, placebo, or adalimumab, based on an improvement of at least 90% in the Psoriasis Area & Severity Index (PASI 90) and an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) response of clear or almost clear skin (IGA 0/1). In all three studies, these clinical responses persisted after 1 year.

The recommended dose of bimekizumab is 320 mg, given in two subcutaneous injections every 4 weeks to week 16, then every 8 weeks. However, for “some patients” weighing 120 kg or more who have not achieved complete skin clearance at 16 weeks, 320 mg every 4 weeks after that time may improve response to treatment, according to the company statement.

The most common treatment-related adverse events in the studies were upper respiratory tract infections (a majority of which were nasopharyngitis), reported by 14.5% of patients, followed by oral candidiasis, reported by 7.3%.

Results of BE READY and BE VIVID were published in The Lancet. Results of the BE SURE study were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Bimekizumab is contraindicated for individuals with clinically important active infections such as tuberculosis, and for individuals with any hypersensitivity to the active substance. More details on bimekizumab are available on the website of the European Medicines Agency.

Bimekizumab has been approved by the European Commission for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults, according to a statement from the manufacturer.

Bimekizumab (Bimzelx), a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody, is the first approved treatment for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)–17A and IL-17F, the statement from UCB said.

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision on approval of bimekizumab for treating psoriasis on Oct. 15.

Approval in the EU was based on data from three phase 3 trials including a total of 1,480 adult patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, which found that those treated with bimekizumab experienced significantly greater skin clearance, compared with placebo, ustekinumab, and adalimumab, with a favorable safety profile, according to the company.

In all three studies (BE VIVID, BE READY, and BE SURE), more than 80% of patients treated with bimekizumab showed improved skin clearance after 16 weeks, significantly more than those treated with ustekinumab, placebo, or adalimumab, based on an improvement of at least 90% in the Psoriasis Area & Severity Index (PASI 90) and an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) response of clear or almost clear skin (IGA 0/1). In all three studies, these clinical responses persisted after 1 year.

The recommended dose of bimekizumab is 320 mg, given in two subcutaneous injections every 4 weeks to week 16, then every 8 weeks. However, for “some patients” weighing 120 kg or more who have not achieved complete skin clearance at 16 weeks, 320 mg every 4 weeks after that time may improve response to treatment, according to the company statement.

The most common treatment-related adverse events in the studies were upper respiratory tract infections (a majority of which were nasopharyngitis), reported by 14.5% of patients, followed by oral candidiasis, reported by 7.3%.

Results of BE READY and BE VIVID were published in The Lancet. Results of the BE SURE study were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Bimekizumab is contraindicated for individuals with clinically important active infections such as tuberculosis, and for individuals with any hypersensitivity to the active substance. More details on bimekizumab are available on the website of the European Medicines Agency.

Bimekizumab has been approved by the European Commission for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults, according to a statement from the manufacturer.

Bimekizumab (Bimzelx), a humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody, is the first approved treatment for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis that selectively inhibits interleukin (IL)–17A and IL-17F, the statement from UCB said.

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration is expected to make a decision on approval of bimekizumab for treating psoriasis on Oct. 15.

Approval in the EU was based on data from three phase 3 trials including a total of 1,480 adult patients with moderate to severe psoriasis, which found that those treated with bimekizumab experienced significantly greater skin clearance, compared with placebo, ustekinumab, and adalimumab, with a favorable safety profile, according to the company.

In all three studies (BE VIVID, BE READY, and BE SURE), more than 80% of patients treated with bimekizumab showed improved skin clearance after 16 weeks, significantly more than those treated with ustekinumab, placebo, or adalimumab, based on an improvement of at least 90% in the Psoriasis Area & Severity Index (PASI 90) and an Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) response of clear or almost clear skin (IGA 0/1). In all three studies, these clinical responses persisted after 1 year.

The recommended dose of bimekizumab is 320 mg, given in two subcutaneous injections every 4 weeks to week 16, then every 8 weeks. However, for “some patients” weighing 120 kg or more who have not achieved complete skin clearance at 16 weeks, 320 mg every 4 weeks after that time may improve response to treatment, according to the company statement.

The most common treatment-related adverse events in the studies were upper respiratory tract infections (a majority of which were nasopharyngitis), reported by 14.5% of patients, followed by oral candidiasis, reported by 7.3%.

Results of BE READY and BE VIVID were published in The Lancet. Results of the BE SURE study were published in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Bimekizumab is contraindicated for individuals with clinically important active infections such as tuberculosis, and for individuals with any hypersensitivity to the active substance. More details on bimekizumab are available on the website of the European Medicines Agency.

Annual health care costs for patients with psoriatic arthritis rose over recent 5-year periods across all categories of resource use to a significantly greater extent than among patients with psoriasis only or those without any psoriatic disease diagnoses, according to commercial insurance claims data.

Thinkstock Photos

Using an IBM MarketScan Commercial Database, researchers examined claims data for 208,434 patients with psoriasis, 47,274 with PsA, and 255,708 controls who had neither psoriasis nor PsA. Controls were matched for age and sex. Those with RA, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, or ulcerative colitis were excluded.

The investigators examined data for 2009-2020, following patients for 5 years within that period. They looked at hospitalizations, outpatient and pharmacy services, lab services, and office visits, Steven Peterson, director of market access for rheumatology at Janssen Pharmaceuticals, said in his presentation of the data at the Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology 2021 annual meeting, held recently as a virtual event.

The research was also published online May 2, 2021, in Clinical Rheumatology.

Big differences between the groups were seen in the first year, when the average health care costs for the PsA group were $28,322, about half of which was outpatient drug costs. That compared with $12,039 for the psoriasis group and $6,672 for the control group.

The differences tended to widen over time. By the fifth year, average costs for the PsA group were $34,290, nearly 60% of which were drug costs. That compared with $12,877 for the psoriasis group and $8,569 for the control group. In each year examined, outpatient drug costs accounted for less than half of the expenses for the psoriasis group and about a quarter for the control group.

Researchers found that the PsA group needed 28.7 prescriptions per person per year, compared with 17.0 and 12.7 in the psoriasis and control groups, respectively, Mr. Peterson said. He also noted that patients with PsA and psoriasis tended to have higher rates of hypertension, depression, and anxiety.

“The cost and resource utilization disparity between these patient groups demonstrates the high remaining unmet medical need for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” Mr. Peterson said during the virtual proceedings.

Do findings reflect treatment advances?

Elaine Husni, MD, MPH, director of the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Center at the Cleveland Clinic, where she studies health outcomes in PsA, said the findings are helpful in pointing to a trend across a large sample. But she added it’s important to remember that the increasing costs could reflect recent advances in PsA treatment, which include costly biologic drugs.

“There’s a ton more treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis than there were even just 5 years ago,” she said in an interview. She was not involved in the research.

Dr. Husni would like to see a more detailed look at the costs, from the categories of expenses to the patients who are incurring the highest costs.  

“Is it just a couple of percent of really sick patients that are driving the psoriatic arthritis group?” she wondered.

She also pointed out that PsA is going to be more expensive by its very nature. PsA tends to develop 3-10 years after psoriasis, adding to the costs for someone who already has psoriasis and at a time when they are older and likely have higher health care costs because of comorbidities that develop with age.

Dr. Husni said she does think about treatment costs, in that a less expensive first-line drug might be more appropriate than going straight to a more expensive biologic, especially because they also tend to be safer. She said it’s not just a simple question of curbing costs.

“Is there a way that we can personalize medicine?” she asked. “Is there a way that we can be more accurate about which people may need the more expensive drugs, and which patients may need the less expensive drugs? Are we getting better at monitoring so we can avoid high-cost events?”

Mr. Peterson is an employee of Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Husni reported serving as a consultant to AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, Novartis, Lilly, and Pfizer.

* Update, 9/28/21: The headline and parts of this story were updated to better reflect the study on which it reports.

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

Annual health care costs for patients with psoriatic arthritis rose over recent 5-year periods across all categories of resource use to a significantly greater extent than among patients with psoriasis only or those without any psoriatic disease diagnoses, according to commercial insurance claims data.

Thinkstock Photos

Using an IBM MarketScan Commercial Database, researchers examined claims data for 208,434 patients with psoriasis, 47,274 with PsA, and 255,708 controls who had neither psoriasis nor PsA. Controls were matched for age and sex. Those with RA, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, or ulcerative colitis were excluded.

The investigators examined data for 2009-2020, following patients for 5 years within that period. They looked at hospitalizations, outpatient and pharmacy services, lab services, and office visits, Steven Peterson, director of market access for rheumatology at Janssen Pharmaceuticals, said in his presentation of the data at the Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology 2021 annual meeting, held recently as a virtual event.

The research was also published online May 2, 2021, in Clinical Rheumatology.

Big differences between the groups were seen in the first year, when the average health care costs for the PsA group were $28,322, about half of which was outpatient drug costs. That compared with $12,039 for the psoriasis group and $6,672 for the control group.

The differences tended to widen over time. By the fifth year, average costs for the PsA group were $34,290, nearly 60% of which were drug costs. That compared with $12,877 for the psoriasis group and $8,569 for the control group. In each year examined, outpatient drug costs accounted for less than half of the expenses for the psoriasis group and about a quarter for the control group.

Researchers found that the PsA group needed 28.7 prescriptions per person per year, compared with 17.0 and 12.7 in the psoriasis and control groups, respectively, Mr. Peterson said. He also noted that patients with PsA and psoriasis tended to have higher rates of hypertension, depression, and anxiety.

“The cost and resource utilization disparity between these patient groups demonstrates the high remaining unmet medical need for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” Mr. Peterson said during the virtual proceedings.

Do findings reflect treatment advances?

Elaine Husni, MD, MPH, director of the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Center at the Cleveland Clinic, where she studies health outcomes in PsA, said the findings are helpful in pointing to a trend across a large sample. But she added it’s important to remember that the increasing costs could reflect recent advances in PsA treatment, which include costly biologic drugs.

“There’s a ton more treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis than there were even just 5 years ago,” she said in an interview. She was not involved in the research.

Dr. Husni would like to see a more detailed look at the costs, from the categories of expenses to the patients who are incurring the highest costs.  

“Is it just a couple of percent of really sick patients that are driving the psoriatic arthritis group?” she wondered.

She also pointed out that PsA is going to be more expensive by its very nature. PsA tends to develop 3-10 years after psoriasis, adding to the costs for someone who already has psoriasis and at a time when they are older and likely have higher health care costs because of comorbidities that develop with age.

Dr. Husni said she does think about treatment costs, in that a less expensive first-line drug might be more appropriate than going straight to a more expensive biologic, especially because they also tend to be safer. She said it’s not just a simple question of curbing costs.

“Is there a way that we can personalize medicine?” she asked. “Is there a way that we can be more accurate about which people may need the more expensive drugs, and which patients may need the less expensive drugs? Are we getting better at monitoring so we can avoid high-cost events?”

Mr. Peterson is an employee of Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Husni reported serving as a consultant to AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, Novartis, Lilly, and Pfizer.

* Update, 9/28/21: The headline and parts of this story were updated to better reflect the study on which it reports.

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

Annual health care costs for patients with psoriatic arthritis rose over recent 5-year periods across all categories of resource use to a significantly greater extent than among patients with psoriasis only or those without any psoriatic disease diagnoses, according to commercial insurance claims data.

Thinkstock Photos

Using an IBM MarketScan Commercial Database, researchers examined claims data for 208,434 patients with psoriasis, 47,274 with PsA, and 255,708 controls who had neither psoriasis nor PsA. Controls were matched for age and sex. Those with RA, ankylosing spondylitis, Crohn’s disease, or ulcerative colitis were excluded.

The investigators examined data for 2009-2020, following patients for 5 years within that period. They looked at hospitalizations, outpatient and pharmacy services, lab services, and office visits, Steven Peterson, director of market access for rheumatology at Janssen Pharmaceuticals, said in his presentation of the data at the Pan American League of Associations for Rheumatology 2021 annual meeting, held recently as a virtual event.

The research was also published online May 2, 2021, in Clinical Rheumatology.

Big differences between the groups were seen in the first year, when the average health care costs for the PsA group were $28,322, about half of which was outpatient drug costs. That compared with $12,039 for the psoriasis group and $6,672 for the control group.

The differences tended to widen over time. By the fifth year, average costs for the PsA group were $34,290, nearly 60% of which were drug costs. That compared with $12,877 for the psoriasis group and $8,569 for the control group. In each year examined, outpatient drug costs accounted for less than half of the expenses for the psoriasis group and about a quarter for the control group.

Researchers found that the PsA group needed 28.7 prescriptions per person per year, compared with 17.0 and 12.7 in the psoriasis and control groups, respectively, Mr. Peterson said. He also noted that patients with PsA and psoriasis tended to have higher rates of hypertension, depression, and anxiety.

“The cost and resource utilization disparity between these patient groups demonstrates the high remaining unmet medical need for patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis,” Mr. Peterson said during the virtual proceedings.

Do findings reflect treatment advances?

Elaine Husni, MD, MPH, director of the Arthritis and Musculoskeletal Center at the Cleveland Clinic, where she studies health outcomes in PsA, said the findings are helpful in pointing to a trend across a large sample. But she added it’s important to remember that the increasing costs could reflect recent advances in PsA treatment, which include costly biologic drugs.

“There’s a ton more treatments for psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis than there were even just 5 years ago,” she said in an interview. She was not involved in the research.

Dr. Husni would like to see a more detailed look at the costs, from the categories of expenses to the patients who are incurring the highest costs.  

“Is it just a couple of percent of really sick patients that are driving the psoriatic arthritis group?” she wondered.

She also pointed out that PsA is going to be more expensive by its very nature. PsA tends to develop 3-10 years after psoriasis, adding to the costs for someone who already has psoriasis and at a time when they are older and likely have higher health care costs because of comorbidities that develop with age.

Dr. Husni said she does think about treatment costs, in that a less expensive first-line drug might be more appropriate than going straight to a more expensive biologic, especially because they also tend to be safer. She said it’s not just a simple question of curbing costs.

“Is there a way that we can personalize medicine?” she asked. “Is there a way that we can be more accurate about which people may need the more expensive drugs, and which patients may need the less expensive drugs? Are we getting better at monitoring so we can avoid high-cost events?”

Mr. Peterson is an employee of Janssen Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Husni reported serving as a consultant to AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, UCB, Novartis, Lilly, and Pfizer.

* Update, 9/28/21: The headline and parts of this story were updated to better reflect the study on which it reports.

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

Paronychia and periungual pyogenic granulomas are the most common nail unit toxicities related to targeted cancer therapies and immunotherapies, while damage to other nail unit anatomic areas can be wide-ranging.

Those are key findings from an evidence-based literature review published on July 21, 2021, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, as a letter to the editor. “Dermatologic toxicities are often the earliest-presenting and highest-incidence adverse events due to targeted anticancer therapies and immunotherapies,” corresponding author Anisha B. Patel, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues wrote. “Nail unit toxicities due to immunotherapy are caused by nonspecific immune activation. Targeted therapies, particularly mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway inhibitors, lead to epidermal thinning of the nail folds and periungual tissue, increasing susceptibility to trauma and penetration by nail plate fragments. Although cutaneous toxicities have been well described, further characterization of nail unit toxicities is needed.”

The researchers searched the PubMed database using the terms nail, nail toxicity, nail dystrophy, paronychia, onycholysis, pyogenic granuloma, onychopathy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy, and reviewed relevant articles for clinical presentation, diagnosis, incidence, outcomes, and references. They also proposed treatment algorithms for this patient population based on the existing literature and the authors’ collective clinical experience.

Dr. Patel and colleagues found that paronychia and periungual pyogenic granulomas were the most common nail unit toxicities caused by targeted therapy. “Damage to other nail unit anatomic areas includes drug induced or exacerbated lichen planus and psoriasis as well as pigmentary and neoplastic changes,” they wrote. “Onycholysis, onychoschizia, paronychia, psoriasis, lichen planus, and dermatomyositis have been reported with immune checkpoint inhibitors,” with the time of onset during the first week of treatment to several months after treatment has started.

According to National Cancer Institute criteria, nail adverse events associated with medical treatment include nail changes, discoloration, ridging, paronychia, and infection. The severity of nail loss, paronychia, and infection can be graded up to 3 (defined as “severe or medically significant but not life threatening”), while the remainder of nail toxicities may be categorized only as grade 1 (defined as “mild,” with “intervention not indicated”). “High-grade toxicities have been reported, especially with pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitors,” the authors wrote, referring to a previous study.

The review includes treatment algorithms for paronychia, periungual pyogenic granuloma, nail lichen planus, and psoriasis. “Long-acting and nonselective immunosuppressants are reserved for dose-limiting toxicities, given their unknown effects on already-immunosuppressed patients with cancer and on cancer therapy,” the authors wrote. “A discussion with the oncology department is essential before starting an immunomodulator or immunosuppressant.”

To manage onycholysis, Dr. Patel and colleagues recommended trimming the onycholytic nail plate to its attachment point. “Partial avulsion is used to treat a refractory abscess or painful hemorrhage,” they wrote. “A Pseudomonas superinfection is treated twice daily with a topical antibiotic solution. Brittle nail syndrome is managed with emollients or the application of polyureaurethane, a 16% nail solution, or a hydrosoluble nail lacquer,” they wrote, adding that biotin supplementation is not recommended.

Courtesy Dr. Jonathan Leventhal

Jonathan Leventhal, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, said that nail toxicity from targeted cancer therapy is one of the most common reasons for consultation in his role as director of the Yale University oncodermatology program at Smilow Cancer Hospital, New Haven, Conn. “When severe, these reactions frequently impact patients’ quality of life,” he said.

“This study is helpful for all dermatologists caring for cancer patients,” with strengths that include “succinctly summarizing the most prevalent conditions and providing a clear and practical algorithm for approaching these nail toxicities,” he said. In addition to targeted agents and immunotherapy, “we commonly see nail toxicities from cytotoxic chemotherapy, which was not reviewed in this paper. Multidisciplinary evaluation and dermatologic involvement is certainly beneficial to make accurate diagnoses and promptly manage these conditions, helping patients stay on their oncologic therapies.”

The researchers reported no financial disclosures. Dr. Leventhal disclosed that he is a member of the advisory board for Regeneron, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and La Roche–Posay. He has also received research funding from Azitra and OnQuality.
 

[email protected]

Paronychia and periungual pyogenic granulomas are the most common nail unit toxicities related to targeted cancer therapies and immunotherapies, while damage to other nail unit anatomic areas can be wide-ranging.

Those are key findings from an evidence-based literature review published on July 21, 2021, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, as a letter to the editor. “Dermatologic toxicities are often the earliest-presenting and highest-incidence adverse events due to targeted anticancer therapies and immunotherapies,” corresponding author Anisha B. Patel, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues wrote. “Nail unit toxicities due to immunotherapy are caused by nonspecific immune activation. Targeted therapies, particularly mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway inhibitors, lead to epidermal thinning of the nail folds and periungual tissue, increasing susceptibility to trauma and penetration by nail plate fragments. Although cutaneous toxicities have been well described, further characterization of nail unit toxicities is needed.”

The researchers searched the PubMed database using the terms nail, nail toxicity, nail dystrophy, paronychia, onycholysis, pyogenic granuloma, onychopathy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy, and reviewed relevant articles for clinical presentation, diagnosis, incidence, outcomes, and references. They also proposed treatment algorithms for this patient population based on the existing literature and the authors’ collective clinical experience.

Dr. Patel and colleagues found that paronychia and periungual pyogenic granulomas were the most common nail unit toxicities caused by targeted therapy. “Damage to other nail unit anatomic areas includes drug induced or exacerbated lichen planus and psoriasis as well as pigmentary and neoplastic changes,” they wrote. “Onycholysis, onychoschizia, paronychia, psoriasis, lichen planus, and dermatomyositis have been reported with immune checkpoint inhibitors,” with the time of onset during the first week of treatment to several months after treatment has started.

According to National Cancer Institute criteria, nail adverse events associated with medical treatment include nail changes, discoloration, ridging, paronychia, and infection. The severity of nail loss, paronychia, and infection can be graded up to 3 (defined as “severe or medically significant but not life threatening”), while the remainder of nail toxicities may be categorized only as grade 1 (defined as “mild,” with “intervention not indicated”). “High-grade toxicities have been reported, especially with pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitors,” the authors wrote, referring to a previous study.

The review includes treatment algorithms for paronychia, periungual pyogenic granuloma, nail lichen planus, and psoriasis. “Long-acting and nonselective immunosuppressants are reserved for dose-limiting toxicities, given their unknown effects on already-immunosuppressed patients with cancer and on cancer therapy,” the authors wrote. “A discussion with the oncology department is essential before starting an immunomodulator or immunosuppressant.”

To manage onycholysis, Dr. Patel and colleagues recommended trimming the onycholytic nail plate to its attachment point. “Partial avulsion is used to treat a refractory abscess or painful hemorrhage,” they wrote. “A Pseudomonas superinfection is treated twice daily with a topical antibiotic solution. Brittle nail syndrome is managed with emollients or the application of polyureaurethane, a 16% nail solution, or a hydrosoluble nail lacquer,” they wrote, adding that biotin supplementation is not recommended.

Courtesy Dr. Jonathan Leventhal

Jonathan Leventhal, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, said that nail toxicity from targeted cancer therapy is one of the most common reasons for consultation in his role as director of the Yale University oncodermatology program at Smilow Cancer Hospital, New Haven, Conn. “When severe, these reactions frequently impact patients’ quality of life,” he said.

“This study is helpful for all dermatologists caring for cancer patients,” with strengths that include “succinctly summarizing the most prevalent conditions and providing a clear and practical algorithm for approaching these nail toxicities,” he said. In addition to targeted agents and immunotherapy, “we commonly see nail toxicities from cytotoxic chemotherapy, which was not reviewed in this paper. Multidisciplinary evaluation and dermatologic involvement is certainly beneficial to make accurate diagnoses and promptly manage these conditions, helping patients stay on their oncologic therapies.”

The researchers reported no financial disclosures. Dr. Leventhal disclosed that he is a member of the advisory board for Regeneron, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and La Roche–Posay. He has also received research funding from Azitra and OnQuality.
 

[email protected]

Paronychia and periungual pyogenic granulomas are the most common nail unit toxicities related to targeted cancer therapies and immunotherapies, while damage to other nail unit anatomic areas can be wide-ranging.

Those are key findings from an evidence-based literature review published on July 21, 2021, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, as a letter to the editor. “Dermatologic toxicities are often the earliest-presenting and highest-incidence adverse events due to targeted anticancer therapies and immunotherapies,” corresponding author Anisha B. Patel, MD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, and colleagues wrote. “Nail unit toxicities due to immunotherapy are caused by nonspecific immune activation. Targeted therapies, particularly mitogen-activated protein kinase pathway inhibitors, lead to epidermal thinning of the nail folds and periungual tissue, increasing susceptibility to trauma and penetration by nail plate fragments. Although cutaneous toxicities have been well described, further characterization of nail unit toxicities is needed.”

The researchers searched the PubMed database using the terms nail, nail toxicity, nail dystrophy, paronychia, onycholysis, pyogenic granuloma, onychopathy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy, and reviewed relevant articles for clinical presentation, diagnosis, incidence, outcomes, and references. They also proposed treatment algorithms for this patient population based on the existing literature and the authors’ collective clinical experience.

Dr. Patel and colleagues found that paronychia and periungual pyogenic granulomas were the most common nail unit toxicities caused by targeted therapy. “Damage to other nail unit anatomic areas includes drug induced or exacerbated lichen planus and psoriasis as well as pigmentary and neoplastic changes,” they wrote. “Onycholysis, onychoschizia, paronychia, psoriasis, lichen planus, and dermatomyositis have been reported with immune checkpoint inhibitors,” with the time of onset during the first week of treatment to several months after treatment has started.

According to National Cancer Institute criteria, nail adverse events associated with medical treatment include nail changes, discoloration, ridging, paronychia, and infection. The severity of nail loss, paronychia, and infection can be graded up to 3 (defined as “severe or medically significant but not life threatening”), while the remainder of nail toxicities may be categorized only as grade 1 (defined as “mild,” with “intervention not indicated”). “High-grade toxicities have been reported, especially with pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor inhibitors,” the authors wrote, referring to a previous study.

The review includes treatment algorithms for paronychia, periungual pyogenic granuloma, nail lichen planus, and psoriasis. “Long-acting and nonselective immunosuppressants are reserved for dose-limiting toxicities, given their unknown effects on already-immunosuppressed patients with cancer and on cancer therapy,” the authors wrote. “A discussion with the oncology department is essential before starting an immunomodulator or immunosuppressant.”

To manage onycholysis, Dr. Patel and colleagues recommended trimming the onycholytic nail plate to its attachment point. “Partial avulsion is used to treat a refractory abscess or painful hemorrhage,” they wrote. “A Pseudomonas superinfection is treated twice daily with a topical antibiotic solution. Brittle nail syndrome is managed with emollients or the application of polyureaurethane, a 16% nail solution, or a hydrosoluble nail lacquer,” they wrote, adding that biotin supplementation is not recommended.

Courtesy Dr. Jonathan Leventhal

Jonathan Leventhal, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, said that nail toxicity from targeted cancer therapy is one of the most common reasons for consultation in his role as director of the Yale University oncodermatology program at Smilow Cancer Hospital, New Haven, Conn. “When severe, these reactions frequently impact patients’ quality of life,” he said.

“This study is helpful for all dermatologists caring for cancer patients,” with strengths that include “succinctly summarizing the most prevalent conditions and providing a clear and practical algorithm for approaching these nail toxicities,” he said. In addition to targeted agents and immunotherapy, “we commonly see nail toxicities from cytotoxic chemotherapy, which was not reviewed in this paper. Multidisciplinary evaluation and dermatologic involvement is certainly beneficial to make accurate diagnoses and promptly manage these conditions, helping patients stay on their oncologic therapies.”

The researchers reported no financial disclosures. Dr. Leventhal disclosed that he is a member of the advisory board for Regeneron, Sanofi, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and La Roche–Posay. He has also received research funding from Azitra and OnQuality.
 

[email protected]

The Diagnosis: Generalized Bullous Fixed Drug Eruption

A punch biopsy from the left thigh revealed a vacuolar interface dermatitis with full-thickness necrosis of the epidermis and a patchy lichenoid inflammatory cell infiltrate in the superficial dermis consistent with a generalized bullous fixed drug eruption (GBFDE). The patient received supportive care and methylprednisolone with improvement of symptoms.

Generalized bullous fixed drug eruption is a rare, potentially life-threatening form of a fixed drug eruption (FDE), a cutaneous drug reaction that occurs in response to a causative medication. It typically presents with welldemarcated, dusky, erythematous patches or plaques that recur in the same sites with repeat exposure.¹ The pathogenesis of FDE has been hypothesized to involve epidermal CD8+ T cells, which are activated by drug exposure and release cytotoxic molecules including Fas, Fas ligand, perforin, and granzyme B, resulting in lysis of the surrounding keratinocytes.^1-3 Common eliciting drugs include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antibacterial agents (particularly trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole), barbiturates, acetaminophen, and antimalarials.1 In addition to the findings seen in FDE, GBFDE is characterized by widespread bullous skin lesions.^1-4 Typical histologic patterns seen in GBFDE are dispersed epidermal apoptotic keratinocytes, prominent dermal eosinophilic and lymphocytic infiltrates, and dermal melanophages.³ Discontinuing the causative agent and diligent prevention of re-exposure are the most important steps in management, as additional exposures can increase the number of lesions and overall severity. Symptoms typically resolve 7 to 14 days after drug discontinuation, often with postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.³

Generalized bullous fixed drug eruption presents a diagnostic challenge, as it sometimes involves the oral mucosa and can exhibit the Nikolsky sign. Thus, it often is confused with Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) or toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN).^1,4 Stevens-Johnson syndrome and TEN are severe cutaneous drug eruptions that also can present with diffuse bullous skin lesions. Stevens-Johnson syndrome and TEN are thought to be a spectrum of the same disease that initially presents with dusky red macules that can coalesce, develop central blistering, and lead to skin detachment.⁵ Stevens-Johnson syndrome is defined as skin detachment of less than 10% body surface area (BSA); TEN is defined as skin detachment of more than 30% BSA. Stevens-Johnson syndrome/TEN overlap syndrome includes skin detachment of 10% to 30% BSA.⁵

Causative medications overlap substantially with GBFDE and include anticonvulsants, sulfa-containing drugs, antibiotics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and uric acid–lowering agents. The histology of SJS/TEN also is quite similar to GBFDE, and these entities may be indistinguishable without clinical information.⁵ Lee et al¹ found that absence of grouped necrotic keratinocytes (fire flag sign), deep inflammatory infiltrates, notable pigment incontinence, and higher eosinophil counts appear to be more common in GBFDE than SJS/TEN. Constitutional symptoms and mucosal involvement also were more frequent in SJS/TEN.

The timing of clinical presentation and medical history can be useful in differentiating between SJS/TEN and GBFDE. In SJS/TEN, drug exposure typically occurs 1 to 3 weeks before onset of symptoms vs 30 minutes to 24 hours in GBFDE.³ Additionally, a history of similar eruption in the same location is pathognomonic for GBFDE. Although GBFDE has been thought to have a better prognosis than SJS/TEN, more recent data suggest mortality rates may be similar.³ A case-control study found a mortality rate of 22% (13/58) in patients with GBFDE compared to 28% (n=170) in SJS/TEN patients.⁴

Erythema multiforme (EM) is an uncommon immunemediated disorder that typically presents as targetoid lesions with central epidermal necrosis in an acral distribution. Erythema multiforme can arise from a variety of factors, but up to 90% of cases are due to infection, most commonly herpes simplex virus; medications account for less than 10% of cases.⁶ Previously, EM has been thought to be on the same disease spectrum as SJS and TEN. It is now clear that EM is a separate entity with similar mucosal erosions but different cutaneous findings,⁶ mainly typical target lesions that differ from the atypical targets seen in SJS.

Staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome is a blistering skin disorder associated with local Staphylococcus aureus infection. It most commonly is seen in children and rarely occurs in adults who are not on dialysis. Some Staphylococcus strains produce exfoliative toxins A and B, which are serine proteases that target and cleave desmoglein 1, a mediator of keratinocyte adhesion. Staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome initially presents with erythema accentuated in the skin folds that becomes generalized. The disruption of keratinocyte adhesion leads to bullae formation in areas of erythema and diffuse sheetlike desquamation. Pathology reveals subcorneal rather than subepidermal blistering, which is seen in GBFDE and SJS/TEN. Treatment involves antistaphylococcal antibiotics and supportive care. With proper treatment, most cases resolve within 2 to 3 weeks.⁷

Mycoplasma pneumoniae–induced rash and mucositis presents with prominent mucositis and can have cutaneous findings of sparse vesiculobullous or targetoid eruption.⁸Mycoplasma pneumoniae typically infects the lungs and is a leading cause of community-acquired pneumonia. However, a subset of patients can have extrapulmonary disease presenting as mucocutaneous eruptions, which is preceded by an approximately weeklong prodrome of fever, cough, and malaise.⁷Mycoplasma pneumoniae–induced rash and mucositis also affect children and young patients and is more common in males.⁸

The Diagnosis: Generalized Bullous Fixed Drug Eruption

A punch biopsy from the left thigh revealed a vacuolar interface dermatitis with full-thickness necrosis of the epidermis and a patchy lichenoid inflammatory cell infiltrate in the superficial dermis consistent with a generalized bullous fixed drug eruption (GBFDE). The patient received supportive care and methylprednisolone with improvement of symptoms.

Generalized bullous fixed drug eruption is a rare, potentially life-threatening form of a fixed drug eruption (FDE), a cutaneous drug reaction that occurs in response to a causative medication. It typically presents with welldemarcated, dusky, erythematous patches or plaques that recur in the same sites with repeat exposure.¹ The pathogenesis of FDE has been hypothesized to involve epidermal CD8+ T cells, which are activated by drug exposure and release cytotoxic molecules including Fas, Fas ligand, perforin, and granzyme B, resulting in lysis of the surrounding keratinocytes.^1-3 Common eliciting drugs include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antibacterial agents (particularly trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole), barbiturates, acetaminophen, and antimalarials.1 In addition to the findings seen in FDE, GBFDE is characterized by widespread bullous skin lesions.^1-4 Typical histologic patterns seen in GBFDE are dispersed epidermal apoptotic keratinocytes, prominent dermal eosinophilic and lymphocytic infiltrates, and dermal melanophages.³ Discontinuing the causative agent and diligent prevention of re-exposure are the most important steps in management, as additional exposures can increase the number of lesions and overall severity. Symptoms typically resolve 7 to 14 days after drug discontinuation, often with postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.³

Generalized bullous fixed drug eruption presents a diagnostic challenge, as it sometimes involves the oral mucosa and can exhibit the Nikolsky sign. Thus, it often is confused with Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) or toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN).^1,4 Stevens-Johnson syndrome and TEN are severe cutaneous drug eruptions that also can present with diffuse bullous skin lesions. Stevens-Johnson syndrome and TEN are thought to be a spectrum of the same disease that initially presents with dusky red macules that can coalesce, develop central blistering, and lead to skin detachment.⁵ Stevens-Johnson syndrome is defined as skin detachment of less than 10% body surface area (BSA); TEN is defined as skin detachment of more than 30% BSA. Stevens-Johnson syndrome/TEN overlap syndrome includes skin detachment of 10% to 30% BSA.⁵

Causative medications overlap substantially with GBFDE and include anticonvulsants, sulfa-containing drugs, antibiotics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and uric acid–lowering agents. The histology of SJS/TEN also is quite similar to GBFDE, and these entities may be indistinguishable without clinical information.⁵ Lee et al¹ found that absence of grouped necrotic keratinocytes (fire flag sign), deep inflammatory infiltrates, notable pigment incontinence, and higher eosinophil counts appear to be more common in GBFDE than SJS/TEN. Constitutional symptoms and mucosal involvement also were more frequent in SJS/TEN.

The timing of clinical presentation and medical history can be useful in differentiating between SJS/TEN and GBFDE. In SJS/TEN, drug exposure typically occurs 1 to 3 weeks before onset of symptoms vs 30 minutes to 24 hours in GBFDE.³ Additionally, a history of similar eruption in the same location is pathognomonic for GBFDE. Although GBFDE has been thought to have a better prognosis than SJS/TEN, more recent data suggest mortality rates may be similar.³ A case-control study found a mortality rate of 22% (13/58) in patients with GBFDE compared to 28% (n=170) in SJS/TEN patients.⁴

Erythema multiforme (EM) is an uncommon immunemediated disorder that typically presents as targetoid lesions with central epidermal necrosis in an acral distribution. Erythema multiforme can arise from a variety of factors, but up to 90% of cases are due to infection, most commonly herpes simplex virus; medications account for less than 10% of cases.⁶ Previously, EM has been thought to be on the same disease spectrum as SJS and TEN. It is now clear that EM is a separate entity with similar mucosal erosions but different cutaneous findings,⁶ mainly typical target lesions that differ from the atypical targets seen in SJS.

Staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome is a blistering skin disorder associated with local Staphylococcus aureus infection. It most commonly is seen in children and rarely occurs in adults who are not on dialysis. Some Staphylococcus strains produce exfoliative toxins A and B, which are serine proteases that target and cleave desmoglein 1, a mediator of keratinocyte adhesion. Staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome initially presents with erythema accentuated in the skin folds that becomes generalized. The disruption of keratinocyte adhesion leads to bullae formation in areas of erythema and diffuse sheetlike desquamation. Pathology reveals subcorneal rather than subepidermal blistering, which is seen in GBFDE and SJS/TEN. Treatment involves antistaphylococcal antibiotics and supportive care. With proper treatment, most cases resolve within 2 to 3 weeks.⁷

Mycoplasma pneumoniae–induced rash and mucositis presents with prominent mucositis and can have cutaneous findings of sparse vesiculobullous or targetoid eruption.⁸Mycoplasma pneumoniae typically infects the lungs and is a leading cause of community-acquired pneumonia. However, a subset of patients can have extrapulmonary disease presenting as mucocutaneous eruptions, which is preceded by an approximately weeklong prodrome of fever, cough, and malaise.⁷Mycoplasma pneumoniae–induced rash and mucositis also affect children and young patients and is more common in males.⁸

The Diagnosis: Generalized Bullous Fixed Drug Eruption

A punch biopsy from the left thigh revealed a vacuolar interface dermatitis with full-thickness necrosis of the epidermis and a patchy lichenoid inflammatory cell infiltrate in the superficial dermis consistent with a generalized bullous fixed drug eruption (GBFDE). The patient received supportive care and methylprednisolone with improvement of symptoms.

Generalized bullous fixed drug eruption is a rare, potentially life-threatening form of a fixed drug eruption (FDE), a cutaneous drug reaction that occurs in response to a causative medication. It typically presents with welldemarcated, dusky, erythematous patches or plaques that recur in the same sites with repeat exposure.¹ The pathogenesis of FDE has been hypothesized to involve epidermal CD8+ T cells, which are activated by drug exposure and release cytotoxic molecules including Fas, Fas ligand, perforin, and granzyme B, resulting in lysis of the surrounding keratinocytes.^1-3 Common eliciting drugs include nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antibacterial agents (particularly trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole), barbiturates, acetaminophen, and antimalarials.1 In addition to the findings seen in FDE, GBFDE is characterized by widespread bullous skin lesions.^1-4 Typical histologic patterns seen in GBFDE are dispersed epidermal apoptotic keratinocytes, prominent dermal eosinophilic and lymphocytic infiltrates, and dermal melanophages.³ Discontinuing the causative agent and diligent prevention of re-exposure are the most important steps in management, as additional exposures can increase the number of lesions and overall severity. Symptoms typically resolve 7 to 14 days after drug discontinuation, often with postinflammatory hyperpigmentation.³

Generalized bullous fixed drug eruption presents a diagnostic challenge, as it sometimes involves the oral mucosa and can exhibit the Nikolsky sign. Thus, it often is confused with Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS) or toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN).^1,4 Stevens-Johnson syndrome and TEN are severe cutaneous drug eruptions that also can present with diffuse bullous skin lesions. Stevens-Johnson syndrome and TEN are thought to be a spectrum of the same disease that initially presents with dusky red macules that can coalesce, develop central blistering, and lead to skin detachment.⁵ Stevens-Johnson syndrome is defined as skin detachment of less than 10% body surface area (BSA); TEN is defined as skin detachment of more than 30% BSA. Stevens-Johnson syndrome/TEN overlap syndrome includes skin detachment of 10% to 30% BSA.⁵

Causative medications overlap substantially with GBFDE and include anticonvulsants, sulfa-containing drugs, antibiotics, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and uric acid–lowering agents. The histology of SJS/TEN also is quite similar to GBFDE, and these entities may be indistinguishable without clinical information.⁵ Lee et al¹ found that absence of grouped necrotic keratinocytes (fire flag sign), deep inflammatory infiltrates, notable pigment incontinence, and higher eosinophil counts appear to be more common in GBFDE than SJS/TEN. Constitutional symptoms and mucosal involvement also were more frequent in SJS/TEN.

The timing of clinical presentation and medical history can be useful in differentiating between SJS/TEN and GBFDE. In SJS/TEN, drug exposure typically occurs 1 to 3 weeks before onset of symptoms vs 30 minutes to 24 hours in GBFDE.³ Additionally, a history of similar eruption in the same location is pathognomonic for GBFDE. Although GBFDE has been thought to have a better prognosis than SJS/TEN, more recent data suggest mortality rates may be similar.³ A case-control study found a mortality rate of 22% (13/58) in patients with GBFDE compared to 28% (n=170) in SJS/TEN patients.⁴

Erythema multiforme (EM) is an uncommon immunemediated disorder that typically presents as targetoid lesions with central epidermal necrosis in an acral distribution. Erythema multiforme can arise from a variety of factors, but up to 90% of cases are due to infection, most commonly herpes simplex virus; medications account for less than 10% of cases.⁶ Previously, EM has been thought to be on the same disease spectrum as SJS and TEN. It is now clear that EM is a separate entity with similar mucosal erosions but different cutaneous findings,⁶ mainly typical target lesions that differ from the atypical targets seen in SJS.

Staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome is a blistering skin disorder associated with local Staphylococcus aureus infection. It most commonly is seen in children and rarely occurs in adults who are not on dialysis. Some Staphylococcus strains produce exfoliative toxins A and B, which are serine proteases that target and cleave desmoglein 1, a mediator of keratinocyte adhesion. Staphylococcal scalded skin syndrome initially presents with erythema accentuated in the skin folds that becomes generalized. The disruption of keratinocyte adhesion leads to bullae formation in areas of erythema and diffuse sheetlike desquamation. Pathology reveals subcorneal rather than subepidermal blistering, which is seen in GBFDE and SJS/TEN. Treatment involves antistaphylococcal antibiotics and supportive care. With proper treatment, most cases resolve within 2 to 3 weeks.⁷

Mycoplasma pneumoniae–induced rash and mucositis presents with prominent mucositis and can have cutaneous findings of sparse vesiculobullous or targetoid eruption.⁸Mycoplasma pneumoniae typically infects the lungs and is a leading cause of community-acquired pneumonia. However, a subset of patients can have extrapulmonary disease presenting as mucocutaneous eruptions, which is preceded by an approximately weeklong prodrome of fever, cough, and malaise.⁷Mycoplasma pneumoniae–induced rash and mucositis also affect children and young patients and is more common in males.⁸

As COVID vaccine boosters move closer to reality, most physicians and nurses are ready and willing to get another shot in the arm, according to a new Medscape survey.

Altogether, 93% of physicians and 87% of nurses/advanced practice nurses (APNs) said they wanted to get a booster, although the timing of when they wanted the shots differed somewhat between the two groups surveyed Aug. 4-15.

Among the 732 physicians polled, 50% wanted to get their shot immediately, compared with 38% of the 1,193 nurses/APNs who responded, while 44% of physicians and 50% of nurses/APNs said that they would wait until the vaccine booster was authorized and recommended.

At this point in time, almost all of the health care workers surveyed – 98% of physicians and 94% of nurses/APNs – have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. A small proportion of each group, however, received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (1% of physicians and 3% of nurses) and are not included in the current plan for booster shots.

The Medscape survey sample did include one group that is already eligible for a third dose: About 20% of physicians and 26% of nurses/ANPs said they have a condition or take a medication that compromises their immune system.

Respondents’ experiences with patient requests for boosters suggest a somewhat lower level of interest. About two-thirds of the health care workers (69% of physicians and 63% of nurses) said that patients frequently or sometimes asked about COVID boosters, compared with 13% (physicians) and 19% (nurses) who said their patients had never asked.
 

Interest lower among general population

In a separate survey conducted by WebMD, 82% of those who have been at least partially vaccinated said they want to get a COVID vaccine booster (14% immediately and 68% after authorization and recommendation). Of the remaining vaccinees, 7% said they do not want to get a booster and 11% were unsure.

The full sample of 592 respondents surveyed Aug. 5-10, however, included 19% who do not plan to get vaccinated and 6% who are planning to be vaccinated but have not yet done so.

The proportion of immunocompromised individuals in the two survey groups was similar, with about 25% of those in the WebMD survey reporting they have a condition or take a medication that compromises their immune system. Those respondents were more than twice as likely to want to get a booster immediately, compared to those with an uncompromised immune system (24% vs. 11%).

The distribution of vaccines received by brand was also comparable between the two groups surveyed. Of health care workers and readers, over half of each group received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (59% vs. 54%), followed by Moderna (38% vs. 40%) and Johnson & Johnson (3% vs. 5%).

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

As COVID vaccine boosters move closer to reality, most physicians and nurses are ready and willing to get another shot in the arm, according to a new Medscape survey.

Altogether, 93% of physicians and 87% of nurses/advanced practice nurses (APNs) said they wanted to get a booster, although the timing of when they wanted the shots differed somewhat between the two groups surveyed Aug. 4-15.

Among the 732 physicians polled, 50% wanted to get their shot immediately, compared with 38% of the 1,193 nurses/APNs who responded, while 44% of physicians and 50% of nurses/APNs said that they would wait until the vaccine booster was authorized and recommended.

At this point in time, almost all of the health care workers surveyed – 98% of physicians and 94% of nurses/APNs – have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. A small proportion of each group, however, received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (1% of physicians and 3% of nurses) and are not included in the current plan for booster shots.

The Medscape survey sample did include one group that is already eligible for a third dose: About 20% of physicians and 26% of nurses/ANPs said they have a condition or take a medication that compromises their immune system.

Respondents’ experiences with patient requests for boosters suggest a somewhat lower level of interest. About two-thirds of the health care workers (69% of physicians and 63% of nurses) said that patients frequently or sometimes asked about COVID boosters, compared with 13% (physicians) and 19% (nurses) who said their patients had never asked.
 

Interest lower among general population

In a separate survey conducted by WebMD, 82% of those who have been at least partially vaccinated said they want to get a COVID vaccine booster (14% immediately and 68% after authorization and recommendation). Of the remaining vaccinees, 7% said they do not want to get a booster and 11% were unsure.

The full sample of 592 respondents surveyed Aug. 5-10, however, included 19% who do not plan to get vaccinated and 6% who are planning to be vaccinated but have not yet done so.

The proportion of immunocompromised individuals in the two survey groups was similar, with about 25% of those in the WebMD survey reporting they have a condition or take a medication that compromises their immune system. Those respondents were more than twice as likely to want to get a booster immediately, compared to those with an uncompromised immune system (24% vs. 11%).

The distribution of vaccines received by brand was also comparable between the two groups surveyed. Of health care workers and readers, over half of each group received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (59% vs. 54%), followed by Moderna (38% vs. 40%) and Johnson & Johnson (3% vs. 5%).

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

As COVID vaccine boosters move closer to reality, most physicians and nurses are ready and willing to get another shot in the arm, according to a new Medscape survey.

Altogether, 93% of physicians and 87% of nurses/advanced practice nurses (APNs) said they wanted to get a booster, although the timing of when they wanted the shots differed somewhat between the two groups surveyed Aug. 4-15.

Among the 732 physicians polled, 50% wanted to get their shot immediately, compared with 38% of the 1,193 nurses/APNs who responded, while 44% of physicians and 50% of nurses/APNs said that they would wait until the vaccine booster was authorized and recommended.

At this point in time, almost all of the health care workers surveyed – 98% of physicians and 94% of nurses/APNs – have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19. A small proportion of each group, however, received the Johnson & Johnson vaccine (1% of physicians and 3% of nurses) and are not included in the current plan for booster shots.

The Medscape survey sample did include one group that is already eligible for a third dose: About 20% of physicians and 26% of nurses/ANPs said they have a condition or take a medication that compromises their immune system.

Respondents’ experiences with patient requests for boosters suggest a somewhat lower level of interest. About two-thirds of the health care workers (69% of physicians and 63% of nurses) said that patients frequently or sometimes asked about COVID boosters, compared with 13% (physicians) and 19% (nurses) who said their patients had never asked.
 

Interest lower among general population

In a separate survey conducted by WebMD, 82% of those who have been at least partially vaccinated said they want to get a COVID vaccine booster (14% immediately and 68% after authorization and recommendation). Of the remaining vaccinees, 7% said they do not want to get a booster and 11% were unsure.

The full sample of 592 respondents surveyed Aug. 5-10, however, included 19% who do not plan to get vaccinated and 6% who are planning to be vaccinated but have not yet done so.

The proportion of immunocompromised individuals in the two survey groups was similar, with about 25% of those in the WebMD survey reporting they have a condition or take a medication that compromises their immune system. Those respondents were more than twice as likely to want to get a booster immediately, compared to those with an uncompromised immune system (24% vs. 11%).

The distribution of vaccines received by brand was also comparable between the two groups surveyed. Of health care workers and readers, over half of each group received the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (59% vs. 54%), followed by Moderna (38% vs. 40%) and Johnson & Johnson (3% vs. 5%).

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

Plastic barriers that separate people in stores, restaurants, and classrooms may not be as effective at stopping the spread of COVID-19 as originally thought, according to The New York Times.

Scientists who study air flow, ventilation, and aerosol droplets say the barriers may not help, and in fact, could make the situation worse by blocking normal air flow, the newspaper reported.

Typically, as people interact and breathe in a room, currents and ventilation systems recirculate the air and disperse the exhaled particles. With plastic barriers, however, particles could get trapped in “dead zones” and build up.

“If you have a forest of barriers in a classroom, it’s going to interfere with proper ventilation of that room,” Linsey Marr, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech, told the newspaper.

“Everybody’s aerosols are going to be trapped and stuck there and building up, and they will end up spreading beyond your own desk,” she said.

Several variables factor into the efficacy of plastic barriers, The New York Times reported. Shields may stop big respiratory droplets from coughs and sneezes, for instance, but they may not do much to prevent small aerosol particles from viruses such as COVID-19 from spreading.

“We have shown this effect of blocking larger particles, but also that the smaller aerosols travel over the screen and become mixed in the room air within about 5 minutes,” Catherine Noakes, professor of environment engineering at the University of Leeds, told the newspaper.

“This means if people are interacting for more than a few minutes, they would likely be exposed to the virus regardless of the screen,” she said.

The effectiveness of plastic barriers likely also depends on the location and setup, the newspaper reported. A bus driver with a large barrier, for instance, may be able to avoid inhaling the particles that passengers are exhaling. A bank cashier or store clerk behind a large barrier may also be partly protected.

Even still, scientists say more research is needed. For instance, taller barriers are more likely to be effective. However, a large number of barriers in one room could likely block air flow.

Researchers have recommended that schools and offices focus on ventilation, masks, and vaccines to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

“Air flow in rooms is pretty complicated,” Richard Corsi, dean of engineering at the University of California at Davis, told the newspaper.

“Every room is different in terms of the arrangement of furniture, the height of the walls and ceilings, the vents, where the bookshelves are,” he said. “All of these things have a huge impact on the actual flow and air distribution in a room.”

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

Plastic barriers that separate people in stores, restaurants, and classrooms may not be as effective at stopping the spread of COVID-19 as originally thought, according to The New York Times.

Scientists who study air flow, ventilation, and aerosol droplets say the barriers may not help, and in fact, could make the situation worse by blocking normal air flow, the newspaper reported.

Typically, as people interact and breathe in a room, currents and ventilation systems recirculate the air and disperse the exhaled particles. With plastic barriers, however, particles could get trapped in “dead zones” and build up.

“If you have a forest of barriers in a classroom, it’s going to interfere with proper ventilation of that room,” Linsey Marr, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech, told the newspaper.

“Everybody’s aerosols are going to be trapped and stuck there and building up, and they will end up spreading beyond your own desk,” she said.

Several variables factor into the efficacy of plastic barriers, The New York Times reported. Shields may stop big respiratory droplets from coughs and sneezes, for instance, but they may not do much to prevent small aerosol particles from viruses such as COVID-19 from spreading.

“We have shown this effect of blocking larger particles, but also that the smaller aerosols travel over the screen and become mixed in the room air within about 5 minutes,” Catherine Noakes, professor of environment engineering at the University of Leeds, told the newspaper.

“This means if people are interacting for more than a few minutes, they would likely be exposed to the virus regardless of the screen,” she said.

The effectiveness of plastic barriers likely also depends on the location and setup, the newspaper reported. A bus driver with a large barrier, for instance, may be able to avoid inhaling the particles that passengers are exhaling. A bank cashier or store clerk behind a large barrier may also be partly protected.

Even still, scientists say more research is needed. For instance, taller barriers are more likely to be effective. However, a large number of barriers in one room could likely block air flow.

Researchers have recommended that schools and offices focus on ventilation, masks, and vaccines to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

“Air flow in rooms is pretty complicated,” Richard Corsi, dean of engineering at the University of California at Davis, told the newspaper.

“Every room is different in terms of the arrangement of furniture, the height of the walls and ceilings, the vents, where the bookshelves are,” he said. “All of these things have a huge impact on the actual flow and air distribution in a room.”

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

Plastic barriers that separate people in stores, restaurants, and classrooms may not be as effective at stopping the spread of COVID-19 as originally thought, according to The New York Times.

Scientists who study air flow, ventilation, and aerosol droplets say the barriers may not help, and in fact, could make the situation worse by blocking normal air flow, the newspaper reported.

Typically, as people interact and breathe in a room, currents and ventilation systems recirculate the air and disperse the exhaled particles. With plastic barriers, however, particles could get trapped in “dead zones” and build up.

“If you have a forest of barriers in a classroom, it’s going to interfere with proper ventilation of that room,” Linsey Marr, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech, told the newspaper.

“Everybody’s aerosols are going to be trapped and stuck there and building up, and they will end up spreading beyond your own desk,” she said.

Several variables factor into the efficacy of plastic barriers, The New York Times reported. Shields may stop big respiratory droplets from coughs and sneezes, for instance, but they may not do much to prevent small aerosol particles from viruses such as COVID-19 from spreading.

“We have shown this effect of blocking larger particles, but also that the smaller aerosols travel over the screen and become mixed in the room air within about 5 minutes,” Catherine Noakes, professor of environment engineering at the University of Leeds, told the newspaper.

“This means if people are interacting for more than a few minutes, they would likely be exposed to the virus regardless of the screen,” she said.

The effectiveness of plastic barriers likely also depends on the location and setup, the newspaper reported. A bus driver with a large barrier, for instance, may be able to avoid inhaling the particles that passengers are exhaling. A bank cashier or store clerk behind a large barrier may also be partly protected.

Even still, scientists say more research is needed. For instance, taller barriers are more likely to be effective. However, a large number of barriers in one room could likely block air flow.

Researchers have recommended that schools and offices focus on ventilation, masks, and vaccines to slow the spread of the coronavirus.

“Air flow in rooms is pretty complicated,” Richard Corsi, dean of engineering at the University of California at Davis, told the newspaper.

“Every room is different in terms of the arrangement of furniture, the height of the walls and ceilings, the vents, where the bookshelves are,” he said. “All of these things have a huge impact on the actual flow and air distribution in a room.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration has granted a biological license application, more commonly known as “full approval,” to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

It is the first COVID-19 vaccine to be fully licensed in the United States. It will be marketed under the trade name Comirnaty. 

The approval applies to individuals ages 16 years and older. The vaccine is still available for emergency use for those ages 12-15.

The FDA’s stamp of approval is somewhat anticlimactic, following months of real-world use and millions of doses doled out to the general population. It comes after months of scrutiny by the agency of the clinical trial data.

Still, the approval puts the vaccines on firmer legal footing and is expected to spur a raft of new vaccination requirements by employers, schools, and universities. 

“The FDA approval is the gold standard,” President Joe Biden said from the White House. “Those who have been waiting for full approval should go and get your shot now.”

“It could save your life or the lives of those you love,” he said.

Biden also called on businesses to mandate COVID vaccines for their employees.

Indeed, soon after the approval was announced, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the vaccines would be required for all 1.4 million active duty service members.

Public health advocates have seen full approval as an important tool to increase U.S. vaccination rates and had criticized the FDA for taking so long to grant the license. 

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

This article was updated on 8/24/21.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted a biological license application, more commonly known as “full approval,” to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

It is the first COVID-19 vaccine to be fully licensed in the United States. It will be marketed under the trade name Comirnaty. 

The approval applies to individuals ages 16 years and older. The vaccine is still available for emergency use for those ages 12-15.

The FDA’s stamp of approval is somewhat anticlimactic, following months of real-world use and millions of doses doled out to the general population. It comes after months of scrutiny by the agency of the clinical trial data.

Still, the approval puts the vaccines on firmer legal footing and is expected to spur a raft of new vaccination requirements by employers, schools, and universities. 

“The FDA approval is the gold standard,” President Joe Biden said from the White House. “Those who have been waiting for full approval should go and get your shot now.”

“It could save your life or the lives of those you love,” he said.

Biden also called on businesses to mandate COVID vaccines for their employees.

Indeed, soon after the approval was announced, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the vaccines would be required for all 1.4 million active duty service members.

Public health advocates have seen full approval as an important tool to increase U.S. vaccination rates and had criticized the FDA for taking so long to grant the license. 

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

This article was updated on 8/24/21.

The Food and Drug Administration has granted a biological license application, more commonly known as “full approval,” to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

It is the first COVID-19 vaccine to be fully licensed in the United States. It will be marketed under the trade name Comirnaty. 

The approval applies to individuals ages 16 years and older. The vaccine is still available for emergency use for those ages 12-15.

The FDA’s stamp of approval is somewhat anticlimactic, following months of real-world use and millions of doses doled out to the general population. It comes after months of scrutiny by the agency of the clinical trial data.

Still, the approval puts the vaccines on firmer legal footing and is expected to spur a raft of new vaccination requirements by employers, schools, and universities. 

“The FDA approval is the gold standard,” President Joe Biden said from the White House. “Those who have been waiting for full approval should go and get your shot now.”

“It could save your life or the lives of those you love,” he said.

Biden also called on businesses to mandate COVID vaccines for their employees.

Indeed, soon after the approval was announced, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin said the vaccines would be required for all 1.4 million active duty service members.

Public health advocates have seen full approval as an important tool to increase U.S. vaccination rates and had criticized the FDA for taking so long to grant the license. 

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

This article was updated on 8/24/21.