MDedge Dermatology

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) emerged over a century ago as a gentler alternative to allergy shots. It uses the same antigens found in allergy shots, delivering them through tablets or drops under the tongue rather than by injecting them into the skin.

Yet injection immunotherapy has been the mainstay of allergy treatment in the United States. Allergy shots are “the bread and butter, keeping the lights on at allergy practices,” said allergist Sakina Bajowala, MD, of Kaneland Allergy and Asthma Center, in the Chicago area. So even “when environmental SLIT showed quite clearly that it had efficacy, people were so slow to adapt.”

SLIT – a daily treatment that builds protection from allergens gradually over years with few side effects – is popular around the globe, particularly for environmental allergies. But only a handful of clinics offer food SLIT. Even though recent trials in peanut-allergic children show that SLIT is far safer than oral immunotherapy and about as effective as the Food and Drug Administration–approved peanut-allergy product and has lasting benefits for toddlers, many allergists lack experience with customized immunotherapies and hesitate to offer an unregulated treatment for which the evidence base is still emerging.
 

Why hasn’t food allergy SLIT caught on?

One issue is that there is scant evidence from randomized, controlled trials. The treatments that clinics offer often hinge on insurance coverage, and increasingly, insurers only cover FDA-approved products. FDA approval requires thousands of patients being enrolled in long, expensive studies to prove the treatment’s merit. In a similar vein, doctors are trained to question methods that lack a strong publication base, for good reason.

Yet SLIT caught the attention of pioneering physicians who were intrigued by this “low-and-slow” immune-modifying approach, despite limited published evidence, and they sought real-world experience.

The late physician David Morris, MD, came across SLIT in the 1960s while searching for alternative ways to help mold-allergic farmers who were suffering terrible side effects from allergy shots. Dr. Morris attended conferences, learned more about sublingual techniques, got board certified in allergy, and opened Allergy Associates of La Crosse (Wis.), in 1970 to offer SLIT as a treatment for food and environmental allergies.

Dr. Morris and colleagues developed a protocol to create custom SLIT drops tailored to individual patients’ clinical histories and allergy test results. The method has been used to treat more than 200,000 patients. It has been used by allergist Nikhila Schroeder, MD, MEng, who learned SLIT methods while treating nearly 1,000 patients at Allergy Associates. In 2018, she opened her own direct-care SLIT practice, Allergenuity Health, in the Charlotte metropolitan area of North Carolina (see part 2 of this series).

Dr. Bajowala’s clinic offers SLIT in addition to oral immunotherapy (OIT). She was encouraged by the recent toddler SLIT data but wondered whether it would translate to a real-world setting. According to her calculations, the published protocol – according to which participants receive up to 4 mg/d over 6 months and continue receiving a daily maintenance dose of 4 mg for 3 years – would cost $10,000 per patient.

With this dosing regimen, the intervention is unaffordable, Dr. Bajowala said. And “there’s no way to make it cheaper because that’s the raw materials cost. It does not include labor or bottles or profit at all. That’s just $10,000 in peanut extract.”

Owing to cost, Dr. Bajowala’s clinic generally uses SLIT as a bridge to OIT. Her food allergy patients receive up to 1 mg/d and remain at that dose for a month or so before transitioning to OIT, “for which the supplies are orders of magnitude cheaper,” she said.

Dr. Schroeder said there is evidence for efficacy at microgram and even nanogram dosing – much lower than used in the recent food SLIT trials. Maintenance doses range from 50 ng/d to 25 mcg/d for environmental SLIT and 4-37 mcg/d for food SLIT, she said. The La Crosse method uses even lower dose ranges.

However, dosing information is not readily available, Dr. Schroeder noted. She has spent years scrutinizing articles and compiling information from allergen extract suppliers – all the while treating hundreds of SLIT patients. “I have had to expend a lot of time and effort,” said Dr. Schroeder. “It’s really hard to explain quickly.”

In the published literature, SLIT dosing recommendations vary widely. According to a 2007 analysis, environmental allergy symptoms improved with doses over a 1,000-fold range. What’s more, success did not scale with increased dosing and seemed to depend more on frequency and duration of treatment.

There are fewer studies regarding food SLIT. The most promising data come from recent trials of peanut-allergic children led by Edwin Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Still, “I am nervous to tell people to go do this based on 150 kids at one site,” Dr. Kim said. “We need to have a gigantic study across multiple sites that actually confirms what we have found in our single center.”

Because there are few published trials of food SLIT, confusion about which doses are optimal, how early to start, and how long the benefits last will be a barrier for many clinicians, said Douglas Mack, MD, FRCPC, assistant clinical professor in pediatrics at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

Much could be learned from Allergy Associates of La Crosse, Allergenuity Health, and other clinics with SLIT experience involving thousands of patients. But that real-world data are messy and difficult to publish. Plus, it is hard for private allergists to find time to review charts, analyze data, and draft papers alongside seeing patients and running a clinic – especially without students and interns, who typically assist with academic research, Dr. Schroeder said.

Ruchi Gupta, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues worked with a La Crosse team 6 or 7 years ago to try to analyze and publish SLIT outcomes for 121 peanut-allergic children who were treated for food and environmental allergies at the Wisconsin clinic. The researchers had hoped to publish an article describing caregiver-reported and clinical outcomes.

Among 73 caregivers who responded to a survey, more than half reported improved eczema, asthma, and environmental allergy symptoms, and virtually all families said SLIT calmed anxieties and minimized fear of allergic reactions. However, the clinical outcomes – skinprick test results, immune changes, and oral food challenges – were not as robust. And the data were incomplete. Some patients had traveled to La Crosse for SLIT drops but underwent skin and blood testing with their local allergist. Compiling records is “so much harder when you’re not doing a prospective clinical trial,” Dr. Gupta said.

The caregiver-reported outcomes were presented as a poster at the 2015 annual meeting of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and the 2016 annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Society, said Jeff Kessler, MBA, FACHE, who is practice executive at La Crosse. However, with only self-reported data and no convincing lab metrics, the findings were never submitted for publication.

Others are eager to see clearer proof that SLIT works at doses lower than those published in the most recent trials. “If we can get efficacy with lower doses, that means we can increase accessibility, because we can lower the cost,” Dr. Bajowala said.

Robert Wood, MD, professor of pediatrics and director of pediatric allergy and immunology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, has a pending grant proposal for a multifood trial of SLIT. “It’s a big missing piece,” he said.

Dr. Mack said that in Canada there was “almost an instant change in group think” when the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology published guidelines in support of OIT. With the new guidelines, “people are less concerned about liability. Once they start getting into OIT, I think you’re going to see SLIT coming right along for the ride.”

The shift will be slower in the United States, which has 20 times as many practicing allergists as Canada. Nevertheless, “I totally think SLIT has a place at the table,” Dr. Mack said. “I hope we start to see more high-quality data and people start to use it and experiment with it a bit and see how it works.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This is part three of a three-part series. Part one is here. Part two is here.

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) emerged over a century ago as a gentler alternative to allergy shots. It uses the same antigens found in allergy shots, delivering them through tablets or drops under the tongue rather than by injecting them into the skin.

Yet injection immunotherapy has been the mainstay of allergy treatment in the United States. Allergy shots are “the bread and butter, keeping the lights on at allergy practices,” said allergist Sakina Bajowala, MD, of Kaneland Allergy and Asthma Center, in the Chicago area. So even “when environmental SLIT showed quite clearly that it had efficacy, people were so slow to adapt.”

SLIT – a daily treatment that builds protection from allergens gradually over years with few side effects – is popular around the globe, particularly for environmental allergies. But only a handful of clinics offer food SLIT. Even though recent trials in peanut-allergic children show that SLIT is far safer than oral immunotherapy and about as effective as the Food and Drug Administration–approved peanut-allergy product and has lasting benefits for toddlers, many allergists lack experience with customized immunotherapies and hesitate to offer an unregulated treatment for which the evidence base is still emerging.
 

Why hasn’t food allergy SLIT caught on?

One issue is that there is scant evidence from randomized, controlled trials. The treatments that clinics offer often hinge on insurance coverage, and increasingly, insurers only cover FDA-approved products. FDA approval requires thousands of patients being enrolled in long, expensive studies to prove the treatment’s merit. In a similar vein, doctors are trained to question methods that lack a strong publication base, for good reason.

Yet SLIT caught the attention of pioneering physicians who were intrigued by this “low-and-slow” immune-modifying approach, despite limited published evidence, and they sought real-world experience.

The late physician David Morris, MD, came across SLIT in the 1960s while searching for alternative ways to help mold-allergic farmers who were suffering terrible side effects from allergy shots. Dr. Morris attended conferences, learned more about sublingual techniques, got board certified in allergy, and opened Allergy Associates of La Crosse (Wis.), in 1970 to offer SLIT as a treatment for food and environmental allergies.

Dr. Morris and colleagues developed a protocol to create custom SLIT drops tailored to individual patients’ clinical histories and allergy test results. The method has been used to treat more than 200,000 patients. It has been used by allergist Nikhila Schroeder, MD, MEng, who learned SLIT methods while treating nearly 1,000 patients at Allergy Associates. In 2018, she opened her own direct-care SLIT practice, Allergenuity Health, in the Charlotte metropolitan area of North Carolina (see part 2 of this series).

Dr. Bajowala’s clinic offers SLIT in addition to oral immunotherapy (OIT). She was encouraged by the recent toddler SLIT data but wondered whether it would translate to a real-world setting. According to her calculations, the published protocol – according to which participants receive up to 4 mg/d over 6 months and continue receiving a daily maintenance dose of 4 mg for 3 years – would cost $10,000 per patient.

With this dosing regimen, the intervention is unaffordable, Dr. Bajowala said. And “there’s no way to make it cheaper because that’s the raw materials cost. It does not include labor or bottles or profit at all. That’s just $10,000 in peanut extract.”

Owing to cost, Dr. Bajowala’s clinic generally uses SLIT as a bridge to OIT. Her food allergy patients receive up to 1 mg/d and remain at that dose for a month or so before transitioning to OIT, “for which the supplies are orders of magnitude cheaper,” she said.

Dr. Schroeder said there is evidence for efficacy at microgram and even nanogram dosing – much lower than used in the recent food SLIT trials. Maintenance doses range from 50 ng/d to 25 mcg/d for environmental SLIT and 4-37 mcg/d for food SLIT, she said. The La Crosse method uses even lower dose ranges.

However, dosing information is not readily available, Dr. Schroeder noted. She has spent years scrutinizing articles and compiling information from allergen extract suppliers – all the while treating hundreds of SLIT patients. “I have had to expend a lot of time and effort,” said Dr. Schroeder. “It’s really hard to explain quickly.”

In the published literature, SLIT dosing recommendations vary widely. According to a 2007 analysis, environmental allergy symptoms improved with doses over a 1,000-fold range. What’s more, success did not scale with increased dosing and seemed to depend more on frequency and duration of treatment.

There are fewer studies regarding food SLIT. The most promising data come from recent trials of peanut-allergic children led by Edwin Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Still, “I am nervous to tell people to go do this based on 150 kids at one site,” Dr. Kim said. “We need to have a gigantic study across multiple sites that actually confirms what we have found in our single center.”

Because there are few published trials of food SLIT, confusion about which doses are optimal, how early to start, and how long the benefits last will be a barrier for many clinicians, said Douglas Mack, MD, FRCPC, assistant clinical professor in pediatrics at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

Much could be learned from Allergy Associates of La Crosse, Allergenuity Health, and other clinics with SLIT experience involving thousands of patients. But that real-world data are messy and difficult to publish. Plus, it is hard for private allergists to find time to review charts, analyze data, and draft papers alongside seeing patients and running a clinic – especially without students and interns, who typically assist with academic research, Dr. Schroeder said.

Ruchi Gupta, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues worked with a La Crosse team 6 or 7 years ago to try to analyze and publish SLIT outcomes for 121 peanut-allergic children who were treated for food and environmental allergies at the Wisconsin clinic. The researchers had hoped to publish an article describing caregiver-reported and clinical outcomes.

Among 73 caregivers who responded to a survey, more than half reported improved eczema, asthma, and environmental allergy symptoms, and virtually all families said SLIT calmed anxieties and minimized fear of allergic reactions. However, the clinical outcomes – skinprick test results, immune changes, and oral food challenges – were not as robust. And the data were incomplete. Some patients had traveled to La Crosse for SLIT drops but underwent skin and blood testing with their local allergist. Compiling records is “so much harder when you’re not doing a prospective clinical trial,” Dr. Gupta said.

The caregiver-reported outcomes were presented as a poster at the 2015 annual meeting of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and the 2016 annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Society, said Jeff Kessler, MBA, FACHE, who is practice executive at La Crosse. However, with only self-reported data and no convincing lab metrics, the findings were never submitted for publication.

Others are eager to see clearer proof that SLIT works at doses lower than those published in the most recent trials. “If we can get efficacy with lower doses, that means we can increase accessibility, because we can lower the cost,” Dr. Bajowala said.

Robert Wood, MD, professor of pediatrics and director of pediatric allergy and immunology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, has a pending grant proposal for a multifood trial of SLIT. “It’s a big missing piece,” he said.

Dr. Mack said that in Canada there was “almost an instant change in group think” when the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology published guidelines in support of OIT. With the new guidelines, “people are less concerned about liability. Once they start getting into OIT, I think you’re going to see SLIT coming right along for the ride.”

The shift will be slower in the United States, which has 20 times as many practicing allergists as Canada. Nevertheless, “I totally think SLIT has a place at the table,” Dr. Mack said. “I hope we start to see more high-quality data and people start to use it and experiment with it a bit and see how it works.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This is part three of a three-part series. Part one is here. Part two is here.

Sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT) emerged over a century ago as a gentler alternative to allergy shots. It uses the same antigens found in allergy shots, delivering them through tablets or drops under the tongue rather than by injecting them into the skin.

Yet injection immunotherapy has been the mainstay of allergy treatment in the United States. Allergy shots are “the bread and butter, keeping the lights on at allergy practices,” said allergist Sakina Bajowala, MD, of Kaneland Allergy and Asthma Center, in the Chicago area. So even “when environmental SLIT showed quite clearly that it had efficacy, people were so slow to adapt.”

SLIT – a daily treatment that builds protection from allergens gradually over years with few side effects – is popular around the globe, particularly for environmental allergies. But only a handful of clinics offer food SLIT. Even though recent trials in peanut-allergic children show that SLIT is far safer than oral immunotherapy and about as effective as the Food and Drug Administration–approved peanut-allergy product and has lasting benefits for toddlers, many allergists lack experience with customized immunotherapies and hesitate to offer an unregulated treatment for which the evidence base is still emerging.
 

Why hasn’t food allergy SLIT caught on?

One issue is that there is scant evidence from randomized, controlled trials. The treatments that clinics offer often hinge on insurance coverage, and increasingly, insurers only cover FDA-approved products. FDA approval requires thousands of patients being enrolled in long, expensive studies to prove the treatment’s merit. In a similar vein, doctors are trained to question methods that lack a strong publication base, for good reason.

Yet SLIT caught the attention of pioneering physicians who were intrigued by this “low-and-slow” immune-modifying approach, despite limited published evidence, and they sought real-world experience.

The late physician David Morris, MD, came across SLIT in the 1960s while searching for alternative ways to help mold-allergic farmers who were suffering terrible side effects from allergy shots. Dr. Morris attended conferences, learned more about sublingual techniques, got board certified in allergy, and opened Allergy Associates of La Crosse (Wis.), in 1970 to offer SLIT as a treatment for food and environmental allergies.

Dr. Morris and colleagues developed a protocol to create custom SLIT drops tailored to individual patients’ clinical histories and allergy test results. The method has been used to treat more than 200,000 patients. It has been used by allergist Nikhila Schroeder, MD, MEng, who learned SLIT methods while treating nearly 1,000 patients at Allergy Associates. In 2018, she opened her own direct-care SLIT practice, Allergenuity Health, in the Charlotte metropolitan area of North Carolina (see part 2 of this series).

Dr. Bajowala’s clinic offers SLIT in addition to oral immunotherapy (OIT). She was encouraged by the recent toddler SLIT data but wondered whether it would translate to a real-world setting. According to her calculations, the published protocol – according to which participants receive up to 4 mg/d over 6 months and continue receiving a daily maintenance dose of 4 mg for 3 years – would cost $10,000 per patient.

With this dosing regimen, the intervention is unaffordable, Dr. Bajowala said. And “there’s no way to make it cheaper because that’s the raw materials cost. It does not include labor or bottles or profit at all. That’s just $10,000 in peanut extract.”

Owing to cost, Dr. Bajowala’s clinic generally uses SLIT as a bridge to OIT. Her food allergy patients receive up to 1 mg/d and remain at that dose for a month or so before transitioning to OIT, “for which the supplies are orders of magnitude cheaper,” she said.

Dr. Schroeder said there is evidence for efficacy at microgram and even nanogram dosing – much lower than used in the recent food SLIT trials. Maintenance doses range from 50 ng/d to 25 mcg/d for environmental SLIT and 4-37 mcg/d for food SLIT, she said. The La Crosse method uses even lower dose ranges.

However, dosing information is not readily available, Dr. Schroeder noted. She has spent years scrutinizing articles and compiling information from allergen extract suppliers – all the while treating hundreds of SLIT patients. “I have had to expend a lot of time and effort,” said Dr. Schroeder. “It’s really hard to explain quickly.”

In the published literature, SLIT dosing recommendations vary widely. According to a 2007 analysis, environmental allergy symptoms improved with doses over a 1,000-fold range. What’s more, success did not scale with increased dosing and seemed to depend more on frequency and duration of treatment.

There are fewer studies regarding food SLIT. The most promising data come from recent trials of peanut-allergic children led by Edwin Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Still, “I am nervous to tell people to go do this based on 150 kids at one site,” Dr. Kim said. “We need to have a gigantic study across multiple sites that actually confirms what we have found in our single center.”

Because there are few published trials of food SLIT, confusion about which doses are optimal, how early to start, and how long the benefits last will be a barrier for many clinicians, said Douglas Mack, MD, FRCPC, assistant clinical professor in pediatrics at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

Much could be learned from Allergy Associates of La Crosse, Allergenuity Health, and other clinics with SLIT experience involving thousands of patients. But that real-world data are messy and difficult to publish. Plus, it is hard for private allergists to find time to review charts, analyze data, and draft papers alongside seeing patients and running a clinic – especially without students and interns, who typically assist with academic research, Dr. Schroeder said.

Ruchi Gupta, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues worked with a La Crosse team 6 or 7 years ago to try to analyze and publish SLIT outcomes for 121 peanut-allergic children who were treated for food and environmental allergies at the Wisconsin clinic. The researchers had hoped to publish an article describing caregiver-reported and clinical outcomes.

Among 73 caregivers who responded to a survey, more than half reported improved eczema, asthma, and environmental allergy symptoms, and virtually all families said SLIT calmed anxieties and minimized fear of allergic reactions. However, the clinical outcomes – skinprick test results, immune changes, and oral food challenges – were not as robust. And the data were incomplete. Some patients had traveled to La Crosse for SLIT drops but underwent skin and blood testing with their local allergist. Compiling records is “so much harder when you’re not doing a prospective clinical trial,” Dr. Gupta said.

The caregiver-reported outcomes were presented as a poster at the 2015 annual meeting of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology and the 2016 annual meeting of the Pediatric Academic Society, said Jeff Kessler, MBA, FACHE, who is practice executive at La Crosse. However, with only self-reported data and no convincing lab metrics, the findings were never submitted for publication.

Others are eager to see clearer proof that SLIT works at doses lower than those published in the most recent trials. “If we can get efficacy with lower doses, that means we can increase accessibility, because we can lower the cost,” Dr. Bajowala said.

Robert Wood, MD, professor of pediatrics and director of pediatric allergy and immunology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, has a pending grant proposal for a multifood trial of SLIT. “It’s a big missing piece,” he said.

Dr. Mack said that in Canada there was “almost an instant change in group think” when the Canadian Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology published guidelines in support of OIT. With the new guidelines, “people are less concerned about liability. Once they start getting into OIT, I think you’re going to see SLIT coming right along for the ride.”

The shift will be slower in the United States, which has 20 times as many practicing allergists as Canada. Nevertheless, “I totally think SLIT has a place at the table,” Dr. Mack said. “I hope we start to see more high-quality data and people start to use it and experiment with it a bit and see how it works.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This is part three of a three-part series. Part one is here. Part two is here.

With degrees in electrical engineering and computer science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Nikhila Schroeder, MD, MEng, brings a problem-solving mindset to medicine.

Being a doctor means having to “figure out all aspects of [a patient’s] situation and do my best to come up with an answer,” said Dr. Schroeder, who founded Allergenuity Health, a solo allergy practice in Huntersville, N.C., with her husband James, who serves as practice executive. It’s “being a medical detective for your patient.”

Yet, during her training, Dr. Schroeder found that market-driven health care makes it hard to practice medicine with a patient’s best interest foremost. Procedures for diagnosing and treating disease cater to insurance companies’ reimbursement policies. “You wind up having to tailor your care to whatever insurance will cover,” she said.

Insurers, in turn, look for evidence from large, peer-reviewed studies to prove that a treatment works. Many physicians hesitate to offer therapies that aren’t covered by insurance, for both liability and financial reasons. So treatment tends to be limited to those options that were rigorously vetted in long, costly, multisite trials that are difficult to conduct without a corporate sponsor.

This is why there is still only one licensed treatment for people with food allergies – a set of standardized peanut powder capsules (Palforzia) that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in early 2020 for peanut-allergic children aged 4-17 years. A small but growing number of allergists offer unapproved oral immunotherapy (OIT) using commercial food products to treat allergies to peanuts and other foods.

Even fewer allergists treat food allergy patients with another immune-modifying treatment, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), which delivers allergens through liquid drops held for several minutes under the tongue. Since 2018, Allergenuity Health, which offers SLIT to treat food and environmental allergies, has provided care to more than 400 patients. More than a third have come from out of state.

The clinic uses a direct-care approach. Rather than taking insurance, the clinic offers a monthly billing program that includes tests, SLIT bottles, and access to Dr. Schroeder via phone, email, or text. “I’m only contracted with the patient, and my only focus is the patient,” Dr. Schroeder said in an interview.
 

Unforgettable day

Allergy was not on Dr. Schroeder’s radar in medical school. She wanted to be a surgeon. But she loved working with children, so she did a pediatrics residency at the University of Virginia Children’s Hospital in Charlottesville. There Dr. Schroeder started seeing kids with eczema and allergies. While covering a friend’s clinic shift in 2010, she was thrust into an emergency. A family who didn’t speak English had just brought in their screaming 6-month-old baby, red and puffy with hives. “We didn’t know what was going on with this child,” Dr. Schroeder said. “Somehow I was elected to go in there.”

All of a sudden, things got quiet. Yet the baby was still screaming, mouth wide open. Dr. Schroeder had learned about anaphylaxis but had never witnessed it – until that day. The baby›s airways swelled so much that the crying became hoarse and soft. After working with a nurse to administer epinephrine, Dr. Schroeder saw something equally unforgettable: The baby’s heart rate soared, but within minutes the hives and swelling subsided and smiles returned. “It was incredible how quickly things changed,” Dr. Schroeder said. The baby had a reaction to rice, an uncommon allergen.

Dr. Schroeder stayed at UVA 2 more years to complete an allergy and immunology fellowship. She learned to diagnose food allergies but became frustrated having to tell patients they had little recourse but to avoid the food and to check in every year or 2. “I was, like, aren’t we specialists? Shouldn’t we have a little more expertise and maybe see if there are ways we could change this?” Dr. Schroeder said.

During those years, allergy shots were the only form of immunotherapy being taught to fellows. At clinic, Dr. Schroeder served as backup to the nurses when someone reacted to shots. She was troubled that some patients needed epinephrine to stop asthma attacks caused by injections they had received as treatment. The idea of injecting substances under the skin seemed akin to vaccination – where “you want to aggravate the immune system, you want it to get revved up, you want to build it up to fight,” she said. “But that’s not what you want for allergy. You want to tone it down. It didn’t really, to be honest, make a lot of sense to me.”

Dr. Schroeder started digging and asking questions. How does the immune system decide what is safe? Which cells and molecules communicate these decisions? She thought about babies and how they “learn” by putting stuff into their mouths. “If we don’t tolerate most of what we take in there, we wouldn’t survive,” Dr. Schroeder said. “It makes a lot of sense that a lot of tolerance begins with cells of the mouth.”

Dr. Schroeder discussed these concepts with her attendings. “They were all, like, no, there’s really no good evidence for that,” she said. But at some point, someone mentioned sublingual immunotherapy, and Schroeder came across Allergy Associates of La Crosse (Wis.).

The clinic’s late founder, David Morris, MD, learned about SLIT in the 1960s as an alternative option for farmers who suffered terrible side effects from injection immunotherapy they received to treat their mold allergies. Dr. Morris attended conferences, learned more about sublingual techniques – at times seeking advice from European allergists who offered SLIT – and became board certified in allergy before opening the La Crosse clinic in 1970. According to the clinic, more than 200,000 patients with environmental and food allergies have been treated with its SLIT protocol.

Dr. Schroeder was shocked to discover that this clinic had existed for 40 years, yet “I, as an allergist, had heard nothing about them,” she said.

Toward the end of her fellowship, OIT was becoming more well known. But she felt its risks were often downplayed. After years of talking with food allergy patients, Schroeder realized that most didn’t actually care about eating peanut butter sandwiches or sesame or walnuts. “Often I would hear, through tears: ‘I just want my child to be able to sit with their friends at lunch, to not be put at this other table, to not feel so isolated,’ ” she said. What mattered most to many families was gaining enough protection to not feel anxious about participating in social activities involving food.

Dr. Schroeder had a growing sense that SLIT – given its ease, safety, and sensible route of allergen delivery – seemed more useful. She wanted to learn more.

Her mentors urged her to stay in academia instead. “They were, like, you have a good academic reputation. You’re a solid thinker. You’re great at what you do. Do the traditional stuff,” Dr. Schroeder said.

Despite these admonitions, Dr. Schroeder left academia and took a job at La Crosse after completing her allergy fellowship. Determined to see whether SLIT could be effective, “I decided in the end, you know what, I have to go do this,” she said. “I need to know, and the only way I’m going to know is to do it, because no one was giving me good information.”

Before treating anyone with SLIT, Dr. Schroeder tried it herself – as a La Crosse patient. Growing up with severe eczema, eye swelling, and chronic nasal congestion leading to sinus infections, “I myself was a severely allergic person,” she said. Within several months, Dr. Schroeder saw dramatic improvement in her symptoms – “a night and day difference.” She experienced some mouth tingling, one of SLIT’s most common side effects, but found it “very tolerable, very mild.”

Allergenuity Health doesn’t aim to promote SLIT as the best treatment, said Dr. Schroeder, who has helped some families use avoidance or OIT as a better option. “An initial evaluation is always about proper diagnosis and education about all the treatment options available. Really, the point is education – be a detective for them and figure out what’s going on, be honest about what we know and what we don’t know, and give them the tools to figure out how to proceed.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This is part two of a three-part series. Part one is here. Part three is here.

With degrees in electrical engineering and computer science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Nikhila Schroeder, MD, MEng, brings a problem-solving mindset to medicine.

Being a doctor means having to “figure out all aspects of [a patient’s] situation and do my best to come up with an answer,” said Dr. Schroeder, who founded Allergenuity Health, a solo allergy practice in Huntersville, N.C., with her husband James, who serves as practice executive. It’s “being a medical detective for your patient.”

Yet, during her training, Dr. Schroeder found that market-driven health care makes it hard to practice medicine with a patient’s best interest foremost. Procedures for diagnosing and treating disease cater to insurance companies’ reimbursement policies. “You wind up having to tailor your care to whatever insurance will cover,” she said.

Insurers, in turn, look for evidence from large, peer-reviewed studies to prove that a treatment works. Many physicians hesitate to offer therapies that aren’t covered by insurance, for both liability and financial reasons. So treatment tends to be limited to those options that were rigorously vetted in long, costly, multisite trials that are difficult to conduct without a corporate sponsor.

This is why there is still only one licensed treatment for people with food allergies – a set of standardized peanut powder capsules (Palforzia) that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in early 2020 for peanut-allergic children aged 4-17 years. A small but growing number of allergists offer unapproved oral immunotherapy (OIT) using commercial food products to treat allergies to peanuts and other foods.

Even fewer allergists treat food allergy patients with another immune-modifying treatment, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), which delivers allergens through liquid drops held for several minutes under the tongue. Since 2018, Allergenuity Health, which offers SLIT to treat food and environmental allergies, has provided care to more than 400 patients. More than a third have come from out of state.

The clinic uses a direct-care approach. Rather than taking insurance, the clinic offers a monthly billing program that includes tests, SLIT bottles, and access to Dr. Schroeder via phone, email, or text. “I’m only contracted with the patient, and my only focus is the patient,” Dr. Schroeder said in an interview.
 

Unforgettable day

Allergy was not on Dr. Schroeder’s radar in medical school. She wanted to be a surgeon. But she loved working with children, so she did a pediatrics residency at the University of Virginia Children’s Hospital in Charlottesville. There Dr. Schroeder started seeing kids with eczema and allergies. While covering a friend’s clinic shift in 2010, she was thrust into an emergency. A family who didn’t speak English had just brought in their screaming 6-month-old baby, red and puffy with hives. “We didn’t know what was going on with this child,” Dr. Schroeder said. “Somehow I was elected to go in there.”

All of a sudden, things got quiet. Yet the baby was still screaming, mouth wide open. Dr. Schroeder had learned about anaphylaxis but had never witnessed it – until that day. The baby›s airways swelled so much that the crying became hoarse and soft. After working with a nurse to administer epinephrine, Dr. Schroeder saw something equally unforgettable: The baby’s heart rate soared, but within minutes the hives and swelling subsided and smiles returned. “It was incredible how quickly things changed,” Dr. Schroeder said. The baby had a reaction to rice, an uncommon allergen.

Dr. Schroeder stayed at UVA 2 more years to complete an allergy and immunology fellowship. She learned to diagnose food allergies but became frustrated having to tell patients they had little recourse but to avoid the food and to check in every year or 2. “I was, like, aren’t we specialists? Shouldn’t we have a little more expertise and maybe see if there are ways we could change this?” Dr. Schroeder said.

During those years, allergy shots were the only form of immunotherapy being taught to fellows. At clinic, Dr. Schroeder served as backup to the nurses when someone reacted to shots. She was troubled that some patients needed epinephrine to stop asthma attacks caused by injections they had received as treatment. The idea of injecting substances under the skin seemed akin to vaccination – where “you want to aggravate the immune system, you want it to get revved up, you want to build it up to fight,” she said. “But that’s not what you want for allergy. You want to tone it down. It didn’t really, to be honest, make a lot of sense to me.”

Dr. Schroeder started digging and asking questions. How does the immune system decide what is safe? Which cells and molecules communicate these decisions? She thought about babies and how they “learn” by putting stuff into their mouths. “If we don’t tolerate most of what we take in there, we wouldn’t survive,” Dr. Schroeder said. “It makes a lot of sense that a lot of tolerance begins with cells of the mouth.”

Dr. Schroeder discussed these concepts with her attendings. “They were all, like, no, there’s really no good evidence for that,” she said. But at some point, someone mentioned sublingual immunotherapy, and Schroeder came across Allergy Associates of La Crosse (Wis.).

The clinic’s late founder, David Morris, MD, learned about SLIT in the 1960s as an alternative option for farmers who suffered terrible side effects from injection immunotherapy they received to treat their mold allergies. Dr. Morris attended conferences, learned more about sublingual techniques – at times seeking advice from European allergists who offered SLIT – and became board certified in allergy before opening the La Crosse clinic in 1970. According to the clinic, more than 200,000 patients with environmental and food allergies have been treated with its SLIT protocol.

Dr. Schroeder was shocked to discover that this clinic had existed for 40 years, yet “I, as an allergist, had heard nothing about them,” she said.

Toward the end of her fellowship, OIT was becoming more well known. But she felt its risks were often downplayed. After years of talking with food allergy patients, Schroeder realized that most didn’t actually care about eating peanut butter sandwiches or sesame or walnuts. “Often I would hear, through tears: ‘I just want my child to be able to sit with their friends at lunch, to not be put at this other table, to not feel so isolated,’ ” she said. What mattered most to many families was gaining enough protection to not feel anxious about participating in social activities involving food.

Dr. Schroeder had a growing sense that SLIT – given its ease, safety, and sensible route of allergen delivery – seemed more useful. She wanted to learn more.

Her mentors urged her to stay in academia instead. “They were, like, you have a good academic reputation. You’re a solid thinker. You’re great at what you do. Do the traditional stuff,” Dr. Schroeder said.

Despite these admonitions, Dr. Schroeder left academia and took a job at La Crosse after completing her allergy fellowship. Determined to see whether SLIT could be effective, “I decided in the end, you know what, I have to go do this,” she said. “I need to know, and the only way I’m going to know is to do it, because no one was giving me good information.”

Before treating anyone with SLIT, Dr. Schroeder tried it herself – as a La Crosse patient. Growing up with severe eczema, eye swelling, and chronic nasal congestion leading to sinus infections, “I myself was a severely allergic person,” she said. Within several months, Dr. Schroeder saw dramatic improvement in her symptoms – “a night and day difference.” She experienced some mouth tingling, one of SLIT’s most common side effects, but found it “very tolerable, very mild.”

Allergenuity Health doesn’t aim to promote SLIT as the best treatment, said Dr. Schroeder, who has helped some families use avoidance or OIT as a better option. “An initial evaluation is always about proper diagnosis and education about all the treatment options available. Really, the point is education – be a detective for them and figure out what’s going on, be honest about what we know and what we don’t know, and give them the tools to figure out how to proceed.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This is part two of a three-part series. Part one is here. Part three is here.

With degrees in electrical engineering and computer science from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Nikhila Schroeder, MD, MEng, brings a problem-solving mindset to medicine.

Being a doctor means having to “figure out all aspects of [a patient’s] situation and do my best to come up with an answer,” said Dr. Schroeder, who founded Allergenuity Health, a solo allergy practice in Huntersville, N.C., with her husband James, who serves as practice executive. It’s “being a medical detective for your patient.”

Yet, during her training, Dr. Schroeder found that market-driven health care makes it hard to practice medicine with a patient’s best interest foremost. Procedures for diagnosing and treating disease cater to insurance companies’ reimbursement policies. “You wind up having to tailor your care to whatever insurance will cover,” she said.

Insurers, in turn, look for evidence from large, peer-reviewed studies to prove that a treatment works. Many physicians hesitate to offer therapies that aren’t covered by insurance, for both liability and financial reasons. So treatment tends to be limited to those options that were rigorously vetted in long, costly, multisite trials that are difficult to conduct without a corporate sponsor.

This is why there is still only one licensed treatment for people with food allergies – a set of standardized peanut powder capsules (Palforzia) that was approved by the Food and Drug Administration in early 2020 for peanut-allergic children aged 4-17 years. A small but growing number of allergists offer unapproved oral immunotherapy (OIT) using commercial food products to treat allergies to peanuts and other foods.

Even fewer allergists treat food allergy patients with another immune-modifying treatment, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), which delivers allergens through liquid drops held for several minutes under the tongue. Since 2018, Allergenuity Health, which offers SLIT to treat food and environmental allergies, has provided care to more than 400 patients. More than a third have come from out of state.

The clinic uses a direct-care approach. Rather than taking insurance, the clinic offers a monthly billing program that includes tests, SLIT bottles, and access to Dr. Schroeder via phone, email, or text. “I’m only contracted with the patient, and my only focus is the patient,” Dr. Schroeder said in an interview.
 

Unforgettable day

Allergy was not on Dr. Schroeder’s radar in medical school. She wanted to be a surgeon. But she loved working with children, so she did a pediatrics residency at the University of Virginia Children’s Hospital in Charlottesville. There Dr. Schroeder started seeing kids with eczema and allergies. While covering a friend’s clinic shift in 2010, she was thrust into an emergency. A family who didn’t speak English had just brought in their screaming 6-month-old baby, red and puffy with hives. “We didn’t know what was going on with this child,” Dr. Schroeder said. “Somehow I was elected to go in there.”

All of a sudden, things got quiet. Yet the baby was still screaming, mouth wide open. Dr. Schroeder had learned about anaphylaxis but had never witnessed it – until that day. The baby›s airways swelled so much that the crying became hoarse and soft. After working with a nurse to administer epinephrine, Dr. Schroeder saw something equally unforgettable: The baby’s heart rate soared, but within minutes the hives and swelling subsided and smiles returned. “It was incredible how quickly things changed,” Dr. Schroeder said. The baby had a reaction to rice, an uncommon allergen.

Dr. Schroeder stayed at UVA 2 more years to complete an allergy and immunology fellowship. She learned to diagnose food allergies but became frustrated having to tell patients they had little recourse but to avoid the food and to check in every year or 2. “I was, like, aren’t we specialists? Shouldn’t we have a little more expertise and maybe see if there are ways we could change this?” Dr. Schroeder said.

During those years, allergy shots were the only form of immunotherapy being taught to fellows. At clinic, Dr. Schroeder served as backup to the nurses when someone reacted to shots. She was troubled that some patients needed epinephrine to stop asthma attacks caused by injections they had received as treatment. The idea of injecting substances under the skin seemed akin to vaccination – where “you want to aggravate the immune system, you want it to get revved up, you want to build it up to fight,” she said. “But that’s not what you want for allergy. You want to tone it down. It didn’t really, to be honest, make a lot of sense to me.”

Dr. Schroeder started digging and asking questions. How does the immune system decide what is safe? Which cells and molecules communicate these decisions? She thought about babies and how they “learn” by putting stuff into their mouths. “If we don’t tolerate most of what we take in there, we wouldn’t survive,” Dr. Schroeder said. “It makes a lot of sense that a lot of tolerance begins with cells of the mouth.”

Dr. Schroeder discussed these concepts with her attendings. “They were all, like, no, there’s really no good evidence for that,” she said. But at some point, someone mentioned sublingual immunotherapy, and Schroeder came across Allergy Associates of La Crosse (Wis.).

The clinic’s late founder, David Morris, MD, learned about SLIT in the 1960s as an alternative option for farmers who suffered terrible side effects from injection immunotherapy they received to treat their mold allergies. Dr. Morris attended conferences, learned more about sublingual techniques – at times seeking advice from European allergists who offered SLIT – and became board certified in allergy before opening the La Crosse clinic in 1970. According to the clinic, more than 200,000 patients with environmental and food allergies have been treated with its SLIT protocol.

Dr. Schroeder was shocked to discover that this clinic had existed for 40 years, yet “I, as an allergist, had heard nothing about them,” she said.

Toward the end of her fellowship, OIT was becoming more well known. But she felt its risks were often downplayed. After years of talking with food allergy patients, Schroeder realized that most didn’t actually care about eating peanut butter sandwiches or sesame or walnuts. “Often I would hear, through tears: ‘I just want my child to be able to sit with their friends at lunch, to not be put at this other table, to not feel so isolated,’ ” she said. What mattered most to many families was gaining enough protection to not feel anxious about participating in social activities involving food.

Dr. Schroeder had a growing sense that SLIT – given its ease, safety, and sensible route of allergen delivery – seemed more useful. She wanted to learn more.

Her mentors urged her to stay in academia instead. “They were, like, you have a good academic reputation. You’re a solid thinker. You’re great at what you do. Do the traditional stuff,” Dr. Schroeder said.

Despite these admonitions, Dr. Schroeder left academia and took a job at La Crosse after completing her allergy fellowship. Determined to see whether SLIT could be effective, “I decided in the end, you know what, I have to go do this,” she said. “I need to know, and the only way I’m going to know is to do it, because no one was giving me good information.”

Before treating anyone with SLIT, Dr. Schroeder tried it herself – as a La Crosse patient. Growing up with severe eczema, eye swelling, and chronic nasal congestion leading to sinus infections, “I myself was a severely allergic person,” she said. Within several months, Dr. Schroeder saw dramatic improvement in her symptoms – “a night and day difference.” She experienced some mouth tingling, one of SLIT’s most common side effects, but found it “very tolerable, very mild.”

Allergenuity Health doesn’t aim to promote SLIT as the best treatment, said Dr. Schroeder, who has helped some families use avoidance or OIT as a better option. “An initial evaluation is always about proper diagnosis and education about all the treatment options available. Really, the point is education – be a detective for them and figure out what’s going on, be honest about what we know and what we don’t know, and give them the tools to figure out how to proceed.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This is part two of a three-part series. Part one is here. Part three is here.

For the 32 million people in the United States with food allergies, those who seek relief beyond constant vigilance and EpiPens face a confusing treatment landscape. In January 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved an oral immunotherapy product (Palforzia) for peanut-allergic children. Yet the product’s ill-timed release during a pandemic and its black-box warning about the risk for anaphylaxis has slowed uptake.

A small number of allergists offer home-grown oral immunotherapy (OIT), which builds protection by exposing patients to increasing daily doses of commercial food products over months. However, as with Palforzia, allergic reactions are common during treatment, and the hard-earned protection can fade if not maintained with regular dosing.

An alternate approach, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), delivers food proteins through liquid drops held in the mouth – a site rich in tolerance-inducing immune cells. In a 2019 study of peanut-allergic children aged 1-11 years, SLIT offered a level of protection on par with Palforzia while causing considerably fewer adverse events. And at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, researchers reported that SLIT produced stronger, more durable benefits in toddlers aged 1-4.

Sublingual immunotherapy is “a bunch of drops you put under your tongue, you hold it for a couple minutes, and then you’re done for the day,” said Edwin Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who led the two recent studies. For protecting against accidental ingestions, SLIT “is pushing pretty close to what OIT is able to provide but seemingly with a superior ease of administration and safety profile.”

Many parents don’t necessarily want their allergic kids to be able to eat a peanut butter sandwich – but do want them to be able to safely sit at the same lunch table and attend birthday parties with other kids. SLIT achieves this level of protection about as well as OIT, with fewer side effects.

Still, because of concerns about the treatment’s cost, unclear dosing regimens, and lack of FDA approval, very few U.S. allergists – likely less than 5% – offer sublingual immunotherapy to treat food allergies, making SLIT even less available than OIT.
 

Concerns about SLIT

One possible reason: Success is slower and less visible for SLIT. When patients undergo OIT, they build up to dosing with the actual food. “To a family who has a concern about their kid reacting, they can see them eating chunks of peanut in our office. That is really encouraging,” said Douglas Mack, MD, FRCPC, an allergist with Halton Pediatric Allergy and assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

On the other hand, ingestion isn’t the focus for SLIT, so progress is harder to measure using metrics in published trials. After holding SLIT drops under the tongue, some patients spit them out. If they swallow the dose, it’s a vanishingly small amount. Immune changes that reflect increasing tolerance, such as a decrease in IgE antibodies, tend to be more gradual with SLIT than with OIT. And because SLIT is only offered in private clinics, such tests are not conducted as regularly as they would be for published trials.

But there may be a bigger factor: Some think earlier trials comparing the two immunotherapy regimens gave SLIT a bad rap. For example, in studies of milk- and peanut-allergic children conducted in 2011 and 2014, investigators concluded that SLIT was safer and that OIT appeared to be more effective. However, those trials compared SLIT with OIT using a much higher dose (2,000 mg) than is used in the licensed product (300 mg).

Over the years, endpoints for food allergy treatment trials have shifted from enabling patients to eat a full serving of their allergen to merely raising their threshold to guard against accidental exposures. So in those earlier articles, “we would probably write the discussion section differently now,” said Corinne Keet, MD, PhD, first author on the 2011 milk study and an associate professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Indeed, “when you compare [SLIT] to Palforzia or other studies of low-dose OIT (300 mg/d), they look equal in terms of their efficacy,” said senior author Robert Wood, MD, professor of pediatrics and director of pediatric allergy and immunology at Johns Hopkins. Yet, “I’m afraid we had a major [negative] impact on pharma’s interest in pursuing SLIT.”

Without corporate funding, it’s nearly impossible to conduct the large, multisite trials required for FDA approval of a treatment. And without approved products, many allergists are reluctant to offer the therapy, Dr. Wood said. It “makes your life a lot more complicated to be dabbling in things that are not approved,” he noted.

But at least one company is giving it a go. Applying the SLIT principle of delivering food allergens to tolerance-promoting immune cells in the mouth, New York–based Intrommune Therapeutics recently started enrolling peanut-allergic adults for a phase 1 trial of its experimental toothpaste.

Interest in food-allergy SLIT seems to be growing. “I definitely think that it could be an option for the future,” said Jaclyn Bjelac, MD, associate director of the Food Allergy Center of Excellence at the Cleveland Clinic. “Up until a few months ago, it really wasn’t on our radar.”

On conversations with Dr. Kim, philanthropists and drug developers said they found the recent data on SLIT promising, yet pointed out that food SLIT protocols and products are already in the public domain – they are described in published research using allergen extracts that are on the market. They “can’t see a commercial path forward,” Dr. Kim said in an interview. “And that’s kind of where many of my conversations end.”

Although there are no licensed SLIT products for food allergies, between 2014 and 2017, the FDA approved four sublingual immunotherapy tablets to treat environmental allergies – Stallergenes-Greer’s Oralair and ALK’s Grastek for grass pollens, ALK’s Odactra for dust mites, and ALK’s Ragwitek for short ragweed.

SLIT tablets work as well as allergy shots (subcutaneous immunotherapy) for controlling environmental allergy symptoms, they have a better safety profile, according to AAAAI guidelines, and they can be self-administered at home, which has made them a popular option globally. “Our European colleagues have used sublingual immunotherapy much more frequently than, for example, in the U.S.,” said Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, director of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Use of SLIT is also increasing in the United States, especially as FDA-approved products become available. In a 2019 survey, the percentage of U.S. allergists who said they were offering sublingual treatment for environmental allergies increased from 5.9% in 2007 to 73.5% in 2019. However, only 11.2% reported extensive SLIT use; the remainder reported some (50.5%) or little (38.3%) use.

As noted above, considerably fewer U.S. allergists use SLIT to treat food allergies. Similarly, a 2021 survey of allergists in Canada found that only 7% offered food sublingual immunotherapy; more than half reported offering OIT.

One practice, Allergy Associates of La Crosse (Wis.), has offered SLIT drops for food and environmental allergies for decades. Since the clinic opened in 1970, more than 200,000 people have been treated with its protocol. Every patient receives customized sublingual drops – “exactly what they’re allergic to, exactly how allergic they are, and then we build from there,” said Jeff Kessler, MBA, FACHE, practice executive at Allergy Associates of La Crosse. “Quite frankly, it’s the way immunotherapy should be done.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This is part one of a three-part series. Part two is here. Part three is here.

For the 32 million people in the United States with food allergies, those who seek relief beyond constant vigilance and EpiPens face a confusing treatment landscape. In January 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved an oral immunotherapy product (Palforzia) for peanut-allergic children. Yet the product’s ill-timed release during a pandemic and its black-box warning about the risk for anaphylaxis has slowed uptake.

A small number of allergists offer home-grown oral immunotherapy (OIT), which builds protection by exposing patients to increasing daily doses of commercial food products over months. However, as with Palforzia, allergic reactions are common during treatment, and the hard-earned protection can fade if not maintained with regular dosing.

An alternate approach, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), delivers food proteins through liquid drops held in the mouth – a site rich in tolerance-inducing immune cells. In a 2019 study of peanut-allergic children aged 1-11 years, SLIT offered a level of protection on par with Palforzia while causing considerably fewer adverse events. And at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, researchers reported that SLIT produced stronger, more durable benefits in toddlers aged 1-4.

Sublingual immunotherapy is “a bunch of drops you put under your tongue, you hold it for a couple minutes, and then you’re done for the day,” said Edwin Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who led the two recent studies. For protecting against accidental ingestions, SLIT “is pushing pretty close to what OIT is able to provide but seemingly with a superior ease of administration and safety profile.”

Many parents don’t necessarily want their allergic kids to be able to eat a peanut butter sandwich – but do want them to be able to safely sit at the same lunch table and attend birthday parties with other kids. SLIT achieves this level of protection about as well as OIT, with fewer side effects.

Still, because of concerns about the treatment’s cost, unclear dosing regimens, and lack of FDA approval, very few U.S. allergists – likely less than 5% – offer sublingual immunotherapy to treat food allergies, making SLIT even less available than OIT.
 

Concerns about SLIT

One possible reason: Success is slower and less visible for SLIT. When patients undergo OIT, they build up to dosing with the actual food. “To a family who has a concern about their kid reacting, they can see them eating chunks of peanut in our office. That is really encouraging,” said Douglas Mack, MD, FRCPC, an allergist with Halton Pediatric Allergy and assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

On the other hand, ingestion isn’t the focus for SLIT, so progress is harder to measure using metrics in published trials. After holding SLIT drops under the tongue, some patients spit them out. If they swallow the dose, it’s a vanishingly small amount. Immune changes that reflect increasing tolerance, such as a decrease in IgE antibodies, tend to be more gradual with SLIT than with OIT. And because SLIT is only offered in private clinics, such tests are not conducted as regularly as they would be for published trials.

But there may be a bigger factor: Some think earlier trials comparing the two immunotherapy regimens gave SLIT a bad rap. For example, in studies of milk- and peanut-allergic children conducted in 2011 and 2014, investigators concluded that SLIT was safer and that OIT appeared to be more effective. However, those trials compared SLIT with OIT using a much higher dose (2,000 mg) than is used in the licensed product (300 mg).

Over the years, endpoints for food allergy treatment trials have shifted from enabling patients to eat a full serving of their allergen to merely raising their threshold to guard against accidental exposures. So in those earlier articles, “we would probably write the discussion section differently now,” said Corinne Keet, MD, PhD, first author on the 2011 milk study and an associate professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Indeed, “when you compare [SLIT] to Palforzia or other studies of low-dose OIT (300 mg/d), they look equal in terms of their efficacy,” said senior author Robert Wood, MD, professor of pediatrics and director of pediatric allergy and immunology at Johns Hopkins. Yet, “I’m afraid we had a major [negative] impact on pharma’s interest in pursuing SLIT.”

Without corporate funding, it’s nearly impossible to conduct the large, multisite trials required for FDA approval of a treatment. And without approved products, many allergists are reluctant to offer the therapy, Dr. Wood said. It “makes your life a lot more complicated to be dabbling in things that are not approved,” he noted.

But at least one company is giving it a go. Applying the SLIT principle of delivering food allergens to tolerance-promoting immune cells in the mouth, New York–based Intrommune Therapeutics recently started enrolling peanut-allergic adults for a phase 1 trial of its experimental toothpaste.

Interest in food-allergy SLIT seems to be growing. “I definitely think that it could be an option for the future,” said Jaclyn Bjelac, MD, associate director of the Food Allergy Center of Excellence at the Cleveland Clinic. “Up until a few months ago, it really wasn’t on our radar.”

On conversations with Dr. Kim, philanthropists and drug developers said they found the recent data on SLIT promising, yet pointed out that food SLIT protocols and products are already in the public domain – they are described in published research using allergen extracts that are on the market. They “can’t see a commercial path forward,” Dr. Kim said in an interview. “And that’s kind of where many of my conversations end.”

Although there are no licensed SLIT products for food allergies, between 2014 and 2017, the FDA approved four sublingual immunotherapy tablets to treat environmental allergies – Stallergenes-Greer’s Oralair and ALK’s Grastek for grass pollens, ALK’s Odactra for dust mites, and ALK’s Ragwitek for short ragweed.

SLIT tablets work as well as allergy shots (subcutaneous immunotherapy) for controlling environmental allergy symptoms, they have a better safety profile, according to AAAAI guidelines, and they can be self-administered at home, which has made them a popular option globally. “Our European colleagues have used sublingual immunotherapy much more frequently than, for example, in the U.S.,” said Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, director of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Use of SLIT is also increasing in the United States, especially as FDA-approved products become available. In a 2019 survey, the percentage of U.S. allergists who said they were offering sublingual treatment for environmental allergies increased from 5.9% in 2007 to 73.5% in 2019. However, only 11.2% reported extensive SLIT use; the remainder reported some (50.5%) or little (38.3%) use.

As noted above, considerably fewer U.S. allergists use SLIT to treat food allergies. Similarly, a 2021 survey of allergists in Canada found that only 7% offered food sublingual immunotherapy; more than half reported offering OIT.

One practice, Allergy Associates of La Crosse (Wis.), has offered SLIT drops for food and environmental allergies for decades. Since the clinic opened in 1970, more than 200,000 people have been treated with its protocol. Every patient receives customized sublingual drops – “exactly what they’re allergic to, exactly how allergic they are, and then we build from there,” said Jeff Kessler, MBA, FACHE, practice executive at Allergy Associates of La Crosse. “Quite frankly, it’s the way immunotherapy should be done.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This is part one of a three-part series. Part two is here. Part three is here.

For the 32 million people in the United States with food allergies, those who seek relief beyond constant vigilance and EpiPens face a confusing treatment landscape. In January 2020, the Food and Drug Administration approved an oral immunotherapy product (Palforzia) for peanut-allergic children. Yet the product’s ill-timed release during a pandemic and its black-box warning about the risk for anaphylaxis has slowed uptake.

A small number of allergists offer home-grown oral immunotherapy (OIT), which builds protection by exposing patients to increasing daily doses of commercial food products over months. However, as with Palforzia, allergic reactions are common during treatment, and the hard-earned protection can fade if not maintained with regular dosing.

An alternate approach, sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT), delivers food proteins through liquid drops held in the mouth – a site rich in tolerance-inducing immune cells. In a 2019 study of peanut-allergic children aged 1-11 years, SLIT offered a level of protection on par with Palforzia while causing considerably fewer adverse events. And at the 2021 annual meeting of the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, researchers reported that SLIT produced stronger, more durable benefits in toddlers aged 1-4.

Sublingual immunotherapy is “a bunch of drops you put under your tongue, you hold it for a couple minutes, and then you’re done for the day,” said Edwin Kim, MD, director of the UNC Food Allergy Initiative, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, who led the two recent studies. For protecting against accidental ingestions, SLIT “is pushing pretty close to what OIT is able to provide but seemingly with a superior ease of administration and safety profile.”

Many parents don’t necessarily want their allergic kids to be able to eat a peanut butter sandwich – but do want them to be able to safely sit at the same lunch table and attend birthday parties with other kids. SLIT achieves this level of protection about as well as OIT, with fewer side effects.

Still, because of concerns about the treatment’s cost, unclear dosing regimens, and lack of FDA approval, very few U.S. allergists – likely less than 5% – offer sublingual immunotherapy to treat food allergies, making SLIT even less available than OIT.
 

Concerns about SLIT

One possible reason: Success is slower and less visible for SLIT. When patients undergo OIT, they build up to dosing with the actual food. “To a family who has a concern about their kid reacting, they can see them eating chunks of peanut in our office. That is really encouraging,” said Douglas Mack, MD, FRCPC, an allergist with Halton Pediatric Allergy and assistant clinical professor of pediatrics at McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.

On the other hand, ingestion isn’t the focus for SLIT, so progress is harder to measure using metrics in published trials. After holding SLIT drops under the tongue, some patients spit them out. If they swallow the dose, it’s a vanishingly small amount. Immune changes that reflect increasing tolerance, such as a decrease in IgE antibodies, tend to be more gradual with SLIT than with OIT. And because SLIT is only offered in private clinics, such tests are not conducted as regularly as they would be for published trials.

But there may be a bigger factor: Some think earlier trials comparing the two immunotherapy regimens gave SLIT a bad rap. For example, in studies of milk- and peanut-allergic children conducted in 2011 and 2014, investigators concluded that SLIT was safer and that OIT appeared to be more effective. However, those trials compared SLIT with OIT using a much higher dose (2,000 mg) than is used in the licensed product (300 mg).

Over the years, endpoints for food allergy treatment trials have shifted from enabling patients to eat a full serving of their allergen to merely raising their threshold to guard against accidental exposures. So in those earlier articles, “we would probably write the discussion section differently now,” said Corinne Keet, MD, PhD, first author on the 2011 milk study and an associate professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Indeed, “when you compare [SLIT] to Palforzia or other studies of low-dose OIT (300 mg/d), they look equal in terms of their efficacy,” said senior author Robert Wood, MD, professor of pediatrics and director of pediatric allergy and immunology at Johns Hopkins. Yet, “I’m afraid we had a major [negative] impact on pharma’s interest in pursuing SLIT.”

Without corporate funding, it’s nearly impossible to conduct the large, multisite trials required for FDA approval of a treatment. And without approved products, many allergists are reluctant to offer the therapy, Dr. Wood said. It “makes your life a lot more complicated to be dabbling in things that are not approved,” he noted.

But at least one company is giving it a go. Applying the SLIT principle of delivering food allergens to tolerance-promoting immune cells in the mouth, New York–based Intrommune Therapeutics recently started enrolling peanut-allergic adults for a phase 1 trial of its experimental toothpaste.

Interest in food-allergy SLIT seems to be growing. “I definitely think that it could be an option for the future,” said Jaclyn Bjelac, MD, associate director of the Food Allergy Center of Excellence at the Cleveland Clinic. “Up until a few months ago, it really wasn’t on our radar.”

On conversations with Dr. Kim, philanthropists and drug developers said they found the recent data on SLIT promising, yet pointed out that food SLIT protocols and products are already in the public domain – they are described in published research using allergen extracts that are on the market. They “can’t see a commercial path forward,” Dr. Kim said in an interview. “And that’s kind of where many of my conversations end.”

Although there are no licensed SLIT products for food allergies, between 2014 and 2017, the FDA approved four sublingual immunotherapy tablets to treat environmental allergies – Stallergenes-Greer’s Oralair and ALK’s Grastek for grass pollens, ALK’s Odactra for dust mites, and ALK’s Ragwitek for short ragweed.

SLIT tablets work as well as allergy shots (subcutaneous immunotherapy) for controlling environmental allergy symptoms, they have a better safety profile, according to AAAAI guidelines, and they can be self-administered at home, which has made them a popular option globally. “Our European colleagues have used sublingual immunotherapy much more frequently than, for example, in the U.S.,” said Kari Nadeau, MD, PhD, director of the Sean N. Parker Center for Allergy and Asthma Research at Stanford (Calif.) University.

Use of SLIT is also increasing in the United States, especially as FDA-approved products become available. In a 2019 survey, the percentage of U.S. allergists who said they were offering sublingual treatment for environmental allergies increased from 5.9% in 2007 to 73.5% in 2019. However, only 11.2% reported extensive SLIT use; the remainder reported some (50.5%) or little (38.3%) use.

As noted above, considerably fewer U.S. allergists use SLIT to treat food allergies. Similarly, a 2021 survey of allergists in Canada found that only 7% offered food sublingual immunotherapy; more than half reported offering OIT.

One practice, Allergy Associates of La Crosse (Wis.), has offered SLIT drops for food and environmental allergies for decades. Since the clinic opened in 1970, more than 200,000 people have been treated with its protocol. Every patient receives customized sublingual drops – “exactly what they’re allergic to, exactly how allergic they are, and then we build from there,” said Jeff Kessler, MBA, FACHE, practice executive at Allergy Associates of La Crosse. “Quite frankly, it’s the way immunotherapy should be done.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com. This is part one of a three-part series. Part two is here. Part three is here.

In the last 5 years, both over-the-counter and professional use of glycolic acid has increased. Glycolic acid is available in creams, pads, lotions, and cleansers, and for compounding, in concentrations of 0.08% to 70%. The extent of exfoliation with any of the alpha hydroxy acids depends on the type of acid, its concentration, and the pH of the preparations. Glycolic acid inhibits tyrosinase and chelates calcium ion concentration between the cells in the epidermis, which results in exfoliation of the skin.

Over-the-counter glycolic acid is available in concentrations up to 30%, and in professional products up to 70%. Clinically, glycolic acid above a concentration of 30% causes local burning, erythema, and dryness.

However, overuse of glycolic acid among consumers has increased the incidence of skin reactions and hyperpigmentation. Professional-grade products containing up to 70% glycolic acid are widely available on the Internet and without proper guidelines on use and sun avoidance, adverse events and long term scarring are becoming prevalent.

The overuse of acids and overexfoliation of the skin in patients with skin types I-IV is a growing problem as consumers are purchasing more “at-home peels,” peel pads, glow pads, and at-home exfoliation regimens. This overexfoliation of the skin and the resulting erythema induces rapid postinflammatory hyperpigmentation. Consumers then often mistakenly try to self-treat the hyperpigmentation with increasing concentrations of acids, retinols, and/or hydroquinone on top of an already compromised skin barrier, further worsening the problem. In addition, these acids increase sensitivity to UV light and increase the risk of sunburns in all skin types.

Although glycolic acids are generally safe, standardized recommendations for their use in the skin care market are necessary. More is not always better. In our clinic, we do not treat patients with postinflammatory hyperpigmentation from acids or peels with more exfoliation. We focus on repairing the barrier for 1-3 months, which includes use of gentle cleansers and occlusive moisturizers, and avoidance of acids, retinols, or scrubs, and aggressive sun protection, and then using gentle fade ingredients – such as kojic acid, licorice root extract, and vitamin C – at low concentrations to slowly decrease melanin production. Barrier repair is the first and most important step and it is often overlooked when clinicians try to lighten the skin in haste.
 

Dr. Lily Talakoub and Dr. Naissan O. Wesley and are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. They had no relevant disclosures. Write to them at [email protected].

In the last 5 years, both over-the-counter and professional use of glycolic acid has increased. Glycolic acid is available in creams, pads, lotions, and cleansers, and for compounding, in concentrations of 0.08% to 70%. The extent of exfoliation with any of the alpha hydroxy acids depends on the type of acid, its concentration, and the pH of the preparations. Glycolic acid inhibits tyrosinase and chelates calcium ion concentration between the cells in the epidermis, which results in exfoliation of the skin.

Over-the-counter glycolic acid is available in concentrations up to 30%, and in professional products up to 70%. Clinically, glycolic acid above a concentration of 30% causes local burning, erythema, and dryness.

However, overuse of glycolic acid among consumers has increased the incidence of skin reactions and hyperpigmentation. Professional-grade products containing up to 70% glycolic acid are widely available on the Internet and without proper guidelines on use and sun avoidance, adverse events and long term scarring are becoming prevalent.

The overuse of acids and overexfoliation of the skin in patients with skin types I-IV is a growing problem as consumers are purchasing more “at-home peels,” peel pads, glow pads, and at-home exfoliation regimens. This overexfoliation of the skin and the resulting erythema induces rapid postinflammatory hyperpigmentation. Consumers then often mistakenly try to self-treat the hyperpigmentation with increasing concentrations of acids, retinols, and/or hydroquinone on top of an already compromised skin barrier, further worsening the problem. In addition, these acids increase sensitivity to UV light and increase the risk of sunburns in all skin types.

Although glycolic acids are generally safe, standardized recommendations for their use in the skin care market are necessary. More is not always better. In our clinic, we do not treat patients with postinflammatory hyperpigmentation from acids or peels with more exfoliation. We focus on repairing the barrier for 1-3 months, which includes use of gentle cleansers and occlusive moisturizers, and avoidance of acids, retinols, or scrubs, and aggressive sun protection, and then using gentle fade ingredients – such as kojic acid, licorice root extract, and vitamin C – at low concentrations to slowly decrease melanin production. Barrier repair is the first and most important step and it is often overlooked when clinicians try to lighten the skin in haste.
 

Dr. Lily Talakoub and Dr. Naissan O. Wesley and are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. They had no relevant disclosures. Write to them at [email protected].

In the last 5 years, both over-the-counter and professional use of glycolic acid has increased. Glycolic acid is available in creams, pads, lotions, and cleansers, and for compounding, in concentrations of 0.08% to 70%. The extent of exfoliation with any of the alpha hydroxy acids depends on the type of acid, its concentration, and the pH of the preparations. Glycolic acid inhibits tyrosinase and chelates calcium ion concentration between the cells in the epidermis, which results in exfoliation of the skin.

Over-the-counter glycolic acid is available in concentrations up to 30%, and in professional products up to 70%. Clinically, glycolic acid above a concentration of 30% causes local burning, erythema, and dryness.

However, overuse of glycolic acid among consumers has increased the incidence of skin reactions and hyperpigmentation. Professional-grade products containing up to 70% glycolic acid are widely available on the Internet and without proper guidelines on use and sun avoidance, adverse events and long term scarring are becoming prevalent.

The overuse of acids and overexfoliation of the skin in patients with skin types I-IV is a growing problem as consumers are purchasing more “at-home peels,” peel pads, glow pads, and at-home exfoliation regimens. This overexfoliation of the skin and the resulting erythema induces rapid postinflammatory hyperpigmentation. Consumers then often mistakenly try to self-treat the hyperpigmentation with increasing concentrations of acids, retinols, and/or hydroquinone on top of an already compromised skin barrier, further worsening the problem. In addition, these acids increase sensitivity to UV light and increase the risk of sunburns in all skin types.

Although glycolic acids are generally safe, standardized recommendations for their use in the skin care market are necessary. More is not always better. In our clinic, we do not treat patients with postinflammatory hyperpigmentation from acids or peels with more exfoliation. We focus on repairing the barrier for 1-3 months, which includes use of gentle cleansers and occlusive moisturizers, and avoidance of acids, retinols, or scrubs, and aggressive sun protection, and then using gentle fade ingredients – such as kojic acid, licorice root extract, and vitamin C – at low concentrations to slowly decrease melanin production. Barrier repair is the first and most important step and it is often overlooked when clinicians try to lighten the skin in haste.
 

Dr. Lily Talakoub and Dr. Naissan O. Wesley and are cocontributors to this column. Dr. Talakoub is in private practice in McLean, Va. Dr. Wesley practices dermatology in Beverly Hills, Calif. This month’s column is by Dr. Talakoub. They had no relevant disclosures. Write to them at [email protected].

To the Editor:

Etanercept is an immune-modulating drug used for the treatment of a variety of diseases including psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. It is an anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) fusion protein consisting of an extracellular domain of the p75 TNF receptor and the Fc portion of human IgG.¹ Etanercept is well known for its immunosuppressive side effects. A handful of case reports have provided evidence of squamous cell cancers in the setting of etanercept therapy. The most comprehensive description was a case series by Brewer et al² describing 4 patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) that developed 1 to 17 months after the initiation of etanercept therapy. We present a case of a patient diagnosed with psoriasis and concomitant porokeratosis who developed multiple SCCs and squamous proliferations after initiation of etanercept therapy.

A 66-year-old man was referred to our clinic for treatment of psoriasis, as noted on a biopsy of the right ankle diagnosed several years prior. He was being treated with etanercept 50 mg twice weekly. Other treatments included calcipotriene–betamethasone dipropionate, salicylic acid gel, intralesional triamcinolone, clobetasol, and urea 40%. Physical examination revealed multiple erythematous tender nodules with hyperkeratotic scale distributed on the right arm and leg (Figure 1) that were concerning for SCC. Biopsies from 6 lesions revealed multiple SCC/keratoacanthomas (KAs) with verrucous features (Figure 2). Primers for human papillomavirus (HPV) 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, and 51 were all negative. At that time, etanercept was discontinued. The patient was referred for Mohs micrographic surgery and underwent excision of several SCC lesions including an approximately 7-cm SCC on the right ankle (Figure 1B). Positron emission tomography/computed tomography found hypermetabolic lymphadenopathy. A follow-up biopsy of the inguinal nodes identified no malignant cells. Given their multiplicity, the patient was initiated on a prolonged course of a retinoid with acitretin 35 mg daily. The clearance of the large 7-cm lesion with a single stage of Mohs micrographic surgery directed suspicion to a pseudoepitheliomatous or HPV-induced cause for the lesions. Rereview of the original 6 biopsies indicated 1 definitive SCC on the right wrist, 2 KAs, and 3 that were most consistent with verruca vulgaris. At 1-year follow-up, most of the hyperkeratotic lesions had resolved with continued acitretin. Baseline porokeratosis lesions that were abundantly present on the arms and legs resolved by 1-year follow-up (Figure 3A).

The link between classic porokeratosis and the development of squamous cell proliferations is well established. Ninomiya et al³ noted a possible mechanism of p53 overexpression in the epidermis of porokeratotic lesions that may make the lesions particularly susceptible to the development of immunosuppression-induced SCC. Etanercept is an immune-modulating drug with well-known immunosuppressive side effects including reactivation of HPV as well as the development of SCCs.

Our patient initially was diagnosed with psoriasis and etanercept was initiated. The presence of coexistent porokeratosis likely predisposed him to etanercept-induced squamous proliferations including 2 SCCs and verrucous lesions, with histologic features suggesting SCC/KA. Histopathology revealed a cornoid lamella in SCC (Figure 3B), suggesting development of malignancy within epithelial clones, as noted by Lee et al.⁴

Targeted systemic therapies may lead to the formation of SCCs. The association between epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) kinase inhibitors and SCC formation is well known. For instance, sorafenib—a multikinase inhibitor that is downstream in the EGFR pathway—has been noted to induce epidermal growths including KAs and SCCs.⁵ There has been no definitive causal relationship identified between the development of SCC and TNF-α inhibitors. It has been suggested that perhaps there is an unmasking effect, as subclinical SCC manifests after TNF-α inhibition that leads to SCC development. Discontinuation of etanercept and resolution of lesions highlights a potential role of TNF-α inhibition and tumorigenesis of SCCs, especially in the background of porokeratosis. Vigilance for development of immunosuppression-induced malignancy, especially squamous cell proliferations, has become exceedingly important with exponentially increasing use of biologic therapies in medicine.

To the Editor:

Etanercept is an immune-modulating drug used for the treatment of a variety of diseases including psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. It is an anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) fusion protein consisting of an extracellular domain of the p75 TNF receptor and the Fc portion of human IgG.¹ Etanercept is well known for its immunosuppressive side effects. A handful of case reports have provided evidence of squamous cell cancers in the setting of etanercept therapy. The most comprehensive description was a case series by Brewer et al² describing 4 patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) that developed 1 to 17 months after the initiation of etanercept therapy. We present a case of a patient diagnosed with psoriasis and concomitant porokeratosis who developed multiple SCCs and squamous proliferations after initiation of etanercept therapy.

A 66-year-old man was referred to our clinic for treatment of psoriasis, as noted on a biopsy of the right ankle diagnosed several years prior. He was being treated with etanercept 50 mg twice weekly. Other treatments included calcipotriene–betamethasone dipropionate, salicylic acid gel, intralesional triamcinolone, clobetasol, and urea 40%. Physical examination revealed multiple erythematous tender nodules with hyperkeratotic scale distributed on the right arm and leg (Figure 1) that were concerning for SCC. Biopsies from 6 lesions revealed multiple SCC/keratoacanthomas (KAs) with verrucous features (Figure 2). Primers for human papillomavirus (HPV) 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, and 51 were all negative. At that time, etanercept was discontinued. The patient was referred for Mohs micrographic surgery and underwent excision of several SCC lesions including an approximately 7-cm SCC on the right ankle (Figure 1B). Positron emission tomography/computed tomography found hypermetabolic lymphadenopathy. A follow-up biopsy of the inguinal nodes identified no malignant cells. Given their multiplicity, the patient was initiated on a prolonged course of a retinoid with acitretin 35 mg daily. The clearance of the large 7-cm lesion with a single stage of Mohs micrographic surgery directed suspicion to a pseudoepitheliomatous or HPV-induced cause for the lesions. Rereview of the original 6 biopsies indicated 1 definitive SCC on the right wrist, 2 KAs, and 3 that were most consistent with verruca vulgaris. At 1-year follow-up, most of the hyperkeratotic lesions had resolved with continued acitretin. Baseline porokeratosis lesions that were abundantly present on the arms and legs resolved by 1-year follow-up (Figure 3A).

The link between classic porokeratosis and the development of squamous cell proliferations is well established. Ninomiya et al³ noted a possible mechanism of p53 overexpression in the epidermis of porokeratotic lesions that may make the lesions particularly susceptible to the development of immunosuppression-induced SCC. Etanercept is an immune-modulating drug with well-known immunosuppressive side effects including reactivation of HPV as well as the development of SCCs.

Our patient initially was diagnosed with psoriasis and etanercept was initiated. The presence of coexistent porokeratosis likely predisposed him to etanercept-induced squamous proliferations including 2 SCCs and verrucous lesions, with histologic features suggesting SCC/KA. Histopathology revealed a cornoid lamella in SCC (Figure 3B), suggesting development of malignancy within epithelial clones, as noted by Lee et al.⁴

Targeted systemic therapies may lead to the formation of SCCs. The association between epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) kinase inhibitors and SCC formation is well known. For instance, sorafenib—a multikinase inhibitor that is downstream in the EGFR pathway—has been noted to induce epidermal growths including KAs and SCCs.⁵ There has been no definitive causal relationship identified between the development of SCC and TNF-α inhibitors. It has been suggested that perhaps there is an unmasking effect, as subclinical SCC manifests after TNF-α inhibition that leads to SCC development. Discontinuation of etanercept and resolution of lesions highlights a potential role of TNF-α inhibition and tumorigenesis of SCCs, especially in the background of porokeratosis. Vigilance for development of immunosuppression-induced malignancy, especially squamous cell proliferations, has become exceedingly important with exponentially increasing use of biologic therapies in medicine.

To the Editor:

Etanercept is an immune-modulating drug used for the treatment of a variety of diseases including psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. It is an anti–tumor necrosis factor (TNF) fusion protein consisting of an extracellular domain of the p75 TNF receptor and the Fc portion of human IgG.¹ Etanercept is well known for its immunosuppressive side effects. A handful of case reports have provided evidence of squamous cell cancers in the setting of etanercept therapy. The most comprehensive description was a case series by Brewer et al² describing 4 patients with squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) that developed 1 to 17 months after the initiation of etanercept therapy. We present a case of a patient diagnosed with psoriasis and concomitant porokeratosis who developed multiple SCCs and squamous proliferations after initiation of etanercept therapy.

A 66-year-old man was referred to our clinic for treatment of psoriasis, as noted on a biopsy of the right ankle diagnosed several years prior. He was being treated with etanercept 50 mg twice weekly. Other treatments included calcipotriene–betamethasone dipropionate, salicylic acid gel, intralesional triamcinolone, clobetasol, and urea 40%. Physical examination revealed multiple erythematous tender nodules with hyperkeratotic scale distributed on the right arm and leg (Figure 1) that were concerning for SCC. Biopsies from 6 lesions revealed multiple SCC/keratoacanthomas (KAs) with verrucous features (Figure 2). Primers for human papillomavirus (HPV) 6, 11, 16, 18, 31, 33, and 51 were all negative. At that time, etanercept was discontinued. The patient was referred for Mohs micrographic surgery and underwent excision of several SCC lesions including an approximately 7-cm SCC on the right ankle (Figure 1B). Positron emission tomography/computed tomography found hypermetabolic lymphadenopathy. A follow-up biopsy of the inguinal nodes identified no malignant cells. Given their multiplicity, the patient was initiated on a prolonged course of a retinoid with acitretin 35 mg daily. The clearance of the large 7-cm lesion with a single stage of Mohs micrographic surgery directed suspicion to a pseudoepitheliomatous or HPV-induced cause for the lesions. Rereview of the original 6 biopsies indicated 1 definitive SCC on the right wrist, 2 KAs, and 3 that were most consistent with verruca vulgaris. At 1-year follow-up, most of the hyperkeratotic lesions had resolved with continued acitretin. Baseline porokeratosis lesions that were abundantly present on the arms and legs resolved by 1-year follow-up (Figure 3A).

The link between classic porokeratosis and the development of squamous cell proliferations is well established. Ninomiya et al³ noted a possible mechanism of p53 overexpression in the epidermis of porokeratotic lesions that may make the lesions particularly susceptible to the development of immunosuppression-induced SCC. Etanercept is an immune-modulating drug with well-known immunosuppressive side effects including reactivation of HPV as well as the development of SCCs.

Our patient initially was diagnosed with psoriasis and etanercept was initiated. The presence of coexistent porokeratosis likely predisposed him to etanercept-induced squamous proliferations including 2 SCCs and verrucous lesions, with histologic features suggesting SCC/KA. Histopathology revealed a cornoid lamella in SCC (Figure 3B), suggesting development of malignancy within epithelial clones, as noted by Lee et al.⁴

Targeted systemic therapies may lead to the formation of SCCs. The association between epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) kinase inhibitors and SCC formation is well known. For instance, sorafenib—a multikinase inhibitor that is downstream in the EGFR pathway—has been noted to induce epidermal growths including KAs and SCCs.⁵ There has been no definitive causal relationship identified between the development of SCC and TNF-α inhibitors. It has been suggested that perhaps there is an unmasking effect, as subclinical SCC manifests after TNF-α inhibition that leads to SCC development. Discontinuation of etanercept and resolution of lesions highlights a potential role of TNF-α inhibition and tumorigenesis of SCCs, especially in the background of porokeratosis. Vigilance for development of immunosuppression-induced malignancy, especially squamous cell proliferations, has become exceedingly important with exponentially increasing use of biologic therapies in medicine.

Obesity, atopic dermatitis, psychiatric disease, and arthritis are the most common comorbidities among infants, children, and adolescents with psoriasis, while predictors of moderate to severe disease include morphology, non-White race, and culture-confirmed infection.

Those are among the key findings from a retrospective analysis of pediatric psoriasis patients who were seen at the University of California, San Francisco, over a 24-year period.

“Overall, our data support prior findings of age- and sex-based differences in location and morphology and presents new information demonstrating associations with severity,” presenting study author Carmel Aghdasi said during the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “We provide evidence of the increased use of systemic and biologic therapies over time, an important step in ensuring pediatric patients are adequately treated.”

To characterize the demographics, clinical features, comorbidities, and treatments, and to determine predictors of severity and changes in treatment patterns over 2 decades in a large cohort of pediatric psoriasis patients, Ms. Aghdasi, a 4th-year medical student at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues retrospectively evaluated the records of 754 pediatric patients up to 18 years of age who were seen at UCSF for psoriasis from 1997 to 2021. They collected demographic, clinical, familial, comorbidity, and treatment data and divided the cohort into two groups by date of last visit.

Group 1 consisted of 332 patients whose last visit was between 2001 and 2011, while the second group included 422 patients whose last visit was between 2012 and 2021. The researchers also divided the cohort into three age groups: infants (0-2 years of age), children (3-12 years of age), and adolescents (13-18 years of age).

Slightly more than half of the patients (55%) were female and 67% presented between ages 3 and 12. (Seventy-four patients were in the youngest category, 0-2 years, when they presented.) The average age of disease onset was 7 years, the average age at presentation to pediatric dermatology was 8.8 years, and 37% of the total cohort were overweight or obese. The top four comorbidities were being overweight or obese (37%), followed by atopic dermatitis (19%), psychiatric disease (7%), and arthritis (4%).

Plaque was the most common morphology (56%), while the most common sites of involvement were the head and neck (69%), extremities (61%), and trunk (44%). About half of the cohort (51%) had mild disease, 15% had culture-confirmed infections (9% had Streptococcal infections), and 66% of patients reported itch as a symptom.

The researchers observed that inverse psoriasis was significantly more common in infants and decreased with age. Anogenital involvement was more common in males and in those aged 0-2, while head and neck involvement was more common in females. Nail involvement was more common in childhood.

Topical therapy was the most common treatment overall and by far the most common among those in the 0-2 age category. “Overall, phototherapy was used in childhood and adolescents but almost never in infancy,” Ms. Aghdasi said. “Looking at changes in systemic treatment over time, conventional systemic use increased in infants and children and decreased in adolescents. Biologic use increased in all ages, most notably in children aged 3-12 years old.”

Multivariate regression analyses revealed that the following independent variables predicted moderate to severe psoriasis: adolescent age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.9; P = .03), guttate morphology (aOR, 2.2; P = .006), plaque and guttate morphology (aOR, 7.6; P less than .001), pustular or erythrodermic morphology (aOR, 5; P = .003), culture-confirmed infection (aOR, 2; P = .007), Black race (aOR, 3.3; P = .007), Asian race (aOR, 1.8; P = .04, and Hispanic race (aOR, 1.9; P = .03).

“Further analysis is needed to elucidate the influence of race on severity and of the clinical utility of infection as a marker of severity,” Ms. Aghdasi said. “Interestingly, we did not find that obesity was a marker of severity in our cohort.”

In an interview, senior study author Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at UCSF, noted that this finding conflicts with prior studies showing an association between obesity and severe psoriasis in children.

[email protected]

Obesity, atopic dermatitis, psychiatric disease, and arthritis are the most common comorbidities among infants, children, and adolescents with psoriasis, while predictors of moderate to severe disease include morphology, non-White race, and culture-confirmed infection.

Those are among the key findings from a retrospective analysis of pediatric psoriasis patients who were seen at the University of California, San Francisco, over a 24-year period.

“Overall, our data support prior findings of age- and sex-based differences in location and morphology and presents new information demonstrating associations with severity,” presenting study author Carmel Aghdasi said during the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “We provide evidence of the increased use of systemic and biologic therapies over time, an important step in ensuring pediatric patients are adequately treated.”

To characterize the demographics, clinical features, comorbidities, and treatments, and to determine predictors of severity and changes in treatment patterns over 2 decades in a large cohort of pediatric psoriasis patients, Ms. Aghdasi, a 4th-year medical student at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues retrospectively evaluated the records of 754 pediatric patients up to 18 years of age who were seen at UCSF for psoriasis from 1997 to 2021. They collected demographic, clinical, familial, comorbidity, and treatment data and divided the cohort into two groups by date of last visit.

Group 1 consisted of 332 patients whose last visit was between 2001 and 2011, while the second group included 422 patients whose last visit was between 2012 and 2021. The researchers also divided the cohort into three age groups: infants (0-2 years of age), children (3-12 years of age), and adolescents (13-18 years of age).

Slightly more than half of the patients (55%) were female and 67% presented between ages 3 and 12. (Seventy-four patients were in the youngest category, 0-2 years, when they presented.) The average age of disease onset was 7 years, the average age at presentation to pediatric dermatology was 8.8 years, and 37% of the total cohort were overweight or obese. The top four comorbidities were being overweight or obese (37%), followed by atopic dermatitis (19%), psychiatric disease (7%), and arthritis (4%).

Plaque was the most common morphology (56%), while the most common sites of involvement were the head and neck (69%), extremities (61%), and trunk (44%). About half of the cohort (51%) had mild disease, 15% had culture-confirmed infections (9% had Streptococcal infections), and 66% of patients reported itch as a symptom.

The researchers observed that inverse psoriasis was significantly more common in infants and decreased with age. Anogenital involvement was more common in males and in those aged 0-2, while head and neck involvement was more common in females. Nail involvement was more common in childhood.

Topical therapy was the most common treatment overall and by far the most common among those in the 0-2 age category. “Overall, phototherapy was used in childhood and adolescents but almost never in infancy,” Ms. Aghdasi said. “Looking at changes in systemic treatment over time, conventional systemic use increased in infants and children and decreased in adolescents. Biologic use increased in all ages, most notably in children aged 3-12 years old.”

Multivariate regression analyses revealed that the following independent variables predicted moderate to severe psoriasis: adolescent age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.9; P = .03), guttate morphology (aOR, 2.2; P = .006), plaque and guttate morphology (aOR, 7.6; P less than .001), pustular or erythrodermic morphology (aOR, 5; P = .003), culture-confirmed infection (aOR, 2; P = .007), Black race (aOR, 3.3; P = .007), Asian race (aOR, 1.8; P = .04, and Hispanic race (aOR, 1.9; P = .03).

“Further analysis is needed to elucidate the influence of race on severity and of the clinical utility of infection as a marker of severity,” Ms. Aghdasi said. “Interestingly, we did not find that obesity was a marker of severity in our cohort.”

In an interview, senior study author Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at UCSF, noted that this finding conflicts with prior studies showing an association between obesity and severe psoriasis in children.

[email protected]

Obesity, atopic dermatitis, psychiatric disease, and arthritis are the most common comorbidities among infants, children, and adolescents with psoriasis, while predictors of moderate to severe disease include morphology, non-White race, and culture-confirmed infection.

Those are among the key findings from a retrospective analysis of pediatric psoriasis patients who were seen at the University of California, San Francisco, over a 24-year period.

“Overall, our data support prior findings of age- and sex-based differences in location and morphology and presents new information demonstrating associations with severity,” presenting study author Carmel Aghdasi said during the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “We provide evidence of the increased use of systemic and biologic therapies over time, an important step in ensuring pediatric patients are adequately treated.”

To characterize the demographics, clinical features, comorbidities, and treatments, and to determine predictors of severity and changes in treatment patterns over 2 decades in a large cohort of pediatric psoriasis patients, Ms. Aghdasi, a 4th-year medical student at the University of California, San Francisco, and colleagues retrospectively evaluated the records of 754 pediatric patients up to 18 years of age who were seen at UCSF for psoriasis from 1997 to 2021. They collected demographic, clinical, familial, comorbidity, and treatment data and divided the cohort into two groups by date of last visit.

Group 1 consisted of 332 patients whose last visit was between 2001 and 2011, while the second group included 422 patients whose last visit was between 2012 and 2021. The researchers also divided the cohort into three age groups: infants (0-2 years of age), children (3-12 years of age), and adolescents (13-18 years of age).

Slightly more than half of the patients (55%) were female and 67% presented between ages 3 and 12. (Seventy-four patients were in the youngest category, 0-2 years, when they presented.) The average age of disease onset was 7 years, the average age at presentation to pediatric dermatology was 8.8 years, and 37% of the total cohort were overweight or obese. The top four comorbidities were being overweight or obese (37%), followed by atopic dermatitis (19%), psychiatric disease (7%), and arthritis (4%).

Plaque was the most common morphology (56%), while the most common sites of involvement were the head and neck (69%), extremities (61%), and trunk (44%). About half of the cohort (51%) had mild disease, 15% had culture-confirmed infections (9% had Streptococcal infections), and 66% of patients reported itch as a symptom.

The researchers observed that inverse psoriasis was significantly more common in infants and decreased with age. Anogenital involvement was more common in males and in those aged 0-2, while head and neck involvement was more common in females. Nail involvement was more common in childhood.

Topical therapy was the most common treatment overall and by far the most common among those in the 0-2 age category. “Overall, phototherapy was used in childhood and adolescents but almost never in infancy,” Ms. Aghdasi said. “Looking at changes in systemic treatment over time, conventional systemic use increased in infants and children and decreased in adolescents. Biologic use increased in all ages, most notably in children aged 3-12 years old.”

Multivariate regression analyses revealed that the following independent variables predicted moderate to severe psoriasis: adolescent age (adjusted odds ratio, 1.9; P = .03), guttate morphology (aOR, 2.2; P = .006), plaque and guttate morphology (aOR, 7.6; P less than .001), pustular or erythrodermic morphology (aOR, 5; P = .003), culture-confirmed infection (aOR, 2; P = .007), Black race (aOR, 3.3; P = .007), Asian race (aOR, 1.8; P = .04, and Hispanic race (aOR, 1.9; P = .03).

“Further analysis is needed to elucidate the influence of race on severity and of the clinical utility of infection as a marker of severity,” Ms. Aghdasi said. “Interestingly, we did not find that obesity was a marker of severity in our cohort.”

In an interview, senior study author Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at UCSF, noted that this finding conflicts with prior studies showing an association between obesity and severe psoriasis in children.

[email protected]

To the Editor:

A 56-year-old man with a history of stage IV metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma treated with penectomy and chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin presented with several painful ulcerations in the groin, abdomen, and thighs. The lesions initially appeared in the groin and were treated as bacterial abscesses with antibiotics. Over the next few weeks, new lesions appeared on the abdomen and thighs. An additional cycle of chemotherapy led to a reduction in number; however, they again increased within a few weeks. Medications included enoxaparin followed by 3 weeks of warfarin use due to a right leg deep vein thrombosis.

Physical examination revealed multiple 1- to 4-cm, firm, ulcerated nodules on the bilateral inguinal folds, abdomen, and upper thighs, as well as areas of livedo racemosa and noninflammatory retiform purpura with central ulceration (Figures 1 and 2). This retiform purpura was both perilesional and in areas without ulcerations. Laboratory values included the following: sodium, 127 mmol/L (reference range, 136–145 mmol/L); prothrombin time, 16.1 seconds (reference range, 11–15 seconds); white blood cell count, 20.69×10⁹/L (reference range, 4.5–11.0×10⁹/L) with 87% neutrophils (reference range, 54%–62%); hemoglobin, 6.1 g/dL (reference range, 13.5–17.5 g/dL); hematocrit, 18.8% (reference range, 41%–53%); platelets, 474×10⁹/L (reference range, 150–400×10⁹/L); D-dimer, 0.77 mg/L (reference range, ≤0.50 mg/L); fibrinogen, 489 mg/dL (reference range, 150–400 mg/dL); prior urine culture positive for Pseudomonas aeruginosa. He was negative for hepatitis B and hepatitis C viruses as well as HIV, and the lesions were not clinically consistent with herpes simplex virus, as they were not scalloped or circinate. Punch biopsies were obtained from a nodule on the left leg and a purpuric patch on the right leg.

Ischemic cutaneous lesions less commonly occur in the setting of malignancy and can be the result of both direct and indirect systemic effects from the cancer. Malignancies are known to directly trigger vasculopathies in other organs, most commonly the lungs, through 2 primary mechanisms. First, in carcinomatous arteriopathy, metastatic cells promote fibrocellular intimal proliferation of small pulmonary arteries and arterioles leading to stenosis, thrombosis, and obliteration. This mechanism has been described in pulmonary thrombotic microangiopathy secondary to lung carcinoma.⁴ This pathophysiology likely is also what underlies paraneoplastic acral vascular syndromes, which culminate in digital ischemia. Hypothesized mechanisms for this ischemia also range from vasospasm to thromboembolism.⁵ Secondly, in vasculitis carcinomatosa, metastatic tumor cells damage or block vessel walls, resulting in end-organ ischemia. Vasculitis carcinomatosa is a well-known phenomenon in angiocentric and intravascular lymphoid malignancies (typically of B-T or natural killer/T-cell origin) but also has been reported in a case of gastric adenocarcinoma with arterial invasion.⁶ This process is different than carcinoma telangiectoides where malignant cells may be present in the vasculature on histopathology but not trigger thrombosis and ischemic skin necrosis.

Systemic coagulopathies such as disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), thrombotic thrombocytopenia purpura, and catastrophic antiphospholipid antibody syndrome can occur in the setting of malignancies.⁷ Clinically, all may present with livedo racemosa, noninflammatory retiform purpura, and widespread skin necrosis. In adult patients, purpura fulminans most often is seen in the setting of sepsis and DIC, with accompanying evidence of microangiopathy.⁸ Catastrophic antiphospholipid antibody syndrome can be triggered by malignancy and is characterized by central nervous system, renal, pulmonary, and gastrointestinal complications. Skin involvement such as ulcers, livedo reticularis, and gangrene have been reported.⁹ Other causes of thrombotic vasculopathy include warfarin necrosis, heparin-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia, calciphylaxis, and angioinvasive infections.⁸ Warfarin necrosis and heparin-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia typically present days after initiating therapy with the respective medication. Calciphylaxis typically occurs in patients on dialysis, though it may occur in nonuremic patients including those with malignancy.⁸ Patients with malignancies on chemotherapy can become neutropenic and are at risk for ecthyma gangrenosum due to P aeruginosa and other gram-negative rods, Staphylococcus aureus, and angioinvasive fungi.¹⁰

Based on clinical, histopathological, and laboratory data, we favored a diagnosis of cutaneous carcinomatous arteriopathy. Vasculitis carcinomatosa was a possibility despite the lack of vasculotropism on histopathology, which may have been due to biopsy site selection. Systemic coagulopathies such as DIC, thrombotic thrombocytopenia purpura, and catastrophic antiphospholipid antibody syndrome were unlikely, as the ischemic skin lesions and livedo racemosa were limited to areas adjacent to cutaneous metastases, and the patient lacked other common multiorgan manifestations or laboratory findings. Although our patient was on warfarin, he was on a stable dose for weeks and histopathologic features of subcutaneous thrombosis were not seen. The biopsy also was not consistent with calciphylaxis. Ecthyma gangrenosum was unlikely given the lack of organisms on histopathology and negative skin and blood cultures. Although additional laboratory testing in this patient may have included cryoglobulins and cryofibrinogens, both entities were unlikely due to a lack of ischemic acral lesions.

In conclusion, we present a case of localized thrombotic vasculopathy that likely was secondary to cutaneous carcinomatous arteriopathy in the setting of cutaneous metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma. The differential diagnosis of retiform purpura, livedo racemosa, and other signs of cutaneous ischemia in patients with metastatic cancer is broad and can be the result of both direct and indirect systemic effects from the cancer. Appropriate workup in these cases should include skin biopsies for histopathology and culture, medication review, and laboratory evaluation for systemic coagulopathies.

To the Editor:

A 56-year-old man with a history of stage IV metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma treated with penectomy and chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin presented with several painful ulcerations in the groin, abdomen, and thighs. The lesions initially appeared in the groin and were treated as bacterial abscesses with antibiotics. Over the next few weeks, new lesions appeared on the abdomen and thighs. An additional cycle of chemotherapy led to a reduction in number; however, they again increased within a few weeks. Medications included enoxaparin followed by 3 weeks of warfarin use due to a right leg deep vein thrombosis.

Physical examination revealed multiple 1- to 4-cm, firm, ulcerated nodules on the bilateral inguinal folds, abdomen, and upper thighs, as well as areas of livedo racemosa and noninflammatory retiform purpura with central ulceration (Figures 1 and 2). This retiform purpura was both perilesional and in areas without ulcerations. Laboratory values included the following: sodium, 127 mmol/L (reference range, 136–145 mmol/L); prothrombin time, 16.1 seconds (reference range, 11–15 seconds); white blood cell count, 20.69×10⁹/L (reference range, 4.5–11.0×10⁹/L) with 87% neutrophils (reference range, 54%–62%); hemoglobin, 6.1 g/dL (reference range, 13.5–17.5 g/dL); hematocrit, 18.8% (reference range, 41%–53%); platelets, 474×10⁹/L (reference range, 150–400×10⁹/L); D-dimer, 0.77 mg/L (reference range, ≤0.50 mg/L); fibrinogen, 489 mg/dL (reference range, 150–400 mg/dL); prior urine culture positive for Pseudomonas aeruginosa. He was negative for hepatitis B and hepatitis C viruses as well as HIV, and the lesions were not clinically consistent with herpes simplex virus, as they were not scalloped or circinate. Punch biopsies were obtained from a nodule on the left leg and a purpuric patch on the right leg.

Ischemic cutaneous lesions less commonly occur in the setting of malignancy and can be the result of both direct and indirect systemic effects from the cancer. Malignancies are known to directly trigger vasculopathies in other organs, most commonly the lungs, through 2 primary mechanisms. First, in carcinomatous arteriopathy, metastatic cells promote fibrocellular intimal proliferation of small pulmonary arteries and arterioles leading to stenosis, thrombosis, and obliteration. This mechanism has been described in pulmonary thrombotic microangiopathy secondary to lung carcinoma.⁴ This pathophysiology likely is also what underlies paraneoplastic acral vascular syndromes, which culminate in digital ischemia. Hypothesized mechanisms for this ischemia also range from vasospasm to thromboembolism.⁵ Secondly, in vasculitis carcinomatosa, metastatic tumor cells damage or block vessel walls, resulting in end-organ ischemia. Vasculitis carcinomatosa is a well-known phenomenon in angiocentric and intravascular lymphoid malignancies (typically of B-T or natural killer/T-cell origin) but also has been reported in a case of gastric adenocarcinoma with arterial invasion.⁶ This process is different than carcinoma telangiectoides where malignant cells may be present in the vasculature on histopathology but not trigger thrombosis and ischemic skin necrosis.

Systemic coagulopathies such as disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), thrombotic thrombocytopenia purpura, and catastrophic antiphospholipid antibody syndrome can occur in the setting of malignancies.⁷ Clinically, all may present with livedo racemosa, noninflammatory retiform purpura, and widespread skin necrosis. In adult patients, purpura fulminans most often is seen in the setting of sepsis and DIC, with accompanying evidence of microangiopathy.⁸ Catastrophic antiphospholipid antibody syndrome can be triggered by malignancy and is characterized by central nervous system, renal, pulmonary, and gastrointestinal complications. Skin involvement such as ulcers, livedo reticularis, and gangrene have been reported.⁹ Other causes of thrombotic vasculopathy include warfarin necrosis, heparin-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia, calciphylaxis, and angioinvasive infections.⁸ Warfarin necrosis and heparin-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia typically present days after initiating therapy with the respective medication. Calciphylaxis typically occurs in patients on dialysis, though it may occur in nonuremic patients including those with malignancy.⁸ Patients with malignancies on chemotherapy can become neutropenic and are at risk for ecthyma gangrenosum due to P aeruginosa and other gram-negative rods, Staphylococcus aureus, and angioinvasive fungi.¹⁰

Based on clinical, histopathological, and laboratory data, we favored a diagnosis of cutaneous carcinomatous arteriopathy. Vasculitis carcinomatosa was a possibility despite the lack of vasculotropism on histopathology, which may have been due to biopsy site selection. Systemic coagulopathies such as DIC, thrombotic thrombocytopenia purpura, and catastrophic antiphospholipid antibody syndrome were unlikely, as the ischemic skin lesions and livedo racemosa were limited to areas adjacent to cutaneous metastases, and the patient lacked other common multiorgan manifestations or laboratory findings. Although our patient was on warfarin, he was on a stable dose for weeks and histopathologic features of subcutaneous thrombosis were not seen. The biopsy also was not consistent with calciphylaxis. Ecthyma gangrenosum was unlikely given the lack of organisms on histopathology and negative skin and blood cultures. Although additional laboratory testing in this patient may have included cryoglobulins and cryofibrinogens, both entities were unlikely due to a lack of ischemic acral lesions.

In conclusion, we present a case of localized thrombotic vasculopathy that likely was secondary to cutaneous carcinomatous arteriopathy in the setting of cutaneous metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma. The differential diagnosis of retiform purpura, livedo racemosa, and other signs of cutaneous ischemia in patients with metastatic cancer is broad and can be the result of both direct and indirect systemic effects from the cancer. Appropriate workup in these cases should include skin biopsies for histopathology and culture, medication review, and laboratory evaluation for systemic coagulopathies.

To the Editor:

A 56-year-old man with a history of stage IV metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma treated with penectomy and chemotherapy with 5-fluorouracil and cisplatin presented with several painful ulcerations in the groin, abdomen, and thighs. The lesions initially appeared in the groin and were treated as bacterial abscesses with antibiotics. Over the next few weeks, new lesions appeared on the abdomen and thighs. An additional cycle of chemotherapy led to a reduction in number; however, they again increased within a few weeks. Medications included enoxaparin followed by 3 weeks of warfarin use due to a right leg deep vein thrombosis.

Physical examination revealed multiple 1- to 4-cm, firm, ulcerated nodules on the bilateral inguinal folds, abdomen, and upper thighs, as well as areas of livedo racemosa and noninflammatory retiform purpura with central ulceration (Figures 1 and 2). This retiform purpura was both perilesional and in areas without ulcerations. Laboratory values included the following: sodium, 127 mmol/L (reference range, 136–145 mmol/L); prothrombin time, 16.1 seconds (reference range, 11–15 seconds); white blood cell count, 20.69×10⁹/L (reference range, 4.5–11.0×10⁹/L) with 87% neutrophils (reference range, 54%–62%); hemoglobin, 6.1 g/dL (reference range, 13.5–17.5 g/dL); hematocrit, 18.8% (reference range, 41%–53%); platelets, 474×10⁹/L (reference range, 150–400×10⁹/L); D-dimer, 0.77 mg/L (reference range, ≤0.50 mg/L); fibrinogen, 489 mg/dL (reference range, 150–400 mg/dL); prior urine culture positive for Pseudomonas aeruginosa. He was negative for hepatitis B and hepatitis C viruses as well as HIV, and the lesions were not clinically consistent with herpes simplex virus, as they were not scalloped or circinate. Punch biopsies were obtained from a nodule on the left leg and a purpuric patch on the right leg.

Ischemic cutaneous lesions less commonly occur in the setting of malignancy and can be the result of both direct and indirect systemic effects from the cancer. Malignancies are known to directly trigger vasculopathies in other organs, most commonly the lungs, through 2 primary mechanisms. First, in carcinomatous arteriopathy, metastatic cells promote fibrocellular intimal proliferation of small pulmonary arteries and arterioles leading to stenosis, thrombosis, and obliteration. This mechanism has been described in pulmonary thrombotic microangiopathy secondary to lung carcinoma.⁴ This pathophysiology likely is also what underlies paraneoplastic acral vascular syndromes, which culminate in digital ischemia. Hypothesized mechanisms for this ischemia also range from vasospasm to thromboembolism.⁵ Secondly, in vasculitis carcinomatosa, metastatic tumor cells damage or block vessel walls, resulting in end-organ ischemia. Vasculitis carcinomatosa is a well-known phenomenon in angiocentric and intravascular lymphoid malignancies (typically of B-T or natural killer/T-cell origin) but also has been reported in a case of gastric adenocarcinoma with arterial invasion.⁶ This process is different than carcinoma telangiectoides where malignant cells may be present in the vasculature on histopathology but not trigger thrombosis and ischemic skin necrosis.

Systemic coagulopathies such as disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), thrombotic thrombocytopenia purpura, and catastrophic antiphospholipid antibody syndrome can occur in the setting of malignancies.⁷ Clinically, all may present with livedo racemosa, noninflammatory retiform purpura, and widespread skin necrosis. In adult patients, purpura fulminans most often is seen in the setting of sepsis and DIC, with accompanying evidence of microangiopathy.⁸ Catastrophic antiphospholipid antibody syndrome can be triggered by malignancy and is characterized by central nervous system, renal, pulmonary, and gastrointestinal complications. Skin involvement such as ulcers, livedo reticularis, and gangrene have been reported.⁹ Other causes of thrombotic vasculopathy include warfarin necrosis, heparin-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia, calciphylaxis, and angioinvasive infections.⁸ Warfarin necrosis and heparin-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia typically present days after initiating therapy with the respective medication. Calciphylaxis typically occurs in patients on dialysis, though it may occur in nonuremic patients including those with malignancy.⁸ Patients with malignancies on chemotherapy can become neutropenic and are at risk for ecthyma gangrenosum due to P aeruginosa and other gram-negative rods, Staphylococcus aureus, and angioinvasive fungi.¹⁰

Based on clinical, histopathological, and laboratory data, we favored a diagnosis of cutaneous carcinomatous arteriopathy. Vasculitis carcinomatosa was a possibility despite the lack of vasculotropism on histopathology, which may have been due to biopsy site selection. Systemic coagulopathies such as DIC, thrombotic thrombocytopenia purpura, and catastrophic antiphospholipid antibody syndrome were unlikely, as the ischemic skin lesions and livedo racemosa were limited to areas adjacent to cutaneous metastases, and the patient lacked other common multiorgan manifestations or laboratory findings. Although our patient was on warfarin, he was on a stable dose for weeks and histopathologic features of subcutaneous thrombosis were not seen. The biopsy also was not consistent with calciphylaxis. Ecthyma gangrenosum was unlikely given the lack of organisms on histopathology and negative skin and blood cultures. Although additional laboratory testing in this patient may have included cryoglobulins and cryofibrinogens, both entities were unlikely due to a lack of ischemic acral lesions.

In conclusion, we present a case of localized thrombotic vasculopathy that likely was secondary to cutaneous carcinomatous arteriopathy in the setting of cutaneous metastatic penile squamous cell carcinoma. The differential diagnosis of retiform purpura, livedo racemosa, and other signs of cutaneous ischemia in patients with metastatic cancer is broad and can be the result of both direct and indirect systemic effects from the cancer. Appropriate workup in these cases should include skin biopsies for histopathology and culture, medication review, and laboratory evaluation for systemic coagulopathies.

Intraosseous (IO) access can afford a lifesaving means of vascular access in emergency settings, as it allows for the administration of large volumes of fluids, blood products, and medications at high flow rates directly into the highly vascularized osseous medullary cavity.¹ Fortunately, the complication rate with this resuscitative effort is low, with many reports demonstrating complication rates of less than 1%.² The most commonly reported complications include fluid extravasation, osteomyelitis, traumatic bone fracture, and epiphyseal plate damage.^1-3 Although compartment syndrome and skin necrosis have been reported,^4,5 there is no comprehensive list of sequelae resulting from fluid extravasation in the literature, and there are no known studies examining the incidence and types of cutaneous complications. In this study, we sought to evaluate the dermatologic impacts of this procedure.

Methods

We performed a retrospective chart review approved by the institutional review board at a large metropolitan level I trauma center in the Midwestern United States spanning 18 consecutive months to identify all patients who underwent IO line placement, either en route to or upon arrival at the trauma center. The electronic medical records of 113 patients (age range, 10 days–94 years) were identified using either an automated natural language look-up program with keywords including intraosseous access and IO or a Current Procedural Terminology code 36680. Data including patient age, reason for IO insertion, anatomic location of the IO, and complications secondary to IO line placement were recorded.

Results

We identified an overall complication rate of 2.7% (3/113), with only 1 patient showing isolated cutaneous complications from IO line placement. The complications in the first 2 patients included compartment syndrome following IO line placement in the right tibia and needle breakage during IO line placement. The third patient, a 30-year-old heart transplant recipient, developed tense bullae on the left leg 5 days after a resuscitative effort required IO access through the bilateral tibiae. The patient had received vasopressors as well as 750 mL of normal saline through these access points. Two days after resuscitation, she developed an enlarging ecchymosis around the left IO access point. On day 5, cutaneous findings included 2 large firm bullae on a purpuric base overlying the left proximal tibia and patella (Figure 1). After an ultrasound revealed no connection to the underlying joint space, the bullae were incised and drained for patient comfort, as she reported pain and undue pressure at the knee joint on initial dermatologic consultation. These symptoms abated after the procedure. Cultures of bullous fluid were negative for infection. Histopathologic examination revealed a subepidermal split with underlying minimal mixed inflammation, favoring the diagnosis of traumatic bullae.

At a scheduled 7-month dermatology follow-up, the wound bed appeared to be healing well with surrounding scarring with no residual bleeding or drainage (Figure 2) despite the patient reporting a protracted course of wound healing requiring debridement due to eschar formation and multiple follow-up appointments with the wound care service.

Comment

The most commonly reported complications with IO line placement result from fluid infiltration of the subcutaneous tissue secondary to catheter misplacement.^1,3 Extravasated fluid may lead to tissue damage, compartment syndrome, and even tissue necrosis in some cases.^1,4,5 Localized cellulitis and the formation of subcutaneous abscesses also have been reported, albeit rarely.^3,5

In our retrospective cohort review, we identified an additional potential complication of IO line placement that has not been widely reported—development of large traumatic bullae. It is most likely that this patient’s IO catheter became dislodged, resulting in extravasation of fluids into the dermal and subcutaneous tissues.

Our findings support the previously noted complication rate of less than 1% following IO line placement, with an overall complication rate of 2.7% that included only 1 patient with a cutaneous complication.² Given this low incidence, providers may not be used to recognizing such complications, leading to delayed or incorrect diagnosis of these entities. While there are certain conditions in which IO insertion is contraindicated, including severe bone diseases (eg, osteogenesis imperfecta, osteomyelitis), overlying cellulitis, and bone fracture, these conditions are rare and can be avoided in most cases by use of an alternative site for needle insertion.² Due to the widespread utility of this tool and its few contraindications, its use in hospitalized patients is rapidly increasing, necessitating a need for quick recognition of potential complications.

From previous data on the incidence of traumatic blisters with underlying bone fractures, there are several identifiable risk factors that could be extended to patients at high risk for developing cutaneous IO complications secondary to the trauma associated with needle insertion,⁶ including wound-healing impairments in patients with fragile lymphatics, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, or collagen vascular diseases (eg, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Sjögren syndrome). Patients with these conditions should be closely monitored for the development of bullae.⁶ While the patient we highlighted in our study did not have a history of such conditions, her history of cardiac disease, recent resuscitation attempts, and immunosuppression certainly could have contributed to suboptimal tissue agility and repair after IO line placement.

Conclusion

Intraosseous access is a safe, effective, and reliable option for vascular access in both pediatric and adult populations that is widely used in both prehospital (ie, paramedic administered) and hospital settings, including intensive care units, emergency departments, and any acute situation where rapid vascular access is necessary. This retrospective chart review examining the incidence and types of cutaneous complications associated with IO line placement at a level I trauma center revealed a total complication rate similar to those reported in previous studies and also highlighted a unique postprocedural cutaneous finding of traumatic bullae. Although no unified management recommendations currently exist, providers should consider this complication in the differential for hospitalized patients with large, atypical, asymmetric bullae in the absence of an alternative explanation for such skin findings.

Intraosseous (IO) access can afford a lifesaving means of vascular access in emergency settings, as it allows for the administration of large volumes of fluids, blood products, and medications at high flow rates directly into the highly vascularized osseous medullary cavity.¹ Fortunately, the complication rate with this resuscitative effort is low, with many reports demonstrating complication rates of less than 1%.² The most commonly reported complications include fluid extravasation, osteomyelitis, traumatic bone fracture, and epiphyseal plate damage.^1-3 Although compartment syndrome and skin necrosis have been reported,^4,5 there is no comprehensive list of sequelae resulting from fluid extravasation in the literature, and there are no known studies examining the incidence and types of cutaneous complications. In this study, we sought to evaluate the dermatologic impacts of this procedure.

Methods

We performed a retrospective chart review approved by the institutional review board at a large metropolitan level I trauma center in the Midwestern United States spanning 18 consecutive months to identify all patients who underwent IO line placement, either en route to or upon arrival at the trauma center. The electronic medical records of 113 patients (age range, 10 days–94 years) were identified using either an automated natural language look-up program with keywords including intraosseous access and IO or a Current Procedural Terminology code 36680. Data including patient age, reason for IO insertion, anatomic location of the IO, and complications secondary to IO line placement were recorded.

Results

We identified an overall complication rate of 2.7% (3/113), with only 1 patient showing isolated cutaneous complications from IO line placement. The complications in the first 2 patients included compartment syndrome following IO line placement in the right tibia and needle breakage during IO line placement. The third patient, a 30-year-old heart transplant recipient, developed tense bullae on the left leg 5 days after a resuscitative effort required IO access through the bilateral tibiae. The patient had received vasopressors as well as 750 mL of normal saline through these access points. Two days after resuscitation, she developed an enlarging ecchymosis around the left IO access point. On day 5, cutaneous findings included 2 large firm bullae on a purpuric base overlying the left proximal tibia and patella (Figure 1). After an ultrasound revealed no connection to the underlying joint space, the bullae were incised and drained for patient comfort, as she reported pain and undue pressure at the knee joint on initial dermatologic consultation. These symptoms abated after the procedure. Cultures of bullous fluid were negative for infection. Histopathologic examination revealed a subepidermal split with underlying minimal mixed inflammation, favoring the diagnosis of traumatic bullae.

At a scheduled 7-month dermatology follow-up, the wound bed appeared to be healing well with surrounding scarring with no residual bleeding or drainage (Figure 2) despite the patient reporting a protracted course of wound healing requiring debridement due to eschar formation and multiple follow-up appointments with the wound care service.

Comment

The most commonly reported complications with IO line placement result from fluid infiltration of the subcutaneous tissue secondary to catheter misplacement.^1,3 Extravasated fluid may lead to tissue damage, compartment syndrome, and even tissue necrosis in some cases.^1,4,5 Localized cellulitis and the formation of subcutaneous abscesses also have been reported, albeit rarely.^3,5

In our retrospective cohort review, we identified an additional potential complication of IO line placement that has not been widely reported—development of large traumatic bullae. It is most likely that this patient’s IO catheter became dislodged, resulting in extravasation of fluids into the dermal and subcutaneous tissues.

Our findings support the previously noted complication rate of less than 1% following IO line placement, with an overall complication rate of 2.7% that included only 1 patient with a cutaneous complication.² Given this low incidence, providers may not be used to recognizing such complications, leading to delayed or incorrect diagnosis of these entities. While there are certain conditions in which IO insertion is contraindicated, including severe bone diseases (eg, osteogenesis imperfecta, osteomyelitis), overlying cellulitis, and bone fracture, these conditions are rare and can be avoided in most cases by use of an alternative site for needle insertion.² Due to the widespread utility of this tool and its few contraindications, its use in hospitalized patients is rapidly increasing, necessitating a need for quick recognition of potential complications.

From previous data on the incidence of traumatic blisters with underlying bone fractures, there are several identifiable risk factors that could be extended to patients at high risk for developing cutaneous IO complications secondary to the trauma associated with needle insertion,⁶ including wound-healing impairments in patients with fragile lymphatics, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, or collagen vascular diseases (eg, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Sjögren syndrome). Patients with these conditions should be closely monitored for the development of bullae.⁶ While the patient we highlighted in our study did not have a history of such conditions, her history of cardiac disease, recent resuscitation attempts, and immunosuppression certainly could have contributed to suboptimal tissue agility and repair after IO line placement.

Conclusion

Intraosseous access is a safe, effective, and reliable option for vascular access in both pediatric and adult populations that is widely used in both prehospital (ie, paramedic administered) and hospital settings, including intensive care units, emergency departments, and any acute situation where rapid vascular access is necessary. This retrospective chart review examining the incidence and types of cutaneous complications associated with IO line placement at a level I trauma center revealed a total complication rate similar to those reported in previous studies and also highlighted a unique postprocedural cutaneous finding of traumatic bullae. Although no unified management recommendations currently exist, providers should consider this complication in the differential for hospitalized patients with large, atypical, asymmetric bullae in the absence of an alternative explanation for such skin findings.

Intraosseous (IO) access can afford a lifesaving means of vascular access in emergency settings, as it allows for the administration of large volumes of fluids, blood products, and medications at high flow rates directly into the highly vascularized osseous medullary cavity.¹ Fortunately, the complication rate with this resuscitative effort is low, with many reports demonstrating complication rates of less than 1%.² The most commonly reported complications include fluid extravasation, osteomyelitis, traumatic bone fracture, and epiphyseal plate damage.^1-3 Although compartment syndrome and skin necrosis have been reported,^4,5 there is no comprehensive list of sequelae resulting from fluid extravasation in the literature, and there are no known studies examining the incidence and types of cutaneous complications. In this study, we sought to evaluate the dermatologic impacts of this procedure.

Methods

We performed a retrospective chart review approved by the institutional review board at a large metropolitan level I trauma center in the Midwestern United States spanning 18 consecutive months to identify all patients who underwent IO line placement, either en route to or upon arrival at the trauma center. The electronic medical records of 113 patients (age range, 10 days–94 years) were identified using either an automated natural language look-up program with keywords including intraosseous access and IO or a Current Procedural Terminology code 36680. Data including patient age, reason for IO insertion, anatomic location of the IO, and complications secondary to IO line placement were recorded.

Results

We identified an overall complication rate of 2.7% (3/113), with only 1 patient showing isolated cutaneous complications from IO line placement. The complications in the first 2 patients included compartment syndrome following IO line placement in the right tibia and needle breakage during IO line placement. The third patient, a 30-year-old heart transplant recipient, developed tense bullae on the left leg 5 days after a resuscitative effort required IO access through the bilateral tibiae. The patient had received vasopressors as well as 750 mL of normal saline through these access points. Two days after resuscitation, she developed an enlarging ecchymosis around the left IO access point. On day 5, cutaneous findings included 2 large firm bullae on a purpuric base overlying the left proximal tibia and patella (Figure 1). After an ultrasound revealed no connection to the underlying joint space, the bullae were incised and drained for patient comfort, as she reported pain and undue pressure at the knee joint on initial dermatologic consultation. These symptoms abated after the procedure. Cultures of bullous fluid were negative for infection. Histopathologic examination revealed a subepidermal split with underlying minimal mixed inflammation, favoring the diagnosis of traumatic bullae.

At a scheduled 7-month dermatology follow-up, the wound bed appeared to be healing well with surrounding scarring with no residual bleeding or drainage (Figure 2) despite the patient reporting a protracted course of wound healing requiring debridement due to eschar formation and multiple follow-up appointments with the wound care service.

Comment

The most commonly reported complications with IO line placement result from fluid infiltration of the subcutaneous tissue secondary to catheter misplacement.^1,3 Extravasated fluid may lead to tissue damage, compartment syndrome, and even tissue necrosis in some cases.^1,4,5 Localized cellulitis and the formation of subcutaneous abscesses also have been reported, albeit rarely.^3,5

In our retrospective cohort review, we identified an additional potential complication of IO line placement that has not been widely reported—development of large traumatic bullae. It is most likely that this patient’s IO catheter became dislodged, resulting in extravasation of fluids into the dermal and subcutaneous tissues.

Our findings support the previously noted complication rate of less than 1% following IO line placement, with an overall complication rate of 2.7% that included only 1 patient with a cutaneous complication.² Given this low incidence, providers may not be used to recognizing such complications, leading to delayed or incorrect diagnosis of these entities. While there are certain conditions in which IO insertion is contraindicated, including severe bone diseases (eg, osteogenesis imperfecta, osteomyelitis), overlying cellulitis, and bone fracture, these conditions are rare and can be avoided in most cases by use of an alternative site for needle insertion.² Due to the widespread utility of this tool and its few contraindications, its use in hospitalized patients is rapidly increasing, necessitating a need for quick recognition of potential complications.

From previous data on the incidence of traumatic blisters with underlying bone fractures, there are several identifiable risk factors that could be extended to patients at high risk for developing cutaneous IO complications secondary to the trauma associated with needle insertion,⁶ including wound-healing impairments in patients with fragile lymphatics, peripheral vascular disease, diabetes, or collagen vascular diseases (eg, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Sjögren syndrome). Patients with these conditions should be closely monitored for the development of bullae.⁶ While the patient we highlighted in our study did not have a history of such conditions, her history of cardiac disease, recent resuscitation attempts, and immunosuppression certainly could have contributed to suboptimal tissue agility and repair after IO line placement.

Conclusion

Intraosseous access is a safe, effective, and reliable option for vascular access in both pediatric and adult populations that is widely used in both prehospital (ie, paramedic administered) and hospital settings, including intensive care units, emergency departments, and any acute situation where rapid vascular access is necessary. This retrospective chart review examining the incidence and types of cutaneous complications associated with IO line placement at a level I trauma center revealed a total complication rate similar to those reported in previous studies and also highlighted a unique postprocedural cutaneous finding of traumatic bullae. Although no unified management recommendations currently exist, providers should consider this complication in the differential for hospitalized patients with large, atypical, asymmetric bullae in the absence of an alternative explanation for such skin findings.

Insert clove A into nostril B

Just when you start wondering what crazy and potentially dangerous thing people can do to themselves next, comes a crazy and potentially dangerous new trend. The good folks at TikTok have provided patients a new treatment for stuffed up sinuses.

Dangerous? Well, that’s what doctors say, anyway.

“We typically do not recommend putting anything into the nostril for the obvious fact that it could get dislodged or lodged up into the nasal cavity,” Anthony Del Signore, MD, of Mount Sinai Union Square, New York, told TODAY.

“Not only does it have the potential to rot or cause a nasal obstruction, it can induce an episode of sinusitis,” Omid Mehdizadeh, MD, of Providence Saint John’s Health Center, Santa Monica, Calif., explained to Shape.

But who doesn't want to breathe easier and keep blood-sucking vampires at bay?

Max Pixel

Seeing faces in random places?

Ever look up at the clouds, at a fast-moving train, or into your morning bowl of cereal and see two eyes, a nose, and a mouth looking back at you? You may shake it off and think you’re imagining something, but it's actually your brain doing what it’s built to do and researchers know why.

The phenomenon is called face pareidolia, and it’s technically an error function of the human brain. Evolution has molded our brains to rapidly identify faces, according to David Alais, PhD, of the University of Sydney, Australia, lead author of the study.

“But the system plays ‘fast and loose’ by applying a crude template of two eyes over a nose and mouth. Lots of things can satisfy that template and thus trigger a face detection response,” he said in a separate statement. But not only are we seeing faces, our brains go one step further and seemingly give those faces feelings.

University of Sydney

Corporate dream manipulation

Advertisements are quite literally everywhere. On billboards, in commercials, in videos, in movies; the list goes on and on. Still, at least you can shut your eyes and be mercifully free of corporate interference inside your own head, right? Right?

Early in 2021, Coors launched an ad campaign that seemed to be a b bit of a gimmick, if not a joke. Coors claimed that if people watched an ad before bed, and played an 8-hour soundscape while sleeping, their dreams would be filled with crisp mountains and cold, thirst-quenching beverages. While, the Coors campaign didn’t go viral, someone was paying attention. A group of 35 leading researchers published an open letter on the subject of corporate dream manipulation, in the journal Dream Engineering.

"Multiple marketing studies are openly testing new ways to alter and motivate purchasing behavior through dream and sleep hacking. The commercial, for-profit use of dream incubation is rapidly becoming a reality," wrote the investigators. "As sleep and dream researchers, we are deeply concerned about marketing plans aimed at generating profits at the cost of interfering with our natural nocturnal memory processing."

People have tried to manipulate their dreams for countless years, but only in recent years have scientists attempted to target or manipulate behavior through dreams. In a 2014 study, smokers exposed to tobacco smoke and rotten egg smell while sleeping reduced their cigarette consumption by 30%.

Free-Photos/Pixabay

Got breast milk?

As we know, breast milk has endless benefits for newbords and babies, but many things can stand in the way of a mother’s ability to breastfeed. Baby formula has served as a good enough substitute. But now, there might be something that’s even better.

A start-up company called BIOMILQ created a product that could be groundbreaking. Using “breakthrough mammary biotechnology,” BIOMILQ created cell-cultured breast milk.

Focus_on_Nature/Getty Images

Insert clove A into nostril B

Just when you start wondering what crazy and potentially dangerous thing people can do to themselves next, comes a crazy and potentially dangerous new trend. The good folks at TikTok have provided patients a new treatment for stuffed up sinuses.

Dangerous? Well, that’s what doctors say, anyway.

“We typically do not recommend putting anything into the nostril for the obvious fact that it could get dislodged or lodged up into the nasal cavity,” Anthony Del Signore, MD, of Mount Sinai Union Square, New York, told TODAY.

“Not only does it have the potential to rot or cause a nasal obstruction, it can induce an episode of sinusitis,” Omid Mehdizadeh, MD, of Providence Saint John’s Health Center, Santa Monica, Calif., explained to Shape.

But who doesn't want to breathe easier and keep blood-sucking vampires at bay?

Max Pixel

Seeing faces in random places?

Ever look up at the clouds, at a fast-moving train, or into your morning bowl of cereal and see two eyes, a nose, and a mouth looking back at you? You may shake it off and think you’re imagining something, but it's actually your brain doing what it’s built to do and researchers know why.

The phenomenon is called face pareidolia, and it’s technically an error function of the human brain. Evolution has molded our brains to rapidly identify faces, according to David Alais, PhD, of the University of Sydney, Australia, lead author of the study.

“But the system plays ‘fast and loose’ by applying a crude template of two eyes over a nose and mouth. Lots of things can satisfy that template and thus trigger a face detection response,” he said in a separate statement. But not only are we seeing faces, our brains go one step further and seemingly give those faces feelings.

University of Sydney

Corporate dream manipulation

Advertisements are quite literally everywhere. On billboards, in commercials, in videos, in movies; the list goes on and on. Still, at least you can shut your eyes and be mercifully free of corporate interference inside your own head, right? Right?

Early in 2021, Coors launched an ad campaign that seemed to be a b bit of a gimmick, if not a joke. Coors claimed that if people watched an ad before bed, and played an 8-hour soundscape while sleeping, their dreams would be filled with crisp mountains and cold, thirst-quenching beverages. While, the Coors campaign didn’t go viral, someone was paying attention. A group of 35 leading researchers published an open letter on the subject of corporate dream manipulation, in the journal Dream Engineering.

"Multiple marketing studies are openly testing new ways to alter and motivate purchasing behavior through dream and sleep hacking. The commercial, for-profit use of dream incubation is rapidly becoming a reality," wrote the investigators. "As sleep and dream researchers, we are deeply concerned about marketing plans aimed at generating profits at the cost of interfering with our natural nocturnal memory processing."

People have tried to manipulate their dreams for countless years, but only in recent years have scientists attempted to target or manipulate behavior through dreams. In a 2014 study, smokers exposed to tobacco smoke and rotten egg smell while sleeping reduced their cigarette consumption by 30%.

Free-Photos/Pixabay

Got breast milk?

As we know, breast milk has endless benefits for newbords and babies, but many things can stand in the way of a mother’s ability to breastfeed. Baby formula has served as a good enough substitute. But now, there might be something that’s even better.

A start-up company called BIOMILQ created a product that could be groundbreaking. Using “breakthrough mammary biotechnology,” BIOMILQ created cell-cultured breast milk.

Focus_on_Nature/Getty Images

Insert clove A into nostril B

Just when you start wondering what crazy and potentially dangerous thing people can do to themselves next, comes a crazy and potentially dangerous new trend. The good folks at TikTok have provided patients a new treatment for stuffed up sinuses.

Dangerous? Well, that’s what doctors say, anyway.

“We typically do not recommend putting anything into the nostril for the obvious fact that it could get dislodged or lodged up into the nasal cavity,” Anthony Del Signore, MD, of Mount Sinai Union Square, New York, told TODAY.

“Not only does it have the potential to rot or cause a nasal obstruction, it can induce an episode of sinusitis,” Omid Mehdizadeh, MD, of Providence Saint John’s Health Center, Santa Monica, Calif., explained to Shape.

But who doesn't want to breathe easier and keep blood-sucking vampires at bay?

Max Pixel

Seeing faces in random places?

Ever look up at the clouds, at a fast-moving train, or into your morning bowl of cereal and see two eyes, a nose, and a mouth looking back at you? You may shake it off and think you’re imagining something, but it's actually your brain doing what it’s built to do and researchers know why.

The phenomenon is called face pareidolia, and it’s technically an error function of the human brain. Evolution has molded our brains to rapidly identify faces, according to David Alais, PhD, of the University of Sydney, Australia, lead author of the study.

“But the system plays ‘fast and loose’ by applying a crude template of two eyes over a nose and mouth. Lots of things can satisfy that template and thus trigger a face detection response,” he said in a separate statement. But not only are we seeing faces, our brains go one step further and seemingly give those faces feelings.

University of Sydney

Corporate dream manipulation

Advertisements are quite literally everywhere. On billboards, in commercials, in videos, in movies; the list goes on and on. Still, at least you can shut your eyes and be mercifully free of corporate interference inside your own head, right? Right?

Early in 2021, Coors launched an ad campaign that seemed to be a b bit of a gimmick, if not a joke. Coors claimed that if people watched an ad before bed, and played an 8-hour soundscape while sleeping, their dreams would be filled with crisp mountains and cold, thirst-quenching beverages. While, the Coors campaign didn’t go viral, someone was paying attention. A group of 35 leading researchers published an open letter on the subject of corporate dream manipulation, in the journal Dream Engineering.

"Multiple marketing studies are openly testing new ways to alter and motivate purchasing behavior through dream and sleep hacking. The commercial, for-profit use of dream incubation is rapidly becoming a reality," wrote the investigators. "As sleep and dream researchers, we are deeply concerned about marketing plans aimed at generating profits at the cost of interfering with our natural nocturnal memory processing."

People have tried to manipulate their dreams for countless years, but only in recent years have scientists attempted to target or manipulate behavior through dreams. In a 2014 study, smokers exposed to tobacco smoke and rotten egg smell while sleeping reduced their cigarette consumption by 30%.

Free-Photos/Pixabay

Got breast milk?

As we know, breast milk has endless benefits for newbords and babies, but many things can stand in the way of a mother’s ability to breastfeed. Baby formula has served as a good enough substitute. But now, there might be something that’s even better.

A start-up company called BIOMILQ created a product that could be groundbreaking. Using “breakthrough mammary biotechnology,” BIOMILQ created cell-cultured breast milk.

Focus_on_Nature/Getty Images

The contagious Delta variant has become the dominant form of the coronavirus in the United States, now accounting for more than 51% of COVID-19 cases in the country, according to new CDC data to updated on July 6.

The variant, also known as B.1.617.2 and first detected in India, makes up more than 80% of new cases in some Midwestern states, including Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. Delta also accounts for 74% of cases in Western states such as Colorado and Utah and 59% of cases in Southern states such as Louisiana and Texas.

Communities with low vaccination rates are bearing the brunt of new Delta cases. Public health experts are urging those who are unvaccinated to get a shot to protect themselves and their communities against future surges.

“Right now we have two Americas: the vaccinated and the unvaccinated,” Paul Offit, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told NPR.

“We’re feeling pretty good right now because it’s the summer,” he said. “But come winter, if we still have a significant percentage of the population that is unvaccinated, we’re going to see this virus surge again.”

So far, COVID-19 vaccines appear to protect people against the Delta variant. But health officials are watching other variants that could evade vaccine protection and lead to major outbreaks this year.

For instance, certain mutations in the Epsilon variant may allow it to evade the immunity from past infections and current COVID-19 vaccines, according to a new study published July 1 in the Science. The variant, also known as B.1.427/B.1.429 and first identified in California, has now been reported in 34 countries and could become widespread in the United States.

Researchers from the University of Washington and clinics in Switzerland tested the variant in blood samples from vaccinated people, as well as those who were previously infected with COVID-19. They found that the neutralizing power was reduced by about 2 to 3½ times.

The research team also visualized the variant and found that three mutations on Epsilon’s spike protein allow the virus to escape certain antibodies and lower the strength of vaccines.

Epsilon “relies on an indirect and unusual neutralization-escape strategy,” they wrote, saying that understanding these escape routes could help scientists track new variants, curb the pandemic, and create booster shots.

In Australia, for instance, public health officials have detected the Lambda variant, which could be more infectious than the Delta variant and resistant to vaccines, according to Sky News.

A hotel quarantine program in New South Wales identified the variant in someone who had returned from travel, the news outlet reported. Also known as C.37, Lambda was named a “variant of interest” by the World Health Organization in June.

Lambda was first identified in Peru in December and now accounts for more than 80% of the country’s cases, according to the Financial Times. It has since been found in 27 countries, including the U.S., U.K., and Germany.

The variant has seven mutations on the spike protein that allow the virus to infect human cells, the news outlet reported. One mutation is like another mutation on the Delta variant, which could make it more contagious.

In a preprint study published July 1, researchers at the University of Chile at Santiago found that Lambda is better able to escape antibodies created by the CoronaVac vaccine made by Sinovac in China. In the paper, which hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed, researchers tested blood samples from local health care workers in Santiago who had received two doses of the vaccine.

“Our data revealed that the spike protein ... carries mutations conferring increased infectivity and the ability to escape from neutralizing antibodies,” they wrote.

The research team urged countries to continue testing for contagious variants, even in areas with high vaccination rates, so scientists can identify mutations quickly and analyze whether new variants can escape vaccines.

“The world has to get its act together,” Saad Omer, PhD, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, told NPR. “Otherwise yet another, potentially more dangerous, variant could emerge.”

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

The contagious Delta variant has become the dominant form of the coronavirus in the United States, now accounting for more than 51% of COVID-19 cases in the country, according to new CDC data to updated on July 6.

The variant, also known as B.1.617.2 and first detected in India, makes up more than 80% of new cases in some Midwestern states, including Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. Delta also accounts for 74% of cases in Western states such as Colorado and Utah and 59% of cases in Southern states such as Louisiana and Texas.

Communities with low vaccination rates are bearing the brunt of new Delta cases. Public health experts are urging those who are unvaccinated to get a shot to protect themselves and their communities against future surges.

“Right now we have two Americas: the vaccinated and the unvaccinated,” Paul Offit, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told NPR.

“We’re feeling pretty good right now because it’s the summer,” he said. “But come winter, if we still have a significant percentage of the population that is unvaccinated, we’re going to see this virus surge again.”

So far, COVID-19 vaccines appear to protect people against the Delta variant. But health officials are watching other variants that could evade vaccine protection and lead to major outbreaks this year.

For instance, certain mutations in the Epsilon variant may allow it to evade the immunity from past infections and current COVID-19 vaccines, according to a new study published July 1 in the Science. The variant, also known as B.1.427/B.1.429 and first identified in California, has now been reported in 34 countries and could become widespread in the United States.

Researchers from the University of Washington and clinics in Switzerland tested the variant in blood samples from vaccinated people, as well as those who were previously infected with COVID-19. They found that the neutralizing power was reduced by about 2 to 3½ times.

The research team also visualized the variant and found that three mutations on Epsilon’s spike protein allow the virus to escape certain antibodies and lower the strength of vaccines.

Epsilon “relies on an indirect and unusual neutralization-escape strategy,” they wrote, saying that understanding these escape routes could help scientists track new variants, curb the pandemic, and create booster shots.

In Australia, for instance, public health officials have detected the Lambda variant, which could be more infectious than the Delta variant and resistant to vaccines, according to Sky News.

A hotel quarantine program in New South Wales identified the variant in someone who had returned from travel, the news outlet reported. Also known as C.37, Lambda was named a “variant of interest” by the World Health Organization in June.

Lambda was first identified in Peru in December and now accounts for more than 80% of the country’s cases, according to the Financial Times. It has since been found in 27 countries, including the U.S., U.K., and Germany.

The variant has seven mutations on the spike protein that allow the virus to infect human cells, the news outlet reported. One mutation is like another mutation on the Delta variant, which could make it more contagious.

In a preprint study published July 1, researchers at the University of Chile at Santiago found that Lambda is better able to escape antibodies created by the CoronaVac vaccine made by Sinovac in China. In the paper, which hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed, researchers tested blood samples from local health care workers in Santiago who had received two doses of the vaccine.

“Our data revealed that the spike protein ... carries mutations conferring increased infectivity and the ability to escape from neutralizing antibodies,” they wrote.

The research team urged countries to continue testing for contagious variants, even in areas with high vaccination rates, so scientists can identify mutations quickly and analyze whether new variants can escape vaccines.

“The world has to get its act together,” Saad Omer, PhD, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, told NPR. “Otherwise yet another, potentially more dangerous, variant could emerge.”

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

The contagious Delta variant has become the dominant form of the coronavirus in the United States, now accounting for more than 51% of COVID-19 cases in the country, according to new CDC data to updated on July 6.

The variant, also known as B.1.617.2 and first detected in India, makes up more than 80% of new cases in some Midwestern states, including Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri. Delta also accounts for 74% of cases in Western states such as Colorado and Utah and 59% of cases in Southern states such as Louisiana and Texas.

Communities with low vaccination rates are bearing the brunt of new Delta cases. Public health experts are urging those who are unvaccinated to get a shot to protect themselves and their communities against future surges.

“Right now we have two Americas: the vaccinated and the unvaccinated,” Paul Offit, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, told NPR.

“We’re feeling pretty good right now because it’s the summer,” he said. “But come winter, if we still have a significant percentage of the population that is unvaccinated, we’re going to see this virus surge again.”

So far, COVID-19 vaccines appear to protect people against the Delta variant. But health officials are watching other variants that could evade vaccine protection and lead to major outbreaks this year.

For instance, certain mutations in the Epsilon variant may allow it to evade the immunity from past infections and current COVID-19 vaccines, according to a new study published July 1 in the Science. The variant, also known as B.1.427/B.1.429 and first identified in California, has now been reported in 34 countries and could become widespread in the United States.

Researchers from the University of Washington and clinics in Switzerland tested the variant in blood samples from vaccinated people, as well as those who were previously infected with COVID-19. They found that the neutralizing power was reduced by about 2 to 3½ times.

The research team also visualized the variant and found that three mutations on Epsilon’s spike protein allow the virus to escape certain antibodies and lower the strength of vaccines.

Epsilon “relies on an indirect and unusual neutralization-escape strategy,” they wrote, saying that understanding these escape routes could help scientists track new variants, curb the pandemic, and create booster shots.

In Australia, for instance, public health officials have detected the Lambda variant, which could be more infectious than the Delta variant and resistant to vaccines, according to Sky News.

A hotel quarantine program in New South Wales identified the variant in someone who had returned from travel, the news outlet reported. Also known as C.37, Lambda was named a “variant of interest” by the World Health Organization in June.

Lambda was first identified in Peru in December and now accounts for more than 80% of the country’s cases, according to the Financial Times. It has since been found in 27 countries, including the U.S., U.K., and Germany.

The variant has seven mutations on the spike protein that allow the virus to infect human cells, the news outlet reported. One mutation is like another mutation on the Delta variant, which could make it more contagious.

In a preprint study published July 1, researchers at the University of Chile at Santiago found that Lambda is better able to escape antibodies created by the CoronaVac vaccine made by Sinovac in China. In the paper, which hasn’t yet been peer-reviewed, researchers tested blood samples from local health care workers in Santiago who had received two doses of the vaccine.

“Our data revealed that the spike protein ... carries mutations conferring increased infectivity and the ability to escape from neutralizing antibodies,” they wrote.

The research team urged countries to continue testing for contagious variants, even in areas with high vaccination rates, so scientists can identify mutations quickly and analyze whether new variants can escape vaccines.

“The world has to get its act together,” Saad Omer, PhD, director of the Yale Institute for Global Health, told NPR. “Otherwise yet another, potentially more dangerous, variant could emerge.”

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