“DO YOU UTILIZE VASOPRESSIN IN YOUR DIFFICULT CESAREAN DELIVERY SURGERIES?”

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; NOVEMBER 2016)

Avoid uterine vessels when injecting vasopressin

Thank you for your recent editorial discussing using vasopressin in difficult cesarean deliveries. I am very interested in using vasopressin for our placenta previa cases.

I reviewed the Kato et al article that Dr. Barbieri referenced, and the authors note a risk of injecting vasopressin into a vessel.¹ If you are injecting into the placental bed, how can you confirm you are not in a vessel? (When you withdraw, you will get some blood regardless.)

Sara Garmel, MD
Dearborn, Michigan

REFERENCE

1. Kato S, Tanabe A, Kanki K, et al. Local injection of vasopressin reduces the blood loss during cesarean section in placenta previa. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014;40(5):1249–1256.

Dr. Barbieri responds

I agree with Dr. Garmel that we should avoid the intravascular injection of vasopressin. As I noted in the editorial, “I prefer to inject vasopressin in the subserosa of the uterus rather than inject it in a highly vascular area such as the subendometrium or near the uterine artery and vein.” Subserosal injection creates a depot bleb of vasopressin that is absorbed over a few minutes. You can visualize the reduced blood flow to the uterus following vasopressin injection because the uterus blanches and the diameter of the uterine vessels decreases significantly.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

“DO YOU UTILIZE VASOPRESSIN IN YOUR DIFFICULT CESAREAN DELIVERY SURGERIES?”

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; NOVEMBER 2016)

Avoid uterine vessels when injecting vasopressin

Thank you for your recent editorial discussing using vasopressin in difficult cesarean deliveries. I am very interested in using vasopressin for our placenta previa cases.

I reviewed the Kato et al article that Dr. Barbieri referenced, and the authors note a risk of injecting vasopressin into a vessel.¹ If you are injecting into the placental bed, how can you confirm you are not in a vessel? (When you withdraw, you will get some blood regardless.)

Sara Garmel, MD
Dearborn, Michigan

REFERENCE

1. Kato S, Tanabe A, Kanki K, et al. Local injection of vasopressin reduces the blood loss during cesarean section in placenta previa. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014;40(5):1249–1256.

Dr. Barbieri responds

I agree with Dr. Garmel that we should avoid the intravascular injection of vasopressin. As I noted in the editorial, “I prefer to inject vasopressin in the subserosa of the uterus rather than inject it in a highly vascular area such as the subendometrium or near the uterine artery and vein.” Subserosal injection creates a depot bleb of vasopressin that is absorbed over a few minutes. You can visualize the reduced blood flow to the uterus following vasopressin injection because the uterus blanches and the diameter of the uterine vessels decreases significantly.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

“DO YOU UTILIZE VASOPRESSIN IN YOUR DIFFICULT CESAREAN DELIVERY SURGERIES?”

ROBERT L. BARBIERI, MD (EDITORIAL; NOVEMBER 2016)

Avoid uterine vessels when injecting vasopressin

Thank you for your recent editorial discussing using vasopressin in difficult cesarean deliveries. I am very interested in using vasopressin for our placenta previa cases.

I reviewed the Kato et al article that Dr. Barbieri referenced, and the authors note a risk of injecting vasopressin into a vessel.¹ If you are injecting into the placental bed, how can you confirm you are not in a vessel? (When you withdraw, you will get some blood regardless.)

Sara Garmel, MD
Dearborn, Michigan

REFERENCE

1. Kato S, Tanabe A, Kanki K, et al. Local injection of vasopressin reduces the blood loss during cesarean section in placenta previa. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 2014;40(5):1249–1256.

Dr. Barbieri responds

I agree with Dr. Garmel that we should avoid the intravascular injection of vasopressin. As I noted in the editorial, “I prefer to inject vasopressin in the subserosa of the uterus rather than inject it in a highly vascular area such as the subendometrium or near the uterine artery and vein.” Subserosal injection creates a depot bleb of vasopressin that is absorbed over a few minutes. You can visualize the reduced blood flow to the uterus following vasopressin injection because the uterus blanches and the diameter of the uterine vessels decreases significantly.

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

“PATIENT WITH A BREAST MASS: WHY DID SHE PURSUE LITIGATION?”

JOSEPH S. SANFILIPPO, MD, MBA, AND STEVEN R. SMITH, JD (WHAT'S THE VERDICT?; DECEMBER 2016)

Clear communication is often key to avoiding litigation

Thank you for the article concerning the patient who commenced action for delay in diagnosis of her breast lesion. In my opinion the gynecologist lost control of the situation because of inadequate communication with the patient either on his or her part and/or on the part of the staff.

J. S. Calabrese, MD, JD
Buffalo, New York

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

“PATIENT WITH A BREAST MASS: WHY DID SHE PURSUE LITIGATION?”

JOSEPH S. SANFILIPPO, MD, MBA, AND STEVEN R. SMITH, JD (WHAT'S THE VERDICT?; DECEMBER 2016)

Clear communication is often key to avoiding litigation

Thank you for the article concerning the patient who commenced action for delay in diagnosis of her breast lesion. In my opinion the gynecologist lost control of the situation because of inadequate communication with the patient either on his or her part and/or on the part of the staff.

J. S. Calabrese, MD, JD
Buffalo, New York

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

“PATIENT WITH A BREAST MASS: WHY DID SHE PURSUE LITIGATION?”

JOSEPH S. SANFILIPPO, MD, MBA, AND STEVEN R. SMITH, JD (WHAT'S THE VERDICT?; DECEMBER 2016)

Clear communication is often key to avoiding litigation

Thank you for the article concerning the patient who commenced action for delay in diagnosis of her breast lesion. In my opinion the gynecologist lost control of the situation because of inadequate communication with the patient either on his or her part and/or on the part of the staff.

J. S. Calabrese, MD, JD
Buffalo, New York

Share your thoughts! Send your Letter to the Editor to [email protected]. Please include your name and the city and state in which you practice.

ANSWER

The correct interpretation includes normal sinus rhythm and right atrial enlargement. The latter is suggested by tall P waves in leads II, III, and aVF (typically ≥ 2.5 mm), which may be caused by pressure or volume overload of the right atrium or by conditions causing pulmonary hypertension.

Given this patient’s presentation of right-side chest pain with a history of COPD, smoking, palpable left saphenous vein, and right atrial enlargement, a chest CT was performed. It confirmed the suspicion of a pulmonary embolus.

ANSWER

The correct interpretation includes normal sinus rhythm and right atrial enlargement. The latter is suggested by tall P waves in leads II, III, and aVF (typically ≥ 2.5 mm), which may be caused by pressure or volume overload of the right atrium or by conditions causing pulmonary hypertension.

Given this patient’s presentation of right-side chest pain with a history of COPD, smoking, palpable left saphenous vein, and right atrial enlargement, a chest CT was performed. It confirmed the suspicion of a pulmonary embolus.

ANSWER

The correct interpretation includes normal sinus rhythm and right atrial enlargement. The latter is suggested by tall P waves in leads II, III, and aVF (typically ≥ 2.5 mm), which may be caused by pressure or volume overload of the right atrium or by conditions causing pulmonary hypertension.

Given this patient’s presentation of right-side chest pain with a history of COPD, smoking, palpable left saphenous vein, and right atrial enlargement, a chest CT was performed. It confirmed the suspicion of a pulmonary embolus.

Statins may lower the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, but the decrease in risk varies across statin molecules, and by gender, race, and ethnicity, according to research published online ahead of print December 12 in JAMA Neurology.

None of the statins assessed in the study affected the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease among black men, said Julie M. Zissimopoulos, PhD, Vice Dean for Academic Affairs and Assistant Professor in the Sol Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and her associates.

Several studies have suggested that statins exert a protective effect against Alzheimer’s disease, but they have had insufficient follow-up times, lacked minorities, and removed hyperlipidemic participants. For these reasons, Dr. Zissimopoulos and her colleagues analyzed medical and pharmacy data for a large, diverse sample of Medicare beneficiaries.

The researchers examined 399,979 adults aged 65 and older who initiated statin therapy during a two-year period. Beneficiaries were followed for approximately seven years. The mean interval between statin exposure and Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis was 5.4 years.

The study population included 310,240 non-Hispanic whites, 32,658 Hispanics, 32,278 non-Hispanic blacks, and 24,803 participants of Asian, Native American, other, or unknown race or ethnicity. The investigators confined their analysis to the four most commonly prescribed statins: simvastatin, atorvastatin, pravastatin, and rosuvastatin.

Overall, 1.72% of women and 1.32% of men were diagnosed as having Alzheimer’s disease during each year of follow-up. Study participants who were exposed to higher statin levels during the two-year exposure period were 10% less likely to receive a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease during follow-up, compared with those exposed to lower levels of statins. High exposure to statins reduced the risk of Alzheimer’s disease among women of all races (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85) and men of all races (HR, 0.88).

This association, however, varied across gender, race, and ethnicity. Statins decreased the risk of Alzheimer’s disease the most among Hispanic men (HR, 0.71), followed by black women (HR, 0.82), white women (HR, 0.86), and white men (HR, 0.89), but they did not decrease the risk of Alzheimer’s disease among black men, said Dr. Zissimopoulos. Simvastatin significantly decreased the risk of Alzheimer’s disease among white, Hispanic, and black women, compared with other subgroups, and atorvastatin significantly decreased the risk among white women, Hispanic women, and Hispanic men. Pravastatin and rosuvastatin decreased the risk of Alzheimer’s disease significantly among white women only.

These findings suggest that “certain patients facing multiple, otherwise equal statin alternatives for hyperlipidemia treatment, may reduce Alzheimer’s risk by using a particular statin. The right statin type for the right person at the right time may provide a relatively inexpensive means to lessen the burden of Alzheimer’s disease,” the investigators said.

This study was supported by the National Institute on Aging, the University of Southern California Zumberge Research Fund, and the Schaeffer-Amgen Fellowship Program.

—Mary Ann Moon

Suggested Reading

Zissimopoulos JM, Barthold D, Brinton RD, Joyce G. Sex and race differences in the association between statin use and the incidence of Alzheimer disease. JAMA Neurol. 2016 Dec 12 [Epub ahead of print].

Statins may lower the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, but the decrease in risk varies across statin molecules, and by gender, race, and ethnicity, according to research published online ahead of print December 12 in JAMA Neurology.

None of the statins assessed in the study affected the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease among black men, said Julie M. Zissimopoulos, PhD, Vice Dean for Academic Affairs and Assistant Professor in the Sol Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and her associates.

Several studies have suggested that statins exert a protective effect against Alzheimer’s disease, but they have had insufficient follow-up times, lacked minorities, and removed hyperlipidemic participants. For these reasons, Dr. Zissimopoulos and her colleagues analyzed medical and pharmacy data for a large, diverse sample of Medicare beneficiaries.

The researchers examined 399,979 adults aged 65 and older who initiated statin therapy during a two-year period. Beneficiaries were followed for approximately seven years. The mean interval between statin exposure and Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis was 5.4 years.

The study population included 310,240 non-Hispanic whites, 32,658 Hispanics, 32,278 non-Hispanic blacks, and 24,803 participants of Asian, Native American, other, or unknown race or ethnicity. The investigators confined their analysis to the four most commonly prescribed statins: simvastatin, atorvastatin, pravastatin, and rosuvastatin.

Overall, 1.72% of women and 1.32% of men were diagnosed as having Alzheimer’s disease during each year of follow-up. Study participants who were exposed to higher statin levels during the two-year exposure period were 10% less likely to receive a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease during follow-up, compared with those exposed to lower levels of statins. High exposure to statins reduced the risk of Alzheimer’s disease among women of all races (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85) and men of all races (HR, 0.88).

This association, however, varied across gender, race, and ethnicity. Statins decreased the risk of Alzheimer’s disease the most among Hispanic men (HR, 0.71), followed by black women (HR, 0.82), white women (HR, 0.86), and white men (HR, 0.89), but they did not decrease the risk of Alzheimer’s disease among black men, said Dr. Zissimopoulos. Simvastatin significantly decreased the risk of Alzheimer’s disease among white, Hispanic, and black women, compared with other subgroups, and atorvastatin significantly decreased the risk among white women, Hispanic women, and Hispanic men. Pravastatin and rosuvastatin decreased the risk of Alzheimer’s disease significantly among white women only.

These findings suggest that “certain patients facing multiple, otherwise equal statin alternatives for hyperlipidemia treatment, may reduce Alzheimer’s risk by using a particular statin. The right statin type for the right person at the right time may provide a relatively inexpensive means to lessen the burden of Alzheimer’s disease,” the investigators said.

This study was supported by the National Institute on Aging, the University of Southern California Zumberge Research Fund, and the Schaeffer-Amgen Fellowship Program.

—Mary Ann Moon

Suggested Reading

Zissimopoulos JM, Barthold D, Brinton RD, Joyce G. Sex and race differences in the association between statin use and the incidence of Alzheimer disease. JAMA Neurol. 2016 Dec 12 [Epub ahead of print].

Statins may lower the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease, but the decrease in risk varies across statin molecules, and by gender, race, and ethnicity, according to research published online ahead of print December 12 in JAMA Neurology.

None of the statins assessed in the study affected the risk of developing Alzheimer’s disease among black men, said Julie M. Zissimopoulos, PhD, Vice Dean for Academic Affairs and Assistant Professor in the Sol Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, and her associates.

Several studies have suggested that statins exert a protective effect against Alzheimer’s disease, but they have had insufficient follow-up times, lacked minorities, and removed hyperlipidemic participants. For these reasons, Dr. Zissimopoulos and her colleagues analyzed medical and pharmacy data for a large, diverse sample of Medicare beneficiaries.

The researchers examined 399,979 adults aged 65 and older who initiated statin therapy during a two-year period. Beneficiaries were followed for approximately seven years. The mean interval between statin exposure and Alzheimer’s disease diagnosis was 5.4 years.

The study population included 310,240 non-Hispanic whites, 32,658 Hispanics, 32,278 non-Hispanic blacks, and 24,803 participants of Asian, Native American, other, or unknown race or ethnicity. The investigators confined their analysis to the four most commonly prescribed statins: simvastatin, atorvastatin, pravastatin, and rosuvastatin.

Overall, 1.72% of women and 1.32% of men were diagnosed as having Alzheimer’s disease during each year of follow-up. Study participants who were exposed to higher statin levels during the two-year exposure period were 10% less likely to receive a diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease during follow-up, compared with those exposed to lower levels of statins. High exposure to statins reduced the risk of Alzheimer’s disease among women of all races (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85) and men of all races (HR, 0.88).

This association, however, varied across gender, race, and ethnicity. Statins decreased the risk of Alzheimer’s disease the most among Hispanic men (HR, 0.71), followed by black women (HR, 0.82), white women (HR, 0.86), and white men (HR, 0.89), but they did not decrease the risk of Alzheimer’s disease among black men, said Dr. Zissimopoulos. Simvastatin significantly decreased the risk of Alzheimer’s disease among white, Hispanic, and black women, compared with other subgroups, and atorvastatin significantly decreased the risk among white women, Hispanic women, and Hispanic men. Pravastatin and rosuvastatin decreased the risk of Alzheimer’s disease significantly among white women only.

These findings suggest that “certain patients facing multiple, otherwise equal statin alternatives for hyperlipidemia treatment, may reduce Alzheimer’s risk by using a particular statin. The right statin type for the right person at the right time may provide a relatively inexpensive means to lessen the burden of Alzheimer’s disease,” the investigators said.

This study was supported by the National Institute on Aging, the University of Southern California Zumberge Research Fund, and the Schaeffer-Amgen Fellowship Program.

—Mary Ann Moon

Suggested Reading

Zissimopoulos JM, Barthold D, Brinton RD, Joyce G. Sex and race differences in the association between statin use and the incidence of Alzheimer disease. JAMA Neurol. 2016 Dec 12 [Epub ahead of print].

Salvage limbs at all costs

Aggressive limb salvage in people with diabetes leads to an overall reduction in cost not only economically, but also from the patient’s perspective. The vast majority of diabetic patients with critical ischemia are actually good candidates for limb salvage. Tragically, many of these patients are never referred for evaluation for limb salvage because of misconceptions about the pathophysiology of the disease.

An argument against limb salvage is that primary amputation prevents or shortens the course of wound care and enables patients to become ambulatory, albeit with a prosthesis, faster. However, in the modern era of vascular surgery, revascularization can be performed successfully with minimal mortality and excellent rates of limb salvage, especially when it’s done within a team-based approach.

Dr. Trissa A. Babrowski is an assistant professor of surgery, specializing in vascular surgery and endovascular therapy, at the University of Chicago Heart and Vascular Center. She had no financial relationships to disclose.

Primary amputation can be OK

I am not an amputationalist. I do practice limb salvage. In fact I’m probably the most aggressive limb salvage surgeon in my hospital. But primary amputation is a completely acceptable option for a selected group of patients with diabetes. We should not try to do limb salvage “at all costs.”

I do not find this to be a contradictory position. In fact, I think it adds credence to my support of limb salvage that I think primary amputation can be OK. In all honesty, there are very few things in life that should be done at all costs.

Dr. Timothy J. Nypaver is head of vascular surgery at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit. He had no financial relationships to disclose.

Salvage limbs at all costs

Aggressive limb salvage in people with diabetes leads to an overall reduction in cost not only economically, but also from the patient’s perspective. The vast majority of diabetic patients with critical ischemia are actually good candidates for limb salvage. Tragically, many of these patients are never referred for evaluation for limb salvage because of misconceptions about the pathophysiology of the disease.

An argument against limb salvage is that primary amputation prevents or shortens the course of wound care and enables patients to become ambulatory, albeit with a prosthesis, faster. However, in the modern era of vascular surgery, revascularization can be performed successfully with minimal mortality and excellent rates of limb salvage, especially when it’s done within a team-based approach.

Dr. Trissa A. Babrowski is an assistant professor of surgery, specializing in vascular surgery and endovascular therapy, at the University of Chicago Heart and Vascular Center. She had no financial relationships to disclose.

Primary amputation can be OK

I am not an amputationalist. I do practice limb salvage. In fact I’m probably the most aggressive limb salvage surgeon in my hospital. But primary amputation is a completely acceptable option for a selected group of patients with diabetes. We should not try to do limb salvage “at all costs.”

I do not find this to be a contradictory position. In fact, I think it adds credence to my support of limb salvage that I think primary amputation can be OK. In all honesty, there are very few things in life that should be done at all costs.

Dr. Timothy J. Nypaver is head of vascular surgery at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit. He had no financial relationships to disclose.

Salvage limbs at all costs

Aggressive limb salvage in people with diabetes leads to an overall reduction in cost not only economically, but also from the patient’s perspective. The vast majority of diabetic patients with critical ischemia are actually good candidates for limb salvage. Tragically, many of these patients are never referred for evaluation for limb salvage because of misconceptions about the pathophysiology of the disease.

An argument against limb salvage is that primary amputation prevents or shortens the course of wound care and enables patients to become ambulatory, albeit with a prosthesis, faster. However, in the modern era of vascular surgery, revascularization can be performed successfully with minimal mortality and excellent rates of limb salvage, especially when it’s done within a team-based approach.

Dr. Trissa A. Babrowski is an assistant professor of surgery, specializing in vascular surgery and endovascular therapy, at the University of Chicago Heart and Vascular Center. She had no financial relationships to disclose.

Primary amputation can be OK

I am not an amputationalist. I do practice limb salvage. In fact I’m probably the most aggressive limb salvage surgeon in my hospital. But primary amputation is a completely acceptable option for a selected group of patients with diabetes. We should not try to do limb salvage “at all costs.”

I do not find this to be a contradictory position. In fact, I think it adds credence to my support of limb salvage that I think primary amputation can be OK. In all honesty, there are very few things in life that should be done at all costs.

Dr. Timothy J. Nypaver is head of vascular surgery at Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit. He had no financial relationships to disclose.

When treating patients for ulcerative colitis (UC), clinicians should consider using vedolizumab, because the drug has been found to be both safe and highly effective in patients who have never received tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–antagonist treatment and those who have but did not benefit from it, according to a study published in the February issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.08.044).

“Approximately 50% of patients with UC do not respond to induction therapy with TNF antagonists or lose response over time such that after 1 year of treatment, clinical remission is observed in only 17%-34% of patients,” explained the authors of the report, led by Brian G. Feagan, MD, of the University of Western Ontario in London. “Furthermore, the risk of serious infection (with immunosuppressants in general, and TNF antagonists specifically) is an important concern [so] alternative approaches to treatment are needed.”

For this study, Dr. Feagan and his colleagues turned to the GEMINI 1 trial, which evaluated vedolizumab in patients with moderate and severe UC via a multicenter, phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. This study produced data on 374 subjects who had been randomized into cohorts receiving either vedolizumab intravenously or a placebo. However, this number was deemed too low, so a further 521 patients were enrolled for an open-label study and randomized in the same 3:2 ratio as the previous study. The former study was called Cohort 1 and the latter called Cohort 2.

“Eligible patients had UC for [at least] 6 months before enrollment, MCS [Mayo Clinic scores for disease activity] from 6 to 12, and endoscopic subscores of [at least] 2 within 7 days before the first dose of study drug, and evidence of disease extending [at least] 15 cm proximal to the rectum,” the authors explained.

Vedolizumab was administered at baseline, with follow-up evaluations at 2, 4, and 6 weeks. Subjects who experienced a clinical response – defined as an MCS reduction of at least 3 points and 30%, along with at least a 1-point reduction in rectal bleeding and an absolute rectal bleeding subscore of either 0 or 1 – were re-randomized into cohorts that received the drug every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks, for a period of up to 46 weeks. The total length of the study was, therefore, 52 weeks; for patients that were re-randomized, follow-up evaluations took place every 4 weeks.

A total of 464 patients who were enrolled and completed the study were naive to TNF antagonists, while 367 had previously been treated with TNF antagonists unsuccessfully. At 6-week follow-up, 53.1% of naive subjects receiving vedolizumab had achieved clinical response, versus 26.3% of naive subjects on placebo (absolute difference, 26.4%; 95% confidence interval, 12.4-40.4). Similarly, those with previous TNF antagonist exposure who were given vedolizumab had a 39.0% clinical response rate, versus 20.6% of those on placebo (AD, 18.1%; 95% CI, 2.8-33.5).

At week 52, naive subjects on vedolizumab continued to have far higher rates of clinical response than did those on placebo, with 46.9% and 19.0%, respectively (AD, 28.0%; 95% CI, 14.9-41.1). For those with previous TNF antagonist exposure, the disparity between vedolizumab and placebo was similarly profound: 36.1% versus 5.3%, respectively (AD, 29.5%; 95% CI, 12.8-46.1).

Adverse event rates between naive and previously exposed patients were not significantly different, according to the findings. In naive patients, 74% of those on vedolizumab experienced an adverse event, and 9% experienced a serious adverse event. For those on placebo, those rates were 75% and 16%, respectively. For patients who had previously been on a TNF antagonist, subjects on vedolizumab had an 88% rate of adverse events and a 17% rate of serious adverse events, compared with 84% and 11%, respectively, for those on placebo.

“It is notable that, in maintenance, the absolute remission rates were substantially lower in the TNF failure population for both vedolizumab-treated and placebo-treated patients,” the investigators noted, positing that “The relatively low placebo response rate in the TNF-failure group could be attributed to the presence of a greater proportion of patients with more refractory disease and poor prognostic factors, such as pancolitis and long disease duration.”

The study was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Feagan disclosed serving as a consultant and receiving financial support for research from Millennium and other companies. No other coauthors reported relevant financial disclosures.
 

[email protected]

When treating patients for ulcerative colitis (UC), clinicians should consider using vedolizumab, because the drug has been found to be both safe and highly effective in patients who have never received tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–antagonist treatment and those who have but did not benefit from it, according to a study published in the February issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.08.044).

“Approximately 50% of patients with UC do not respond to induction therapy with TNF antagonists or lose response over time such that after 1 year of treatment, clinical remission is observed in only 17%-34% of patients,” explained the authors of the report, led by Brian G. Feagan, MD, of the University of Western Ontario in London. “Furthermore, the risk of serious infection (with immunosuppressants in general, and TNF antagonists specifically) is an important concern [so] alternative approaches to treatment are needed.”

For this study, Dr. Feagan and his colleagues turned to the GEMINI 1 trial, which evaluated vedolizumab in patients with moderate and severe UC via a multicenter, phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. This study produced data on 374 subjects who had been randomized into cohorts receiving either vedolizumab intravenously or a placebo. However, this number was deemed too low, so a further 521 patients were enrolled for an open-label study and randomized in the same 3:2 ratio as the previous study. The former study was called Cohort 1 and the latter called Cohort 2.

“Eligible patients had UC for [at least] 6 months before enrollment, MCS [Mayo Clinic scores for disease activity] from 6 to 12, and endoscopic subscores of [at least] 2 within 7 days before the first dose of study drug, and evidence of disease extending [at least] 15 cm proximal to the rectum,” the authors explained.

Vedolizumab was administered at baseline, with follow-up evaluations at 2, 4, and 6 weeks. Subjects who experienced a clinical response – defined as an MCS reduction of at least 3 points and 30%, along with at least a 1-point reduction in rectal bleeding and an absolute rectal bleeding subscore of either 0 or 1 – were re-randomized into cohorts that received the drug every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks, for a period of up to 46 weeks. The total length of the study was, therefore, 52 weeks; for patients that were re-randomized, follow-up evaluations took place every 4 weeks.

A total of 464 patients who were enrolled and completed the study were naive to TNF antagonists, while 367 had previously been treated with TNF antagonists unsuccessfully. At 6-week follow-up, 53.1% of naive subjects receiving vedolizumab had achieved clinical response, versus 26.3% of naive subjects on placebo (absolute difference, 26.4%; 95% confidence interval, 12.4-40.4). Similarly, those with previous TNF antagonist exposure who were given vedolizumab had a 39.0% clinical response rate, versus 20.6% of those on placebo (AD, 18.1%; 95% CI, 2.8-33.5).

At week 52, naive subjects on vedolizumab continued to have far higher rates of clinical response than did those on placebo, with 46.9% and 19.0%, respectively (AD, 28.0%; 95% CI, 14.9-41.1). For those with previous TNF antagonist exposure, the disparity between vedolizumab and placebo was similarly profound: 36.1% versus 5.3%, respectively (AD, 29.5%; 95% CI, 12.8-46.1).

Adverse event rates between naive and previously exposed patients were not significantly different, according to the findings. In naive patients, 74% of those on vedolizumab experienced an adverse event, and 9% experienced a serious adverse event. For those on placebo, those rates were 75% and 16%, respectively. For patients who had previously been on a TNF antagonist, subjects on vedolizumab had an 88% rate of adverse events and a 17% rate of serious adverse events, compared with 84% and 11%, respectively, for those on placebo.

“It is notable that, in maintenance, the absolute remission rates were substantially lower in the TNF failure population for both vedolizumab-treated and placebo-treated patients,” the investigators noted, positing that “The relatively low placebo response rate in the TNF-failure group could be attributed to the presence of a greater proportion of patients with more refractory disease and poor prognostic factors, such as pancolitis and long disease duration.”

The study was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Feagan disclosed serving as a consultant and receiving financial support for research from Millennium and other companies. No other coauthors reported relevant financial disclosures.
 

[email protected]

When treating patients for ulcerative colitis (UC), clinicians should consider using vedolizumab, because the drug has been found to be both safe and highly effective in patients who have never received tumor necrosis factor (TNF)–antagonist treatment and those who have but did not benefit from it, according to a study published in the February issue of Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2016.08.044).

“Approximately 50% of patients with UC do not respond to induction therapy with TNF antagonists or lose response over time such that after 1 year of treatment, clinical remission is observed in only 17%-34% of patients,” explained the authors of the report, led by Brian G. Feagan, MD, of the University of Western Ontario in London. “Furthermore, the risk of serious infection (with immunosuppressants in general, and TNF antagonists specifically) is an important concern [so] alternative approaches to treatment are needed.”

For this study, Dr. Feagan and his colleagues turned to the GEMINI 1 trial, which evaluated vedolizumab in patients with moderate and severe UC via a multicenter, phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. This study produced data on 374 subjects who had been randomized into cohorts receiving either vedolizumab intravenously or a placebo. However, this number was deemed too low, so a further 521 patients were enrolled for an open-label study and randomized in the same 3:2 ratio as the previous study. The former study was called Cohort 1 and the latter called Cohort 2.

“Eligible patients had UC for [at least] 6 months before enrollment, MCS [Mayo Clinic scores for disease activity] from 6 to 12, and endoscopic subscores of [at least] 2 within 7 days before the first dose of study drug, and evidence of disease extending [at least] 15 cm proximal to the rectum,” the authors explained.

Vedolizumab was administered at baseline, with follow-up evaluations at 2, 4, and 6 weeks. Subjects who experienced a clinical response – defined as an MCS reduction of at least 3 points and 30%, along with at least a 1-point reduction in rectal bleeding and an absolute rectal bleeding subscore of either 0 or 1 – were re-randomized into cohorts that received the drug every 4 weeks or every 8 weeks, for a period of up to 46 weeks. The total length of the study was, therefore, 52 weeks; for patients that were re-randomized, follow-up evaluations took place every 4 weeks.

A total of 464 patients who were enrolled and completed the study were naive to TNF antagonists, while 367 had previously been treated with TNF antagonists unsuccessfully. At 6-week follow-up, 53.1% of naive subjects receiving vedolizumab had achieved clinical response, versus 26.3% of naive subjects on placebo (absolute difference, 26.4%; 95% confidence interval, 12.4-40.4). Similarly, those with previous TNF antagonist exposure who were given vedolizumab had a 39.0% clinical response rate, versus 20.6% of those on placebo (AD, 18.1%; 95% CI, 2.8-33.5).

At week 52, naive subjects on vedolizumab continued to have far higher rates of clinical response than did those on placebo, with 46.9% and 19.0%, respectively (AD, 28.0%; 95% CI, 14.9-41.1). For those with previous TNF antagonist exposure, the disparity between vedolizumab and placebo was similarly profound: 36.1% versus 5.3%, respectively (AD, 29.5%; 95% CI, 12.8-46.1).

Adverse event rates between naive and previously exposed patients were not significantly different, according to the findings. In naive patients, 74% of those on vedolizumab experienced an adverse event, and 9% experienced a serious adverse event. For those on placebo, those rates were 75% and 16%, respectively. For patients who had previously been on a TNF antagonist, subjects on vedolizumab had an 88% rate of adverse events and a 17% rate of serious adverse events, compared with 84% and 11%, respectively, for those on placebo.

“It is notable that, in maintenance, the absolute remission rates were substantially lower in the TNF failure population for both vedolizumab-treated and placebo-treated patients,” the investigators noted, positing that “The relatively low placebo response rate in the TNF-failure group could be attributed to the presence of a greater proportion of patients with more refractory disease and poor prognostic factors, such as pancolitis and long disease duration.”

The study was funded by Millennium Pharmaceuticals. Dr. Feagan disclosed serving as a consultant and receiving financial support for research from Millennium and other companies. No other coauthors reported relevant financial disclosures.
 

[email protected]

The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) has published evidence-based recommendations for management of restless legs syndrome (RLS) in adults. The practice guideline was published online ahead of print November 16, 2016, in Neurology. The practice guideline addresses the question: What are safe and effective therapies, including both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic approaches, for the symptoms and clinical consequences (eg, disturbed sleep, periodic limb movements in sleep, depression/anxiety, and decreased quality of life) of RLS in adults.

“When addressing RLS, clinicians and patients must first determine whether symptoms require treatment, the setting in which this practice guideline is relevant,” said John W. Winkelman, MD, PhD, and colleagues. Dr. Winkelman is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and Medical Director of the Sleep Health Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“Treatment should be considered if RLS symptoms interfere with sleep or daytime function to an important degree,” the guideline authors said. “Before determining the best treatment, it is important to first ensure there are no contributing factors to RLS symptoms (eg, iron deficiency or serotonergic antidepressants). The guidelines advise clinicians to consider prescribing a pharmacologic agent to reduce RLS symptoms in patients with moderate to severe primary RLS. There is strong (Level A) evidence for use of pramipexole, rotigotine, cabergoline, and gabapentin enacarbil; moderate evidence (Level B) supports ropinirole, pregabalin, and IV ferric carboxymaltose; and weak evidence (Level C) supports levodopa. When considering efficacy alone, clinicians may prefer cabergoline. It is rarely used in clinical practice for RLS, however, because it is associated with a risk of cardiac valvulopathy. Clinicians are also advised to consider the augmentation risks associated with dopaminergic agents.

For patients with periodic limb movement disorder, there is strong (Level A) evidence supporting ropinirole. Moderate evidence (Level B) supports pramipexole, rotigotine, cabergoline, and pregabalin; and weak evidence (Level C) supporting levodopa. The authors note insufficient evidence (Level U) for gabapentin enacarbil and ferric carboxymaltose. With regard to objective sleep measures (eg, total sleep time, sleep efficiency, sleep latency, wake after sleep onset) there is moderate evidence (Level B) supporting ropinirole, gabapentin, encarbil, and pregabalin. However, there is insufficient evidence (Level U) supporting pamipexole, rotigotine, cabergoline, or levodopa.

For subjective sleep measures, cabergoline and gabapentin enacarbil have Level A evidence; ropinirole, pramipexole, rotigotine, and pregabalin have Level B evidence; and levodopa and prolonged-release oxycodone/naloxone, and vibratory stimulation have Level C evidence. Insufficient evidence (Level U) exists for ferric carboxymaltose and iron sucrose.When patients with RLS fail to respond to other treatments, clinicians are advised to consider prescribing prolonged-release oxycodone/naloxone (Level C) or to consider nonpharmacologic options, including pneumatic compression (Level B), infrared spectroscopy or transcranial magnetic stimulation (Level C), and vibrating pads (Level C).

For iron-deficient patients with RLS (ferritin levels ≤ 75 µg/L), clinicians are advised to prescribe ferrous sulfate with vitamin C. In patients on hemodialysis with secondary RLS, clinicians are advised to prescribe vitamin C and E supplementation (Level B), ropinirole, levodopa, or exercise (Level C).

—Erica Tricarico

Suggested Reading

Winkelman JW, Armstrong MJ, Allen RP, et al. Practice guideline summary: treatment of restless legs syndrome in adults: report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2016 Nov 16 [Epub ahead of print].

The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) has published evidence-based recommendations for management of restless legs syndrome (RLS) in adults. The practice guideline was published online ahead of print November 16, 2016, in Neurology. The practice guideline addresses the question: What are safe and effective therapies, including both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic approaches, for the symptoms and clinical consequences (eg, disturbed sleep, periodic limb movements in sleep, depression/anxiety, and decreased quality of life) of RLS in adults.

“When addressing RLS, clinicians and patients must first determine whether symptoms require treatment, the setting in which this practice guideline is relevant,” said John W. Winkelman, MD, PhD, and colleagues. Dr. Winkelman is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and Medical Director of the Sleep Health Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“Treatment should be considered if RLS symptoms interfere with sleep or daytime function to an important degree,” the guideline authors said. “Before determining the best treatment, it is important to first ensure there are no contributing factors to RLS symptoms (eg, iron deficiency or serotonergic antidepressants). The guidelines advise clinicians to consider prescribing a pharmacologic agent to reduce RLS symptoms in patients with moderate to severe primary RLS. There is strong (Level A) evidence for use of pramipexole, rotigotine, cabergoline, and gabapentin enacarbil; moderate evidence (Level B) supports ropinirole, pregabalin, and IV ferric carboxymaltose; and weak evidence (Level C) supports levodopa. When considering efficacy alone, clinicians may prefer cabergoline. It is rarely used in clinical practice for RLS, however, because it is associated with a risk of cardiac valvulopathy. Clinicians are also advised to consider the augmentation risks associated with dopaminergic agents.

For patients with periodic limb movement disorder, there is strong (Level A) evidence supporting ropinirole. Moderate evidence (Level B) supports pramipexole, rotigotine, cabergoline, and pregabalin; and weak evidence (Level C) supporting levodopa. The authors note insufficient evidence (Level U) for gabapentin enacarbil and ferric carboxymaltose. With regard to objective sleep measures (eg, total sleep time, sleep efficiency, sleep latency, wake after sleep onset) there is moderate evidence (Level B) supporting ropinirole, gabapentin, encarbil, and pregabalin. However, there is insufficient evidence (Level U) supporting pamipexole, rotigotine, cabergoline, or levodopa.

For subjective sleep measures, cabergoline and gabapentin enacarbil have Level A evidence; ropinirole, pramipexole, rotigotine, and pregabalin have Level B evidence; and levodopa and prolonged-release oxycodone/naloxone, and vibratory stimulation have Level C evidence. Insufficient evidence (Level U) exists for ferric carboxymaltose and iron sucrose.When patients with RLS fail to respond to other treatments, clinicians are advised to consider prescribing prolonged-release oxycodone/naloxone (Level C) or to consider nonpharmacologic options, including pneumatic compression (Level B), infrared spectroscopy or transcranial magnetic stimulation (Level C), and vibrating pads (Level C).

For iron-deficient patients with RLS (ferritin levels ≤ 75 µg/L), clinicians are advised to prescribe ferrous sulfate with vitamin C. In patients on hemodialysis with secondary RLS, clinicians are advised to prescribe vitamin C and E supplementation (Level B), ropinirole, levodopa, or exercise (Level C).

—Erica Tricarico

Suggested Reading

Winkelman JW, Armstrong MJ, Allen RP, et al. Practice guideline summary: treatment of restless legs syndrome in adults: report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2016 Nov 16 [Epub ahead of print].

The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) has published evidence-based recommendations for management of restless legs syndrome (RLS) in adults. The practice guideline was published online ahead of print November 16, 2016, in Neurology. The practice guideline addresses the question: What are safe and effective therapies, including both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic approaches, for the symptoms and clinical consequences (eg, disturbed sleep, periodic limb movements in sleep, depression/anxiety, and decreased quality of life) of RLS in adults.

“When addressing RLS, clinicians and patients must first determine whether symptoms require treatment, the setting in which this practice guideline is relevant,” said John W. Winkelman, MD, PhD, and colleagues. Dr. Winkelman is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School and Medical Director of the Sleep Health Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

“Treatment should be considered if RLS symptoms interfere with sleep or daytime function to an important degree,” the guideline authors said. “Before determining the best treatment, it is important to first ensure there are no contributing factors to RLS symptoms (eg, iron deficiency or serotonergic antidepressants). The guidelines advise clinicians to consider prescribing a pharmacologic agent to reduce RLS symptoms in patients with moderate to severe primary RLS. There is strong (Level A) evidence for use of pramipexole, rotigotine, cabergoline, and gabapentin enacarbil; moderate evidence (Level B) supports ropinirole, pregabalin, and IV ferric carboxymaltose; and weak evidence (Level C) supports levodopa. When considering efficacy alone, clinicians may prefer cabergoline. It is rarely used in clinical practice for RLS, however, because it is associated with a risk of cardiac valvulopathy. Clinicians are also advised to consider the augmentation risks associated with dopaminergic agents.

For patients with periodic limb movement disorder, there is strong (Level A) evidence supporting ropinirole. Moderate evidence (Level B) supports pramipexole, rotigotine, cabergoline, and pregabalin; and weak evidence (Level C) supporting levodopa. The authors note insufficient evidence (Level U) for gabapentin enacarbil and ferric carboxymaltose. With regard to objective sleep measures (eg, total sleep time, sleep efficiency, sleep latency, wake after sleep onset) there is moderate evidence (Level B) supporting ropinirole, gabapentin, encarbil, and pregabalin. However, there is insufficient evidence (Level U) supporting pamipexole, rotigotine, cabergoline, or levodopa.

For subjective sleep measures, cabergoline and gabapentin enacarbil have Level A evidence; ropinirole, pramipexole, rotigotine, and pregabalin have Level B evidence; and levodopa and prolonged-release oxycodone/naloxone, and vibratory stimulation have Level C evidence. Insufficient evidence (Level U) exists for ferric carboxymaltose and iron sucrose.When patients with RLS fail to respond to other treatments, clinicians are advised to consider prescribing prolonged-release oxycodone/naloxone (Level C) or to consider nonpharmacologic options, including pneumatic compression (Level B), infrared spectroscopy or transcranial magnetic stimulation (Level C), and vibrating pads (Level C).

For iron-deficient patients with RLS (ferritin levels ≤ 75 µg/L), clinicians are advised to prescribe ferrous sulfate with vitamin C. In patients on hemodialysis with secondary RLS, clinicians are advised to prescribe vitamin C and E supplementation (Level B), ropinirole, levodopa, or exercise (Level C).

—Erica Tricarico

Suggested Reading

Winkelman JW, Armstrong MJ, Allen RP, et al. Practice guideline summary: treatment of restless legs syndrome in adults: report of the Guideline Development, Dissemination, and Implementation Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. Neurology. 2016 Nov 16 [Epub ahead of print].

Onychomadesis is an acute, noninflammatory, painless, proximal separation of the nail plate from the nail matrix. It occurs due to an abrupt stoppage of nail production by matrix cells, producing temporary cessation of nail growth with or without subsequent complete shedding of nails.^1-10 Onychomadesis has a wide spectrum of clinical presentations ranging from mild transverse ridges of the nail plate (Beau lines) to complete nail shedding.^4,11 Onychomadesis may be related to systemic and dermatologic diseases, drugs (eg, chemotherapeutic agents, anticonvulsants, lithium, retinoids), nail trauma, fever, or infection,⁵ and a connection between onychomadesis and hand-foot-and-mouth disease (HFMD) was first described by Clementz et al¹² following outbreaks in Europe, Asia, and the United States.

Epidemiology

Onychomadesis has been observed in children of all ages including neonates. Neonatal onychomadesis is thought to be related to perinatal stressors and birth trauma, with possible exacerbation by superimposed candidiasis.¹⁰ Depending on the underlying cause, there may be involvement of a single nail or multiple nails. Nag et al¹ noted that onychomadesis was most commonly observed in nails of the middle finger (73.7%), followed by the thumb (63.2%) and ring finger (52.6%). Fingernails are more commonly involved than toenails.¹

Clementz et al¹² first proposed the association between onychomadesis and HFMD in 2000. Patients with a history of HFMD were found to be 14 times more likely to develop onychomadesis (relative risk, 14; 95% confidence interval, 4.57-42.86).⁴ A common pathogen for HFMD is coxsackievirus A6 (CVA6),^13,14 but the mechanism of onychomadesis in HFMD remains unclear.^5,7,13 Outbreaks of HFMD have been reported in Spain, Finland, Japan, Thailand, the United States, Singapore, and China.¹⁵ During an outbreak of HFMD in Taiwan, the incidence of onychomadesis following CVA6 infection was 37% (48/130) compared to 5% (7/145) in cases with non-CVA6 causative strains.¹⁶ There also have been observed differences in the prevalence of onychomadesis by age: a 55% (18/33) occurrence rate was noted in the youngest age group (range, 9–23 months), 30% (8/27) in the middle age group (range, 24–32 months), and 4% (1/28) in the oldest age group (range, 33–42 months), with an average of 4 nails shed per case.¹⁷ A study in Spain also found a high occurrence of onychomadesis in a nursery setting, with 92% (11/12) of onychomadesis cases preceded by HFMD 2 months prior.¹⁸

Etiology

Local trauma to the nail bed is the most common cause of single-digit onychomadesis.⁴ Multiple-digit involvement suggests a systemic etiology such as fever, erythroderma, and Kawasaki disease; use of drugs (eg, chemotherapeutic agents, anticonvulsants, lithium, retinoids); and viral infections such as HFMD and varicella at the infantile age (Table).^5,9,19 Most drug-related nail changes are the outcome of acute toxicity to the proliferating nail matrix epithelium. If onychomadesis affects all nails at the same level, the patient’s history of medication use and other treatments taken 2 to 3 weeks prior to the appearance of the nail findings should be evaluated. Chemotherapeutic agents produce nail changes in a high proportion of patients, which often are related to drug dosage. These effects also are reproducible with re-administration of the drug.²⁰ Onychomadesis also has been reported as a possible side effect of anticonvulsants such as valproic acid (VPA).²¹ One study evaluating the link between VPA and onychomadesis indicated that nail changes may be due to a disturbance of zinc metabolism.²² However, the pathomechanism of onychomadesis associated with VPA treatment remains unclear.²¹ Onychomadesis also has developed after an allergic drug reaction to oral penicillin V after treatment of a sore throat in a 23-month-old child.²³

Nail involvement has been reported in 10% of cases of inflammatory conditions such as lichen planus²¹; however, it may be more common but underrecognized and underreported. Grover et al⁹ indicated that lichen planus–induced severe inflammation in the matrix of the nail unit leading to a temporary growth arrest was the possible mechanism leading to nail shedding. Prompt systemic and intramatricial steroid treatment of lichen planus is required to avoid potential scarring of the nail matrix and permanent damage.⁹

Onychomadesis also has been reported following varicella infection (chickenpox). Podder et al¹⁹ reported the case of a 7-year-old girl who had recovered from a varicella infection 5 weeks prior and presented with onychomadesis of the right index fingernail with all other fingernails and toenails appearing normal. Kocak and Koçak⁵ reported onychomadesis in 2 sisters with varicella infection. There are few reported cases, so it is still unclear whether varicella infection is an inciting factor.¹⁹

One of the most studied viral infections linked to onychomadesis is HFMD, which is a common viral infection that mostly affects children younger than 10 years.¹ The precise mechanism of onychomadesis for these viral infection events remains unclear.^7,10,13 Several theories have been delineated, including nail matrix arrest from fever occurring during HFMD.⁶ However, this cause is unlikely, as fevers are typically low grade and present only for a few hours.^4,6,13 Direct inflammation spreading from skin lesions of HFMD around the nails or maceration associated with finger blisters could cause onychomadesis.^1,5,7 Haneke²⁴ hypothesized that nail shedding may be the consequence of vesicles localized in the periungual tissue, but studies have shown incidence without prior lesions on the fingers and no relationship between nail matrix arrest and severity of HFMD.^5,6,13 Bettoli et al²⁵ reported that inflammation secondary to viral infection around the nail matrix might be induced directly by viruses or indirectly by virus-specific immunocomplexes and consequent distal embolism. Osterback et al¹⁴ used reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction to detect CVA6 in fragmented nails from 2 children and 1 parent following an HFMD episode, suggesting that virus replication could damage the nail matrix, resulting in onychomadesis. Cabrerizo et al¹⁸ also suggested that virus replication directly damages the nail matrix based on the presence of CVA6 in shed nails. Because fingernails with onychomadesis are not always of the fingers affected by HFMD, an indirect effect of viral infection on the nail matrix is more plausible.⁸ Additional studies are needed to clarify the virus-associated mechanism of nail matrix arrest.⁶ Finally, frequent washing of hands¹⁵ resulting in maceration, Candida infection, and allergic contact dermatitis² may be possible causes. It is unclear if onychomadesis following HFMD is related to viral replication, inflammation, or intensive hygienic measures, and further investigation is needed.^2,15

Clinical Characteristics

The ventral floor is the site of the germinal matrix and is responsible for 90% of nail production. As a result, more of the nail plate substance is produced proximally, leading to a natural convex curvature from the proximal to distal nail.¹¹ Beau lines are transverse ridging of the nail plates.⁶ Onychomadesis may be viewed as a more severe form of Beau lines, with complete separation and possible shedding of the nail plate (Figure).^3,4 In both cases, an insult to the nail matrix is followed by recovery and production of the nail plate at the nail matrix.⁴ In Beau lines, slowing or disruption of cell growth from the proximal matrix results in a thinner nail plate, leading to transverse depressions. Onychomadesis has a similar pathophysiology but is associated with a complete halt in the nail plate production.³

Diagnosis

The diagnosis of onychomadesis is made clinically.^3,10 Distinct nail changes can be detected by inspection and palpation of the nail plate,^3,11 which allows for differentiation between Beau lines and complete nail shedding. Additionally, any signs of nail trauma need to be noted, as well as pain, swelling, or pruritus, as these symptoms also can guide in determining the etiology of the nail dystrophy. Ultrasonography can confirm the diagnosis, as the defect can be identified beneath the proximal nail fold.^3,26 When it occurs after HFMD or varicella, onychomadesis tends to present in 28 to 40 days following infection.^4,6,10 Physicians should consider underlying associations. A review of viral illnesses within 1 to 2 months prior to development of nail changes often will identify the causative disease.⁴ Each patient should be evaluated for recent nail trauma; medications; viral infection; and autoimmune, systemic, and inflammatory diseases.

Treatment

Onychomadesis typically is mild and self-limited.^4,10 There is no specific treatment,¹⁰ but a conservative approach to management is recommended. Treatment of any underlying medical conditions or discontinuation of an offending medication may help to prevent recurrent onychomadesis.³ Supportive care along with protection of the nail bed by maintaining short nails and using adhesive bandages over the affected nails to avoid snagging the nail or ripping off the partially attached nails is recommended.⁴ In some cases, onychomadesis has been treated with topical application of urea cream 40% under occlusion²⁷ or halcinonide cream 0.1% under occlusion for 5 to 6 days,²⁸ but these treatments have not been universally effective.³ External use of basic fibroblast growth factor to stimulate new regrowth of the nail plate has been advocated.³ It is important to reassure patients that as long as the underlying causes are eliminated and the nail matrix has not been permanently scarred, the nails should grow back within 12 weeks or sooner in children. Thus, typically only reassurance and counseling of parents/guardians is required for onychomadesis in children.^1,2 However, the nails may be dystrophic or fail to regrow if there is poor peripheral circulation or permanent nail matrix damage.

Conclusion

Fortunately, onychomadesis is self-limited. Physicians should look for underlying causes of onychomadesis, including a history of viral infections such as HFMD and varicella as well as systemic diseases and use of medications. As long as any underlying disorder or condition has been resolved, spontaneous regrowth of healthy nails usually but not always occurs within 12 weeks or sooner in children.

Onychomadesis is an acute, noninflammatory, painless, proximal separation of the nail plate from the nail matrix. It occurs due to an abrupt stoppage of nail production by matrix cells, producing temporary cessation of nail growth with or without subsequent complete shedding of nails.^1-10 Onychomadesis has a wide spectrum of clinical presentations ranging from mild transverse ridges of the nail plate (Beau lines) to complete nail shedding.^4,11 Onychomadesis may be related to systemic and dermatologic diseases, drugs (eg, chemotherapeutic agents, anticonvulsants, lithium, retinoids), nail trauma, fever, or infection,⁵ and a connection between onychomadesis and hand-foot-and-mouth disease (HFMD) was first described by Clementz et al¹² following outbreaks in Europe, Asia, and the United States.

Epidemiology

Onychomadesis has been observed in children of all ages including neonates. Neonatal onychomadesis is thought to be related to perinatal stressors and birth trauma, with possible exacerbation by superimposed candidiasis.¹⁰ Depending on the underlying cause, there may be involvement of a single nail or multiple nails. Nag et al¹ noted that onychomadesis was most commonly observed in nails of the middle finger (73.7%), followed by the thumb (63.2%) and ring finger (52.6%). Fingernails are more commonly involved than toenails.¹

Clementz et al¹² first proposed the association between onychomadesis and HFMD in 2000. Patients with a history of HFMD were found to be 14 times more likely to develop onychomadesis (relative risk, 14; 95% confidence interval, 4.57-42.86).⁴ A common pathogen for HFMD is coxsackievirus A6 (CVA6),^13,14 but the mechanism of onychomadesis in HFMD remains unclear.^5,7,13 Outbreaks of HFMD have been reported in Spain, Finland, Japan, Thailand, the United States, Singapore, and China.¹⁵ During an outbreak of HFMD in Taiwan, the incidence of onychomadesis following CVA6 infection was 37% (48/130) compared to 5% (7/145) in cases with non-CVA6 causative strains.¹⁶ There also have been observed differences in the prevalence of onychomadesis by age: a 55% (18/33) occurrence rate was noted in the youngest age group (range, 9–23 months), 30% (8/27) in the middle age group (range, 24–32 months), and 4% (1/28) in the oldest age group (range, 33–42 months), with an average of 4 nails shed per case.¹⁷ A study in Spain also found a high occurrence of onychomadesis in a nursery setting, with 92% (11/12) of onychomadesis cases preceded by HFMD 2 months prior.¹⁸

Etiology

Local trauma to the nail bed is the most common cause of single-digit onychomadesis.⁴ Multiple-digit involvement suggests a systemic etiology such as fever, erythroderma, and Kawasaki disease; use of drugs (eg, chemotherapeutic agents, anticonvulsants, lithium, retinoids); and viral infections such as HFMD and varicella at the infantile age (Table).^5,9,19 Most drug-related nail changes are the outcome of acute toxicity to the proliferating nail matrix epithelium. If onychomadesis affects all nails at the same level, the patient’s history of medication use and other treatments taken 2 to 3 weeks prior to the appearance of the nail findings should be evaluated. Chemotherapeutic agents produce nail changes in a high proportion of patients, which often are related to drug dosage. These effects also are reproducible with re-administration of the drug.²⁰ Onychomadesis also has been reported as a possible side effect of anticonvulsants such as valproic acid (VPA).²¹ One study evaluating the link between VPA and onychomadesis indicated that nail changes may be due to a disturbance of zinc metabolism.²² However, the pathomechanism of onychomadesis associated with VPA treatment remains unclear.²¹ Onychomadesis also has developed after an allergic drug reaction to oral penicillin V after treatment of a sore throat in a 23-month-old child.²³

Nail involvement has been reported in 10% of cases of inflammatory conditions such as lichen planus²¹; however, it may be more common but underrecognized and underreported. Grover et al⁹ indicated that lichen planus–induced severe inflammation in the matrix of the nail unit leading to a temporary growth arrest was the possible mechanism leading to nail shedding. Prompt systemic and intramatricial steroid treatment of lichen planus is required to avoid potential scarring of the nail matrix and permanent damage.⁹

Onychomadesis also has been reported following varicella infection (chickenpox). Podder et al¹⁹ reported the case of a 7-year-old girl who had recovered from a varicella infection 5 weeks prior and presented with onychomadesis of the right index fingernail with all other fingernails and toenails appearing normal. Kocak and Koçak⁵ reported onychomadesis in 2 sisters with varicella infection. There are few reported cases, so it is still unclear whether varicella infection is an inciting factor.¹⁹

One of the most studied viral infections linked to onychomadesis is HFMD, which is a common viral infection that mostly affects children younger than 10 years.¹ The precise mechanism of onychomadesis for these viral infection events remains unclear.^7,10,13 Several theories have been delineated, including nail matrix arrest from fever occurring during HFMD.⁶ However, this cause is unlikely, as fevers are typically low grade and present only for a few hours.^4,6,13 Direct inflammation spreading from skin lesions of HFMD around the nails or maceration associated with finger blisters could cause onychomadesis.^1,5,7 Haneke²⁴ hypothesized that nail shedding may be the consequence of vesicles localized in the periungual tissue, but studies have shown incidence without prior lesions on the fingers and no relationship between nail matrix arrest and severity of HFMD.^5,6,13 Bettoli et al²⁵ reported that inflammation secondary to viral infection around the nail matrix might be induced directly by viruses or indirectly by virus-specific immunocomplexes and consequent distal embolism. Osterback et al¹⁴ used reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction to detect CVA6 in fragmented nails from 2 children and 1 parent following an HFMD episode, suggesting that virus replication could damage the nail matrix, resulting in onychomadesis. Cabrerizo et al¹⁸ also suggested that virus replication directly damages the nail matrix based on the presence of CVA6 in shed nails. Because fingernails with onychomadesis are not always of the fingers affected by HFMD, an indirect effect of viral infection on the nail matrix is more plausible.⁸ Additional studies are needed to clarify the virus-associated mechanism of nail matrix arrest.⁶ Finally, frequent washing of hands¹⁵ resulting in maceration, Candida infection, and allergic contact dermatitis² may be possible causes. It is unclear if onychomadesis following HFMD is related to viral replication, inflammation, or intensive hygienic measures, and further investigation is needed.^2,15

Clinical Characteristics

The ventral floor is the site of the germinal matrix and is responsible for 90% of nail production. As a result, more of the nail plate substance is produced proximally, leading to a natural convex curvature from the proximal to distal nail.¹¹ Beau lines are transverse ridging of the nail plates.⁶ Onychomadesis may be viewed as a more severe form of Beau lines, with complete separation and possible shedding of the nail plate (Figure).^3,4 In both cases, an insult to the nail matrix is followed by recovery and production of the nail plate at the nail matrix.⁴ In Beau lines, slowing or disruption of cell growth from the proximal matrix results in a thinner nail plate, leading to transverse depressions. Onychomadesis has a similar pathophysiology but is associated with a complete halt in the nail plate production.³

Diagnosis

The diagnosis of onychomadesis is made clinically.^3,10 Distinct nail changes can be detected by inspection and palpation of the nail plate,^3,11 which allows for differentiation between Beau lines and complete nail shedding. Additionally, any signs of nail trauma need to be noted, as well as pain, swelling, or pruritus, as these symptoms also can guide in determining the etiology of the nail dystrophy. Ultrasonography can confirm the diagnosis, as the defect can be identified beneath the proximal nail fold.^3,26 When it occurs after HFMD or varicella, onychomadesis tends to present in 28 to 40 days following infection.^4,6,10 Physicians should consider underlying associations. A review of viral illnesses within 1 to 2 months prior to development of nail changes often will identify the causative disease.⁴ Each patient should be evaluated for recent nail trauma; medications; viral infection; and autoimmune, systemic, and inflammatory diseases.

Treatment

Onychomadesis typically is mild and self-limited.^4,10 There is no specific treatment,¹⁰ but a conservative approach to management is recommended. Treatment of any underlying medical conditions or discontinuation of an offending medication may help to prevent recurrent onychomadesis.³ Supportive care along with protection of the nail bed by maintaining short nails and using adhesive bandages over the affected nails to avoid snagging the nail or ripping off the partially attached nails is recommended.⁴ In some cases, onychomadesis has been treated with topical application of urea cream 40% under occlusion²⁷ or halcinonide cream 0.1% under occlusion for 5 to 6 days,²⁸ but these treatments have not been universally effective.³ External use of basic fibroblast growth factor to stimulate new regrowth of the nail plate has been advocated.³ It is important to reassure patients that as long as the underlying causes are eliminated and the nail matrix has not been permanently scarred, the nails should grow back within 12 weeks or sooner in children. Thus, typically only reassurance and counseling of parents/guardians is required for onychomadesis in children.^1,2 However, the nails may be dystrophic or fail to regrow if there is poor peripheral circulation or permanent nail matrix damage.

Conclusion

Fortunately, onychomadesis is self-limited. Physicians should look for underlying causes of onychomadesis, including a history of viral infections such as HFMD and varicella as well as systemic diseases and use of medications. As long as any underlying disorder or condition has been resolved, spontaneous regrowth of healthy nails usually but not always occurs within 12 weeks or sooner in children.

Onychomadesis is an acute, noninflammatory, painless, proximal separation of the nail plate from the nail matrix. It occurs due to an abrupt stoppage of nail production by matrix cells, producing temporary cessation of nail growth with or without subsequent complete shedding of nails.^1-10 Onychomadesis has a wide spectrum of clinical presentations ranging from mild transverse ridges of the nail plate (Beau lines) to complete nail shedding.^4,11 Onychomadesis may be related to systemic and dermatologic diseases, drugs (eg, chemotherapeutic agents, anticonvulsants, lithium, retinoids), nail trauma, fever, or infection,⁵ and a connection between onychomadesis and hand-foot-and-mouth disease (HFMD) was first described by Clementz et al¹² following outbreaks in Europe, Asia, and the United States.

Epidemiology

Onychomadesis has been observed in children of all ages including neonates. Neonatal onychomadesis is thought to be related to perinatal stressors and birth trauma, with possible exacerbation by superimposed candidiasis.¹⁰ Depending on the underlying cause, there may be involvement of a single nail or multiple nails. Nag et al¹ noted that onychomadesis was most commonly observed in nails of the middle finger (73.7%), followed by the thumb (63.2%) and ring finger (52.6%). Fingernails are more commonly involved than toenails.¹

Clementz et al¹² first proposed the association between onychomadesis and HFMD in 2000. Patients with a history of HFMD were found to be 14 times more likely to develop onychomadesis (relative risk, 14; 95% confidence interval, 4.57-42.86).⁴ A common pathogen for HFMD is coxsackievirus A6 (CVA6),^13,14 but the mechanism of onychomadesis in HFMD remains unclear.^5,7,13 Outbreaks of HFMD have been reported in Spain, Finland, Japan, Thailand, the United States, Singapore, and China.¹⁵ During an outbreak of HFMD in Taiwan, the incidence of onychomadesis following CVA6 infection was 37% (48/130) compared to 5% (7/145) in cases with non-CVA6 causative strains.¹⁶ There also have been observed differences in the prevalence of onychomadesis by age: a 55% (18/33) occurrence rate was noted in the youngest age group (range, 9–23 months), 30% (8/27) in the middle age group (range, 24–32 months), and 4% (1/28) in the oldest age group (range, 33–42 months), with an average of 4 nails shed per case.¹⁷ A study in Spain also found a high occurrence of onychomadesis in a nursery setting, with 92% (11/12) of onychomadesis cases preceded by HFMD 2 months prior.¹⁸

Etiology

Local trauma to the nail bed is the most common cause of single-digit onychomadesis.⁴ Multiple-digit involvement suggests a systemic etiology such as fever, erythroderma, and Kawasaki disease; use of drugs (eg, chemotherapeutic agents, anticonvulsants, lithium, retinoids); and viral infections such as HFMD and varicella at the infantile age (Table).^5,9,19 Most drug-related nail changes are the outcome of acute toxicity to the proliferating nail matrix epithelium. If onychomadesis affects all nails at the same level, the patient’s history of medication use and other treatments taken 2 to 3 weeks prior to the appearance of the nail findings should be evaluated. Chemotherapeutic agents produce nail changes in a high proportion of patients, which often are related to drug dosage. These effects also are reproducible with re-administration of the drug.²⁰ Onychomadesis also has been reported as a possible side effect of anticonvulsants such as valproic acid (VPA).²¹ One study evaluating the link between VPA and onychomadesis indicated that nail changes may be due to a disturbance of zinc metabolism.²² However, the pathomechanism of onychomadesis associated with VPA treatment remains unclear.²¹ Onychomadesis also has developed after an allergic drug reaction to oral penicillin V after treatment of a sore throat in a 23-month-old child.²³

Nail involvement has been reported in 10% of cases of inflammatory conditions such as lichen planus²¹; however, it may be more common but underrecognized and underreported. Grover et al⁹ indicated that lichen planus–induced severe inflammation in the matrix of the nail unit leading to a temporary growth arrest was the possible mechanism leading to nail shedding. Prompt systemic and intramatricial steroid treatment of lichen planus is required to avoid potential scarring of the nail matrix and permanent damage.⁹

Onychomadesis also has been reported following varicella infection (chickenpox). Podder et al¹⁹ reported the case of a 7-year-old girl who had recovered from a varicella infection 5 weeks prior and presented with onychomadesis of the right index fingernail with all other fingernails and toenails appearing normal. Kocak and Koçak⁵ reported onychomadesis in 2 sisters with varicella infection. There are few reported cases, so it is still unclear whether varicella infection is an inciting factor.¹⁹

One of the most studied viral infections linked to onychomadesis is HFMD, which is a common viral infection that mostly affects children younger than 10 years.¹ The precise mechanism of onychomadesis for these viral infection events remains unclear.^7,10,13 Several theories have been delineated, including nail matrix arrest from fever occurring during HFMD.⁶ However, this cause is unlikely, as fevers are typically low grade and present only for a few hours.^4,6,13 Direct inflammation spreading from skin lesions of HFMD around the nails or maceration associated with finger blisters could cause onychomadesis.^1,5,7 Haneke²⁴ hypothesized that nail shedding may be the consequence of vesicles localized in the periungual tissue, but studies have shown incidence without prior lesions on the fingers and no relationship between nail matrix arrest and severity of HFMD.^5,6,13 Bettoli et al²⁵ reported that inflammation secondary to viral infection around the nail matrix might be induced directly by viruses or indirectly by virus-specific immunocomplexes and consequent distal embolism. Osterback et al¹⁴ used reverse transcription–polymerase chain reaction to detect CVA6 in fragmented nails from 2 children and 1 parent following an HFMD episode, suggesting that virus replication could damage the nail matrix, resulting in onychomadesis. Cabrerizo et al¹⁸ also suggested that virus replication directly damages the nail matrix based on the presence of CVA6 in shed nails. Because fingernails with onychomadesis are not always of the fingers affected by HFMD, an indirect effect of viral infection on the nail matrix is more plausible.⁸ Additional studies are needed to clarify the virus-associated mechanism of nail matrix arrest.⁶ Finally, frequent washing of hands¹⁵ resulting in maceration, Candida infection, and allergic contact dermatitis² may be possible causes. It is unclear if onychomadesis following HFMD is related to viral replication, inflammation, or intensive hygienic measures, and further investigation is needed.^2,15

Clinical Characteristics

The ventral floor is the site of the germinal matrix and is responsible for 90% of nail production. As a result, more of the nail plate substance is produced proximally, leading to a natural convex curvature from the proximal to distal nail.¹¹ Beau lines are transverse ridging of the nail plates.⁶ Onychomadesis may be viewed as a more severe form of Beau lines, with complete separation and possible shedding of the nail plate (Figure).^3,4 In both cases, an insult to the nail matrix is followed by recovery and production of the nail plate at the nail matrix.⁴ In Beau lines, slowing or disruption of cell growth from the proximal matrix results in a thinner nail plate, leading to transverse depressions. Onychomadesis has a similar pathophysiology but is associated with a complete halt in the nail plate production.³

Diagnosis

The diagnosis of onychomadesis is made clinically.^3,10 Distinct nail changes can be detected by inspection and palpation of the nail plate,^3,11 which allows for differentiation between Beau lines and complete nail shedding. Additionally, any signs of nail trauma need to be noted, as well as pain, swelling, or pruritus, as these symptoms also can guide in determining the etiology of the nail dystrophy. Ultrasonography can confirm the diagnosis, as the defect can be identified beneath the proximal nail fold.^3,26 When it occurs after HFMD or varicella, onychomadesis tends to present in 28 to 40 days following infection.^4,6,10 Physicians should consider underlying associations. A review of viral illnesses within 1 to 2 months prior to development of nail changes often will identify the causative disease.⁴ Each patient should be evaluated for recent nail trauma; medications; viral infection; and autoimmune, systemic, and inflammatory diseases.

Treatment

Onychomadesis typically is mild and self-limited.^4,10 There is no specific treatment,¹⁰ but a conservative approach to management is recommended. Treatment of any underlying medical conditions or discontinuation of an offending medication may help to prevent recurrent onychomadesis.³ Supportive care along with protection of the nail bed by maintaining short nails and using adhesive bandages over the affected nails to avoid snagging the nail or ripping off the partially attached nails is recommended.⁴ In some cases, onychomadesis has been treated with topical application of urea cream 40% under occlusion²⁷ or halcinonide cream 0.1% under occlusion for 5 to 6 days,²⁸ but these treatments have not been universally effective.³ External use of basic fibroblast growth factor to stimulate new regrowth of the nail plate has been advocated.³ It is important to reassure patients that as long as the underlying causes are eliminated and the nail matrix has not been permanently scarred, the nails should grow back within 12 weeks or sooner in children. Thus, typically only reassurance and counseling of parents/guardians is required for onychomadesis in children.^1,2 However, the nails may be dystrophic or fail to regrow if there is poor peripheral circulation or permanent nail matrix damage.

Conclusion

Fortunately, onychomadesis is self-limited. Physicians should look for underlying causes of onychomadesis, including a history of viral infections such as HFMD and varicella as well as systemic diseases and use of medications. As long as any underlying disorder or condition has been resolved, spontaneous regrowth of healthy nails usually but not always occurs within 12 weeks or sooner in children.

Enbrel

Amgen Inc announces that the US Food and Drug Administration has approved the supplemental Biologics License Application for the expanded use of Enbrel (etanercept) for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in pediatric patients (aged 4–17 years). Enbrel, a tumor necrosis factor blocker, was approved for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults in 2004. For more information, visit www.enbrel.com.

Eucrisa

Pfizer Inc announces US Food and Drug Administration approval of Eucrisa (crisaborole) ointment 2% for the treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in patients 2 years and older. Eucrisa is a nonsteroidal topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor and is applied twice daily. This approval provides patients with atopic dermatitis another treatment alternative, as this community has not had a new prescription treatment for more than 10 years. For more information, visit www.pfizer.com.

Isdinceutics

Isdin based in Spain has launched the Isdinceutics line of physician-dispensed cosmeceuticals to the US market, which focuses on vitamins and hydrators rather than chemicals to rejuvenate the skin. Isdinceutics features a daily antioxidant routine with Flavo-C Ultraglican and Flavo-C Serum to reduce the appearance of microwrinkles and elevate the skin’s natural moisture production. Products to correct pigmentation problems as well as undereye circles and puffiness also are available. For more information, visit www.isdin.com/us.

If you would like your product included in Product News, please email a press release to the Editorial Office at [email protected].

Enbrel

Amgen Inc announces that the US Food and Drug Administration has approved the supplemental Biologics License Application for the expanded use of Enbrel (etanercept) for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in pediatric patients (aged 4–17 years). Enbrel, a tumor necrosis factor blocker, was approved for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults in 2004. For more information, visit www.enbrel.com.

Eucrisa

Pfizer Inc announces US Food and Drug Administration approval of Eucrisa (crisaborole) ointment 2% for the treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in patients 2 years and older. Eucrisa is a nonsteroidal topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor and is applied twice daily. This approval provides patients with atopic dermatitis another treatment alternative, as this community has not had a new prescription treatment for more than 10 years. For more information, visit www.pfizer.com.

Isdinceutics

Isdin based in Spain has launched the Isdinceutics line of physician-dispensed cosmeceuticals to the US market, which focuses on vitamins and hydrators rather than chemicals to rejuvenate the skin. Isdinceutics features a daily antioxidant routine with Flavo-C Ultraglican and Flavo-C Serum to reduce the appearance of microwrinkles and elevate the skin’s natural moisture production. Products to correct pigmentation problems as well as undereye circles and puffiness also are available. For more information, visit www.isdin.com/us.

If you would like your product included in Product News, please email a press release to the Editorial Office at [email protected].

Enbrel

Amgen Inc announces that the US Food and Drug Administration has approved the supplemental Biologics License Application for the expanded use of Enbrel (etanercept) for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in pediatric patients (aged 4–17 years). Enbrel, a tumor necrosis factor blocker, was approved for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults in 2004. For more information, visit www.enbrel.com.

Eucrisa

Pfizer Inc announces US Food and Drug Administration approval of Eucrisa (crisaborole) ointment 2% for the treatment of mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in patients 2 years and older. Eucrisa is a nonsteroidal topical phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor and is applied twice daily. This approval provides patients with atopic dermatitis another treatment alternative, as this community has not had a new prescription treatment for more than 10 years. For more information, visit www.pfizer.com.

Isdinceutics

Isdin based in Spain has launched the Isdinceutics line of physician-dispensed cosmeceuticals to the US market, which focuses on vitamins and hydrators rather than chemicals to rejuvenate the skin. Isdinceutics features a daily antioxidant routine with Flavo-C Ultraglican and Flavo-C Serum to reduce the appearance of microwrinkles and elevate the skin’s natural moisture production. Products to correct pigmentation problems as well as undereye circles and puffiness also are available. For more information, visit www.isdin.com/us.

If you would like your product included in Product News, please email a press release to the Editorial Office at [email protected].