MDedge Pediatrics

Optimism about new opportunities to treat alopecia areata can be derived not only from a recently approved Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor in older children but promising results with the monoclonal antibody dupilumab alone or in combination with additional treatments, such as minoxidil or corticosteroids, in children with AA and concomitant atopy.

It was only a little over a year ago that the JAK inhibitor baricitinib became the first systemic therapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration for AA in adults. In June 2023, the JAK inhibitor ritlecitinib was approved for severe AA in patients as young as 12 years of age, but there is accumulating evidence that dupilumab, which binds to the interleukin-4 receptor, might be an option for even younger children with AA.

Of those who have worked with dupilumab for controlling AA in children, Brittany Craiglow, MD, an adjunct associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., updated a case series at the recent MedscapeLive! Annual Women’s and Pediatric Dermatology Seminar in Baltimore. A series of six children with AA treated with dupilumab was published 2 years ago in JAAD Case Reports.

Even in 2021, her case series was not the first report of benefit from dupilumab in children with AA, but instead contributed to a “growing body of literature” supporting the potential benefit in the setting of concomitant atopy, Dr. Craiglow, one of the authors of the series, said in an interview.

Of the six patients in that series, five had improvement and four had complete regrowth with dupilumab, whether as a monotherapy or in combination with other agents. The children ranged in age from 7 to 12 years. The age range at the time of AA onset was 3-11 years. All had atopic dermatitis (AD) and most had additional atopic conditions, such as food allergies or asthma.

Since publication, Dr. Craiglow has successfully treated many more patients with dupilumab, either as monotherapy or in combination with oral minoxidil, corticosteroids, and/or a topical JAK inhibitor. Dupilumab, which is approved for the treatment of AD in children as young as 6 months of age, has been well tolerated.

“Oral minoxidil is often a great adjuvant treatment in patients with AA and should be used unless there are contraindications,” based on the initial and subsequent experience treating AA with dupilumab, said Dr. Craiglow.

“Topical steroids can be used in combination with dupilumab and minoxidil, but in general dupilumab should not be combined with an oral JAK inhibitor,” she added.

Now, with the approval of ritlecitinib, Dr. Craiglow said this JAK inhibitor will become a first-line therapy in children 12 years or older with severe, persistent AA, but she considers a trial of dupilumab reasonable in younger children, given the controlled studies of safety for atopic diseases.

“I would say that dupilumab could be considered in the following clinical scenarios: children under 12 with AA and concomitant atopy, such as atopic dermatitis, asthma, allergies, and/or elevated IgE; and children over the age of 12 with concomitant atopy who either have a contraindication to a JAK inhibitor or whose families have reservations about or are unwilling to take one,” Dr. Craiglow said.

In older children, she believes that dupilumab has “a much lower chance of being effective” than an oral JAK inhibitor like ritlecitinib, but it circumvents the potential safety issues of JAK inhibitors that have been observed in adults.

With ritlecitinib providing an on-label option for AA in older children, Dr. Craiglow suggested it might be easier to obtain third-party coverage for dupilumab as an alternative to a JAK inhibitor for AA in patients younger than 12, particularly when there is an indication for a concomitant atopic condition and a rationale, such as a concern about relative safety.

Two years ago, when Dr. Craiglow and her coinvestigator published their six-patient case series, a second case series was published about the same time by investigators at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. This series of 16 pediatric patients with AA on dupilumab was more heterogeneous, but four of six patients with active disease and more than 4 months of follow-up had improvement in AA, including total regrowth. The improvement was concentrated in patients with moderate to severe AD at the time of treatment.

Based on this series, the authors, led by Leslie Castelo-Soccio, MD, PhD, who is now an attending physician in the Dermatology Branch of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Bethesda, Md., concluded that dupilumab “may be a therapeutic option for AA” when traditional therapies have failed, “especially in patients with concurrent AD or asthma, for which the benefits of dupilumab are clear.”

When contacted about where this therapy might fit on the basis of her case series and the update on Dr. Craiglow’s experience, Dr. Castelo-Soccio, like Dr. Craiglow, stressed the importance of employing this therapy selectively.

“I do think that dupilumab is a reasonable option for AA in children with atopy and IgE levels greater than 200 IU/mL, especially if treatment is for atopic dermatitis or asthma as well,” she said.

Many clinicians, including Dr. Craiglow, have experience with oral JAK inhibitors in children younger than 12. Indeed, a recently published case study associated oral abrocitinib, a JAK inhibitor approved for moderate to severe AD in patients ages 12 and older, with hair regrowth in an 11-year-old child who had persistent AA for more than 6 years despite numerous conventional therapies.

However, the advantage of dupilumab in younger children is the greater evidence of safety, providing a level of reassurance for a treatment that is commonly used for severe atopic diseases but does not have a specific indication for AA, according to Dr. Craiglow.

Dr. Craiglow disclosed being a speaker for AbbVie and a speaker and consultant for Eli Lilly, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Castelo-Soccio had no disclosures.

Optimism about new opportunities to treat alopecia areata can be derived not only from a recently approved Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor in older children but promising results with the monoclonal antibody dupilumab alone or in combination with additional treatments, such as minoxidil or corticosteroids, in children with AA and concomitant atopy.

It was only a little over a year ago that the JAK inhibitor baricitinib became the first systemic therapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration for AA in adults. In June 2023, the JAK inhibitor ritlecitinib was approved for severe AA in patients as young as 12 years of age, but there is accumulating evidence that dupilumab, which binds to the interleukin-4 receptor, might be an option for even younger children with AA.

Of those who have worked with dupilumab for controlling AA in children, Brittany Craiglow, MD, an adjunct associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., updated a case series at the recent MedscapeLive! Annual Women’s and Pediatric Dermatology Seminar in Baltimore. A series of six children with AA treated with dupilumab was published 2 years ago in JAAD Case Reports.

Even in 2021, her case series was not the first report of benefit from dupilumab in children with AA, but instead contributed to a “growing body of literature” supporting the potential benefit in the setting of concomitant atopy, Dr. Craiglow, one of the authors of the series, said in an interview.

Of the six patients in that series, five had improvement and four had complete regrowth with dupilumab, whether as a monotherapy or in combination with other agents. The children ranged in age from 7 to 12 years. The age range at the time of AA onset was 3-11 years. All had atopic dermatitis (AD) and most had additional atopic conditions, such as food allergies or asthma.

Since publication, Dr. Craiglow has successfully treated many more patients with dupilumab, either as monotherapy or in combination with oral minoxidil, corticosteroids, and/or a topical JAK inhibitor. Dupilumab, which is approved for the treatment of AD in children as young as 6 months of age, has been well tolerated.

“Oral minoxidil is often a great adjuvant treatment in patients with AA and should be used unless there are contraindications,” based on the initial and subsequent experience treating AA with dupilumab, said Dr. Craiglow.

“Topical steroids can be used in combination with dupilumab and minoxidil, but in general dupilumab should not be combined with an oral JAK inhibitor,” she added.

Now, with the approval of ritlecitinib, Dr. Craiglow said this JAK inhibitor will become a first-line therapy in children 12 years or older with severe, persistent AA, but she considers a trial of dupilumab reasonable in younger children, given the controlled studies of safety for atopic diseases.

“I would say that dupilumab could be considered in the following clinical scenarios: children under 12 with AA and concomitant atopy, such as atopic dermatitis, asthma, allergies, and/or elevated IgE; and children over the age of 12 with concomitant atopy who either have a contraindication to a JAK inhibitor or whose families have reservations about or are unwilling to take one,” Dr. Craiglow said.

In older children, she believes that dupilumab has “a much lower chance of being effective” than an oral JAK inhibitor like ritlecitinib, but it circumvents the potential safety issues of JAK inhibitors that have been observed in adults.

With ritlecitinib providing an on-label option for AA in older children, Dr. Craiglow suggested it might be easier to obtain third-party coverage for dupilumab as an alternative to a JAK inhibitor for AA in patients younger than 12, particularly when there is an indication for a concomitant atopic condition and a rationale, such as a concern about relative safety.

Two years ago, when Dr. Craiglow and her coinvestigator published their six-patient case series, a second case series was published about the same time by investigators at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. This series of 16 pediatric patients with AA on dupilumab was more heterogeneous, but four of six patients with active disease and more than 4 months of follow-up had improvement in AA, including total regrowth. The improvement was concentrated in patients with moderate to severe AD at the time of treatment.

Based on this series, the authors, led by Leslie Castelo-Soccio, MD, PhD, who is now an attending physician in the Dermatology Branch of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Bethesda, Md., concluded that dupilumab “may be a therapeutic option for AA” when traditional therapies have failed, “especially in patients with concurrent AD or asthma, for which the benefits of dupilumab are clear.”

When contacted about where this therapy might fit on the basis of her case series and the update on Dr. Craiglow’s experience, Dr. Castelo-Soccio, like Dr. Craiglow, stressed the importance of employing this therapy selectively.

“I do think that dupilumab is a reasonable option for AA in children with atopy and IgE levels greater than 200 IU/mL, especially if treatment is for atopic dermatitis or asthma as well,” she said.

Many clinicians, including Dr. Craiglow, have experience with oral JAK inhibitors in children younger than 12. Indeed, a recently published case study associated oral abrocitinib, a JAK inhibitor approved for moderate to severe AD in patients ages 12 and older, with hair regrowth in an 11-year-old child who had persistent AA for more than 6 years despite numerous conventional therapies.

However, the advantage of dupilumab in younger children is the greater evidence of safety, providing a level of reassurance for a treatment that is commonly used for severe atopic diseases but does not have a specific indication for AA, according to Dr. Craiglow.

Dr. Craiglow disclosed being a speaker for AbbVie and a speaker and consultant for Eli Lilly, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Castelo-Soccio had no disclosures.

Optimism about new opportunities to treat alopecia areata can be derived not only from a recently approved Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor in older children but promising results with the monoclonal antibody dupilumab alone or in combination with additional treatments, such as minoxidil or corticosteroids, in children with AA and concomitant atopy.

It was only a little over a year ago that the JAK inhibitor baricitinib became the first systemic therapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration for AA in adults. In June 2023, the JAK inhibitor ritlecitinib was approved for severe AA in patients as young as 12 years of age, but there is accumulating evidence that dupilumab, which binds to the interleukin-4 receptor, might be an option for even younger children with AA.

Of those who have worked with dupilumab for controlling AA in children, Brittany Craiglow, MD, an adjunct associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., updated a case series at the recent MedscapeLive! Annual Women’s and Pediatric Dermatology Seminar in Baltimore. A series of six children with AA treated with dupilumab was published 2 years ago in JAAD Case Reports.

Even in 2021, her case series was not the first report of benefit from dupilumab in children with AA, but instead contributed to a “growing body of literature” supporting the potential benefit in the setting of concomitant atopy, Dr. Craiglow, one of the authors of the series, said in an interview.

Of the six patients in that series, five had improvement and four had complete regrowth with dupilumab, whether as a monotherapy or in combination with other agents. The children ranged in age from 7 to 12 years. The age range at the time of AA onset was 3-11 years. All had atopic dermatitis (AD) and most had additional atopic conditions, such as food allergies or asthma.

Since publication, Dr. Craiglow has successfully treated many more patients with dupilumab, either as monotherapy or in combination with oral minoxidil, corticosteroids, and/or a topical JAK inhibitor. Dupilumab, which is approved for the treatment of AD in children as young as 6 months of age, has been well tolerated.

“Oral minoxidil is often a great adjuvant treatment in patients with AA and should be used unless there are contraindications,” based on the initial and subsequent experience treating AA with dupilumab, said Dr. Craiglow.

“Topical steroids can be used in combination with dupilumab and minoxidil, but in general dupilumab should not be combined with an oral JAK inhibitor,” she added.

Now, with the approval of ritlecitinib, Dr. Craiglow said this JAK inhibitor will become a first-line therapy in children 12 years or older with severe, persistent AA, but she considers a trial of dupilumab reasonable in younger children, given the controlled studies of safety for atopic diseases.

“I would say that dupilumab could be considered in the following clinical scenarios: children under 12 with AA and concomitant atopy, such as atopic dermatitis, asthma, allergies, and/or elevated IgE; and children over the age of 12 with concomitant atopy who either have a contraindication to a JAK inhibitor or whose families have reservations about or are unwilling to take one,” Dr. Craiglow said.

In older children, she believes that dupilumab has “a much lower chance of being effective” than an oral JAK inhibitor like ritlecitinib, but it circumvents the potential safety issues of JAK inhibitors that have been observed in adults.

With ritlecitinib providing an on-label option for AA in older children, Dr. Craiglow suggested it might be easier to obtain third-party coverage for dupilumab as an alternative to a JAK inhibitor for AA in patients younger than 12, particularly when there is an indication for a concomitant atopic condition and a rationale, such as a concern about relative safety.

Two years ago, when Dr. Craiglow and her coinvestigator published their six-patient case series, a second case series was published about the same time by investigators at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. This series of 16 pediatric patients with AA on dupilumab was more heterogeneous, but four of six patients with active disease and more than 4 months of follow-up had improvement in AA, including total regrowth. The improvement was concentrated in patients with moderate to severe AD at the time of treatment.

Based on this series, the authors, led by Leslie Castelo-Soccio, MD, PhD, who is now an attending physician in the Dermatology Branch of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Bethesda, Md., concluded that dupilumab “may be a therapeutic option for AA” when traditional therapies have failed, “especially in patients with concurrent AD or asthma, for which the benefits of dupilumab are clear.”

When contacted about where this therapy might fit on the basis of her case series and the update on Dr. Craiglow’s experience, Dr. Castelo-Soccio, like Dr. Craiglow, stressed the importance of employing this therapy selectively.

“I do think that dupilumab is a reasonable option for AA in children with atopy and IgE levels greater than 200 IU/mL, especially if treatment is for atopic dermatitis or asthma as well,” she said.

Many clinicians, including Dr. Craiglow, have experience with oral JAK inhibitors in children younger than 12. Indeed, a recently published case study associated oral abrocitinib, a JAK inhibitor approved for moderate to severe AD in patients ages 12 and older, with hair regrowth in an 11-year-old child who had persistent AA for more than 6 years despite numerous conventional therapies.

However, the advantage of dupilumab in younger children is the greater evidence of safety, providing a level of reassurance for a treatment that is commonly used for severe atopic diseases but does not have a specific indication for AA, according to Dr. Craiglow.

Dr. Craiglow disclosed being a speaker for AbbVie and a speaker and consultant for Eli Lilly, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Castelo-Soccio had no disclosures.

An air monitor made by researchers at Washington University in St. Louis can detect COVID-19 in a room with an infected person within 5 minutes.

The project was a collaboration among researchers from the university’s engineering and medical schools; the results were published in Nature Communications.

One of the challenges the team had to overcome is that detecting the virus in a roomful of air “is like finding a needle in a haystack,” researcher and associate engineering professor Rajan Chakrabarty, PhD, said in a statement.

The team overcame that challenge using a technology called wet cyclone that samples the equivalent of 176 cubic feet of air in 5 minutes. A light on the device turns from green to red when the virus is detected, which the researchers said indicates that increased air circulation is needed. 

The device stands just 10 inches tall and 1 foot wide and is considered a proof of concept. The next step would be to implement the technology into a prototype to see how a commercial or household design could be achieved. The researchers foresee potential for the device to be used in hospitals and schools, as well as to be able to detect other respiratory viruses such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus.

Current methods used for detecting viruses in the air take between 1 and 24 hours to collect and analyze samples. The existing methods usually require skilled labor, resulting in a process that doesn’t allow for real-time information that could translate into reducing risk or the spread of the virus, the researchers wrote.

The team tested their device both in laboratory experiments where they released aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 into a room-sized chamber, as well as in the apartments of two people who were COVID positive.

“There is nothing at the moment that tells us how safe a room is,” Washington University neurology professor John Cirrito, PhD, said in a statement. “If you are in a room with 100 people, you don’t want to find out 5 days later whether you could be sick or not. The idea with this device is that you can know essentially in real time, or every 5 minutes, if there is a live virus in the air.”

Their goal is to develop a commercially available air quality monitor, the researchers said. 

The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

An air monitor made by researchers at Washington University in St. Louis can detect COVID-19 in a room with an infected person within 5 minutes.

The project was a collaboration among researchers from the university’s engineering and medical schools; the results were published in Nature Communications.

One of the challenges the team had to overcome is that detecting the virus in a roomful of air “is like finding a needle in a haystack,” researcher and associate engineering professor Rajan Chakrabarty, PhD, said in a statement.

The team overcame that challenge using a technology called wet cyclone that samples the equivalent of 176 cubic feet of air in 5 minutes. A light on the device turns from green to red when the virus is detected, which the researchers said indicates that increased air circulation is needed. 

The device stands just 10 inches tall and 1 foot wide and is considered a proof of concept. The next step would be to implement the technology into a prototype to see how a commercial or household design could be achieved. The researchers foresee potential for the device to be used in hospitals and schools, as well as to be able to detect other respiratory viruses such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus.

Current methods used for detecting viruses in the air take between 1 and 24 hours to collect and analyze samples. The existing methods usually require skilled labor, resulting in a process that doesn’t allow for real-time information that could translate into reducing risk or the spread of the virus, the researchers wrote.

The team tested their device both in laboratory experiments where they released aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 into a room-sized chamber, as well as in the apartments of two people who were COVID positive.

“There is nothing at the moment that tells us how safe a room is,” Washington University neurology professor John Cirrito, PhD, said in a statement. “If you are in a room with 100 people, you don’t want to find out 5 days later whether you could be sick or not. The idea with this device is that you can know essentially in real time, or every 5 minutes, if there is a live virus in the air.”

Their goal is to develop a commercially available air quality monitor, the researchers said. 

The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

An air monitor made by researchers at Washington University in St. Louis can detect COVID-19 in a room with an infected person within 5 minutes.

The project was a collaboration among researchers from the university’s engineering and medical schools; the results were published in Nature Communications.

One of the challenges the team had to overcome is that detecting the virus in a roomful of air “is like finding a needle in a haystack,” researcher and associate engineering professor Rajan Chakrabarty, PhD, said in a statement.

The team overcame that challenge using a technology called wet cyclone that samples the equivalent of 176 cubic feet of air in 5 minutes. A light on the device turns from green to red when the virus is detected, which the researchers said indicates that increased air circulation is needed. 

The device stands just 10 inches tall and 1 foot wide and is considered a proof of concept. The next step would be to implement the technology into a prototype to see how a commercial or household design could be achieved. The researchers foresee potential for the device to be used in hospitals and schools, as well as to be able to detect other respiratory viruses such as influenza and respiratory syncytial virus.

Current methods used for detecting viruses in the air take between 1 and 24 hours to collect and analyze samples. The existing methods usually require skilled labor, resulting in a process that doesn’t allow for real-time information that could translate into reducing risk or the spread of the virus, the researchers wrote.

The team tested their device both in laboratory experiments where they released aerosolized SARS-CoV-2 into a room-sized chamber, as well as in the apartments of two people who were COVID positive.

“There is nothing at the moment that tells us how safe a room is,” Washington University neurology professor John Cirrito, PhD, said in a statement. “If you are in a room with 100 people, you don’t want to find out 5 days later whether you could be sick or not. The idea with this device is that you can know essentially in real time, or every 5 minutes, if there is a live virus in the air.”

Their goal is to develop a commercially available air quality monitor, the researchers said. 

The study authors reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

A version of this article appeared on WebMD.com.

A new practice guideline is setting a standard for doctors who use lasers to treat cutaneous vascular anomalies.

Poor treatment has been an issue in this field because no uniform guidelines existed to inform practice, according to a press release from the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

The laser treatment settings can vary based on the type and location of the birthmark and also the patient’s skin type, which has resulted in an inconsistent approach from clinicians, according to the release.

“For decades, I have observed adverse outcomes from the improper laser treatment of vascular birthmarks,” Linda Rozell-Shannon, PhD, president and founder of the Vascular Birthmarks Foundation said in a statement from ASLMS. “As a result of these guidelines, patient outcomes will be improved.”

The guideline, published on the ASLMS website along with supporting videos, was jointly developed by ASLMS, VBF, and an international group of clinicians, marking the first consensus guideline on laser treatments for cutaneous vascular anomalies. It details 32 best practice directives for various scenarios, including advice on safety considerations, additional testing, and when to refer.

“It is important to realize that just because someone is board certified does not mean they are skilled in treating all conditions or using all lasers,” Paul Friedman, MD, a dermatologist in Houston, and former president of ASLMS, said in the ASLMS statement.

Vascular birthmarks are a common condition affecting up to 14% of children, according to VBF. Most are hemangiomas, a buildup of blood vessels that usually appears at birth or within a month after birth. Laser therapy reduces the size and color of the anomalies.

Support for this initiative was provided by Candela Medical.

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

A new practice guideline is setting a standard for doctors who use lasers to treat cutaneous vascular anomalies.

Poor treatment has been an issue in this field because no uniform guidelines existed to inform practice, according to a press release from the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

The laser treatment settings can vary based on the type and location of the birthmark and also the patient’s skin type, which has resulted in an inconsistent approach from clinicians, according to the release.

“For decades, I have observed adverse outcomes from the improper laser treatment of vascular birthmarks,” Linda Rozell-Shannon, PhD, president and founder of the Vascular Birthmarks Foundation said in a statement from ASLMS. “As a result of these guidelines, patient outcomes will be improved.”

The guideline, published on the ASLMS website along with supporting videos, was jointly developed by ASLMS, VBF, and an international group of clinicians, marking the first consensus guideline on laser treatments for cutaneous vascular anomalies. It details 32 best practice directives for various scenarios, including advice on safety considerations, additional testing, and when to refer.

“It is important to realize that just because someone is board certified does not mean they are skilled in treating all conditions or using all lasers,” Paul Friedman, MD, a dermatologist in Houston, and former president of ASLMS, said in the ASLMS statement.

Vascular birthmarks are a common condition affecting up to 14% of children, according to VBF. Most are hemangiomas, a buildup of blood vessels that usually appears at birth or within a month after birth. Laser therapy reduces the size and color of the anomalies.

Support for this initiative was provided by Candela Medical.

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

A new practice guideline is setting a standard for doctors who use lasers to treat cutaneous vascular anomalies.

Poor treatment has been an issue in this field because no uniform guidelines existed to inform practice, according to a press release from the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

The laser treatment settings can vary based on the type and location of the birthmark and also the patient’s skin type, which has resulted in an inconsistent approach from clinicians, according to the release.

“For decades, I have observed adverse outcomes from the improper laser treatment of vascular birthmarks,” Linda Rozell-Shannon, PhD, president and founder of the Vascular Birthmarks Foundation said in a statement from ASLMS. “As a result of these guidelines, patient outcomes will be improved.”

The guideline, published on the ASLMS website along with supporting videos, was jointly developed by ASLMS, VBF, and an international group of clinicians, marking the first consensus guideline on laser treatments for cutaneous vascular anomalies. It details 32 best practice directives for various scenarios, including advice on safety considerations, additional testing, and when to refer.

“It is important to realize that just because someone is board certified does not mean they are skilled in treating all conditions or using all lasers,” Paul Friedman, MD, a dermatologist in Houston, and former president of ASLMS, said in the ASLMS statement.

Vascular birthmarks are a common condition affecting up to 14% of children, according to VBF. Most are hemangiomas, a buildup of blood vessels that usually appears at birth or within a month after birth. Laser therapy reduces the size and color of the anomalies.

Support for this initiative was provided by Candela Medical.

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

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – Epidermolysis bullosa (EB), a heterogeneous congenital condition of skin fragility, received its first U.S. Food and Drug Association–approved gene therapy only a few months ago, but accelerated progress across multiple treatment strategies predicts additional important and perhaps dramatic further progress, according to a prominent EB researcher.

Not only are recent developments in EB “exciting,” the progress on multiple fronts for control of disease or its symptoms suggests “we are on the cusp of a new era,” Jemima Mellerio, BSc, MD, a consultant dermatologist, St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, London, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Published clinical studies of cell therapies and gene therapies date back at least 15 years, according to a review by Dr. Mellerio on why developments are starting to move so quickly. The difference now is that many obstacles to routine use of these options are being resolved so that viable strategies have reached or are reaching phase 3 trials.

In addition to cell therapies and gene therapies, Dr. Mellerio discussed progress in three additional areas: gene editing, protein therapy, and drug repurposing.

Summarizing progress in each, she described improvement in levels of collagen VII, an important deficit in most types of EB, that were achieved with fibroblast injections that improved levels of collagen VII and anchoring fibrils in a study published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. Injection of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) have been associated with reduced pain and itch in a series of studies, one of the earliest of which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Since that time, there have been several approaches using MSC.

Of these approaches, intravenous injection of ABCB5+ MSCs might be the first to gain regulatory approval. According to Dr. Mellerio, there is an ongoing phase 3 crossover trial evaluating this approach, which followed several earlier phase studies that demonstrated adequate safety and tolerability while reducing severity scores, relieving pain and itch, and improving wound closure in patients with EB.

In 2006, correction of junctional EB (JEB) was achieved by transplantation of genetically modified epidermal cells to replace the LAMB3 gene, thereby restoring production of laminin 332, which is an essential component of the dermal-epidermal junction, according to Dr. Mellerio, citing a study in Nature Medicine.

The next attempt with this approach did not take place until 2015, resurrected to save the life of a 7-year-old Syrian boy – to generate epidermal sheets that eventually covered 80% of his body. The success is supporting further work on this approach but has also been an inspiration to other gene therapies, including a topical gene therapy recently approved in the United States.

Topically applied beremagene geperpavec (Vyjuvek, formerly known as B-VEC) was approved by the FDA in May for treating wounds in patients 6 months of age and older, with recessive or dominant dystrophic EB, on the basis of a phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, but others are coming. Dr. Mellerio also described a recently completed phase 3 trial with introduction of ex vivo gene-corrected keratinocytes, which has been associated with long-term improvements among patients with recessive dystrophic EB (RDEB). The responses in early phase studies included wound healing and reduction in pain and itch.

Perhaps less advanced but still promising, protein therapy, gene editing, and repurposing of existing therapies are all approaches that are moving forward. Many are supported by at least some clinical data, according to Dr. Mellerio.

As an example of protein therapy, a completed phase I/II trial associated recombinant human collagen with wound healing and pain reduction in RDEB. This study provided proof of principle for a therapy that could be applied topically or intravenously. Further development is anticipated.

Multiple platforms for gene editing have been described with the goal of simply excising pathogenic mutations or antisense oligonucleotides for sustained or permanent control of EB expression. Clinical evidence is limited, but Dr. Mellerio suggested that the theoretical potential for eliminating the source of abnormal transcription is the restoration of functional proteins essential for reversing skin fragility.

In some cases, existing drugs have the same potential. Dr. Mellerio described efforts to use an aminoglycoside to circumvent nonsense mutations that produce messenger RNA decay and impaired production of the proteins that prevent EB. In a pilot study evaluating topical gentamicin in RDEB, there were substantial improvements at 1 month and 3 months in several measures of skin fragility and encouraged studies that are now ongoing in both RDEB and JEB.

More than promising, a multinational randomized phase 3 study with birch bark extract recently published in the British Journal of Dermatology, associated treatment with this topical gel, known as Oleogel-S10, with higher rates of complete wound closure at 45 days (41.3% vs. 28.9% in the control vehicle arm) and a low risk of adverse events.

“This therapy is now approved in Europe and the United Kingdom, although, unfortunately, it is not yet available in the United States,” Dr. Mellerio noted.

Importantly, none of these therapies are necessarily effective across subtypes of EB, which often have different underlying pathogenic mechanisms, she said. However, the growing sophistication with which the pathophysiology of these subtypes is understood makes the numerous treatments in the pipeline “exciting.”

“We are at a point where we can really start to think of personalized medicine in EB,” Dr. Mellerio said. With the clinical advances already available and those expected, she suggested the recently approved treatment options are just the beginning. She expects the treatment landscape to evolve quickly over the next few years.

This does not appear to be a personal opinion. Another prominent researcher in EB, M. Peter Marinkovich, MD, director of the Stanford Bullous Disease and Psoriasis Clinics at Stanford (Calif.) University, is seeing the same real-world promise of therapies that have been in gestation for a decade or more.

“Dr. Mellerio is right. This is an exciting time for EB patients,” Dr. Marinkovich said in an interview. While the approval of B-VEC, the first gene therapy for EB, is the proof, Dr. Marinkovich, the lead author of the NEJM paper on B-VEC, noted that “many other potential EB therapies are being studied right now.” Based on promise in earlier clinical studies with many of these agents, he, like Dr. Mellerio, expects progress in real-world treatments for EB to accelerate.

Dr. Mellerio reported financial relationships with Amryt Pharma and Krystal Biotech. Dr. Marinkovich receives research support from Abeona Therapeutics, Castle Creek Pharmaceuticals, Krystal Biotech, Phoenix Tissue Repair, and WINGS Therapeutics.

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

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – Epidermolysis bullosa (EB), a heterogeneous congenital condition of skin fragility, received its first U.S. Food and Drug Association–approved gene therapy only a few months ago, but accelerated progress across multiple treatment strategies predicts additional important and perhaps dramatic further progress, according to a prominent EB researcher.

Not only are recent developments in EB “exciting,” the progress on multiple fronts for control of disease or its symptoms suggests “we are on the cusp of a new era,” Jemima Mellerio, BSc, MD, a consultant dermatologist, St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, London, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Published clinical studies of cell therapies and gene therapies date back at least 15 years, according to a review by Dr. Mellerio on why developments are starting to move so quickly. The difference now is that many obstacles to routine use of these options are being resolved so that viable strategies have reached or are reaching phase 3 trials.

In addition to cell therapies and gene therapies, Dr. Mellerio discussed progress in three additional areas: gene editing, protein therapy, and drug repurposing.

Summarizing progress in each, she described improvement in levels of collagen VII, an important deficit in most types of EB, that were achieved with fibroblast injections that improved levels of collagen VII and anchoring fibrils in a study published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. Injection of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) have been associated with reduced pain and itch in a series of studies, one of the earliest of which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Since that time, there have been several approaches using MSC.

Of these approaches, intravenous injection of ABCB5+ MSCs might be the first to gain regulatory approval. According to Dr. Mellerio, there is an ongoing phase 3 crossover trial evaluating this approach, which followed several earlier phase studies that demonstrated adequate safety and tolerability while reducing severity scores, relieving pain and itch, and improving wound closure in patients with EB.

In 2006, correction of junctional EB (JEB) was achieved by transplantation of genetically modified epidermal cells to replace the LAMB3 gene, thereby restoring production of laminin 332, which is an essential component of the dermal-epidermal junction, according to Dr. Mellerio, citing a study in Nature Medicine.

The next attempt with this approach did not take place until 2015, resurrected to save the life of a 7-year-old Syrian boy – to generate epidermal sheets that eventually covered 80% of his body. The success is supporting further work on this approach but has also been an inspiration to other gene therapies, including a topical gene therapy recently approved in the United States.

Topically applied beremagene geperpavec (Vyjuvek, formerly known as B-VEC) was approved by the FDA in May for treating wounds in patients 6 months of age and older, with recessive or dominant dystrophic EB, on the basis of a phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, but others are coming. Dr. Mellerio also described a recently completed phase 3 trial with introduction of ex vivo gene-corrected keratinocytes, which has been associated with long-term improvements among patients with recessive dystrophic EB (RDEB). The responses in early phase studies included wound healing and reduction in pain and itch.

Perhaps less advanced but still promising, protein therapy, gene editing, and repurposing of existing therapies are all approaches that are moving forward. Many are supported by at least some clinical data, according to Dr. Mellerio.

As an example of protein therapy, a completed phase I/II trial associated recombinant human collagen with wound healing and pain reduction in RDEB. This study provided proof of principle for a therapy that could be applied topically or intravenously. Further development is anticipated.

Multiple platforms for gene editing have been described with the goal of simply excising pathogenic mutations or antisense oligonucleotides for sustained or permanent control of EB expression. Clinical evidence is limited, but Dr. Mellerio suggested that the theoretical potential for eliminating the source of abnormal transcription is the restoration of functional proteins essential for reversing skin fragility.

In some cases, existing drugs have the same potential. Dr. Mellerio described efforts to use an aminoglycoside to circumvent nonsense mutations that produce messenger RNA decay and impaired production of the proteins that prevent EB. In a pilot study evaluating topical gentamicin in RDEB, there were substantial improvements at 1 month and 3 months in several measures of skin fragility and encouraged studies that are now ongoing in both RDEB and JEB.

More than promising, a multinational randomized phase 3 study with birch bark extract recently published in the British Journal of Dermatology, associated treatment with this topical gel, known as Oleogel-S10, with higher rates of complete wound closure at 45 days (41.3% vs. 28.9% in the control vehicle arm) and a low risk of adverse events.

“This therapy is now approved in Europe and the United Kingdom, although, unfortunately, it is not yet available in the United States,” Dr. Mellerio noted.

Importantly, none of these therapies are necessarily effective across subtypes of EB, which often have different underlying pathogenic mechanisms, she said. However, the growing sophistication with which the pathophysiology of these subtypes is understood makes the numerous treatments in the pipeline “exciting.”

“We are at a point where we can really start to think of personalized medicine in EB,” Dr. Mellerio said. With the clinical advances already available and those expected, she suggested the recently approved treatment options are just the beginning. She expects the treatment landscape to evolve quickly over the next few years.

This does not appear to be a personal opinion. Another prominent researcher in EB, M. Peter Marinkovich, MD, director of the Stanford Bullous Disease and Psoriasis Clinics at Stanford (Calif.) University, is seeing the same real-world promise of therapies that have been in gestation for a decade or more.

“Dr. Mellerio is right. This is an exciting time for EB patients,” Dr. Marinkovich said in an interview. While the approval of B-VEC, the first gene therapy for EB, is the proof, Dr. Marinkovich, the lead author of the NEJM paper on B-VEC, noted that “many other potential EB therapies are being studied right now.” Based on promise in earlier clinical studies with many of these agents, he, like Dr. Mellerio, expects progress in real-world treatments for EB to accelerate.

Dr. Mellerio reported financial relationships with Amryt Pharma and Krystal Biotech. Dr. Marinkovich receives research support from Abeona Therapeutics, Castle Creek Pharmaceuticals, Krystal Biotech, Phoenix Tissue Repair, and WINGS Therapeutics.

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

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – Epidermolysis bullosa (EB), a heterogeneous congenital condition of skin fragility, received its first U.S. Food and Drug Association–approved gene therapy only a few months ago, but accelerated progress across multiple treatment strategies predicts additional important and perhaps dramatic further progress, according to a prominent EB researcher.

Not only are recent developments in EB “exciting,” the progress on multiple fronts for control of disease or its symptoms suggests “we are on the cusp of a new era,” Jemima Mellerio, BSc, MD, a consultant dermatologist, St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, London, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Published clinical studies of cell therapies and gene therapies date back at least 15 years, according to a review by Dr. Mellerio on why developments are starting to move so quickly. The difference now is that many obstacles to routine use of these options are being resolved so that viable strategies have reached or are reaching phase 3 trials.

In addition to cell therapies and gene therapies, Dr. Mellerio discussed progress in three additional areas: gene editing, protein therapy, and drug repurposing.

Summarizing progress in each, she described improvement in levels of collagen VII, an important deficit in most types of EB, that were achieved with fibroblast injections that improved levels of collagen VII and anchoring fibrils in a study published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. Injection of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) have been associated with reduced pain and itch in a series of studies, one of the earliest of which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Since that time, there have been several approaches using MSC.

Of these approaches, intravenous injection of ABCB5+ MSCs might be the first to gain regulatory approval. According to Dr. Mellerio, there is an ongoing phase 3 crossover trial evaluating this approach, which followed several earlier phase studies that demonstrated adequate safety and tolerability while reducing severity scores, relieving pain and itch, and improving wound closure in patients with EB.

In 2006, correction of junctional EB (JEB) was achieved by transplantation of genetically modified epidermal cells to replace the LAMB3 gene, thereby restoring production of laminin 332, which is an essential component of the dermal-epidermal junction, according to Dr. Mellerio, citing a study in Nature Medicine.

The next attempt with this approach did not take place until 2015, resurrected to save the life of a 7-year-old Syrian boy – to generate epidermal sheets that eventually covered 80% of his body. The success is supporting further work on this approach but has also been an inspiration to other gene therapies, including a topical gene therapy recently approved in the United States.

Topically applied beremagene geperpavec (Vyjuvek, formerly known as B-VEC) was approved by the FDA in May for treating wounds in patients 6 months of age and older, with recessive or dominant dystrophic EB, on the basis of a phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, but others are coming. Dr. Mellerio also described a recently completed phase 3 trial with introduction of ex vivo gene-corrected keratinocytes, which has been associated with long-term improvements among patients with recessive dystrophic EB (RDEB). The responses in early phase studies included wound healing and reduction in pain and itch.

Perhaps less advanced but still promising, protein therapy, gene editing, and repurposing of existing therapies are all approaches that are moving forward. Many are supported by at least some clinical data, according to Dr. Mellerio.

As an example of protein therapy, a completed phase I/II trial associated recombinant human collagen with wound healing and pain reduction in RDEB. This study provided proof of principle for a therapy that could be applied topically or intravenously. Further development is anticipated.

Multiple platforms for gene editing have been described with the goal of simply excising pathogenic mutations or antisense oligonucleotides for sustained or permanent control of EB expression. Clinical evidence is limited, but Dr. Mellerio suggested that the theoretical potential for eliminating the source of abnormal transcription is the restoration of functional proteins essential for reversing skin fragility.

In some cases, existing drugs have the same potential. Dr. Mellerio described efforts to use an aminoglycoside to circumvent nonsense mutations that produce messenger RNA decay and impaired production of the proteins that prevent EB. In a pilot study evaluating topical gentamicin in RDEB, there were substantial improvements at 1 month and 3 months in several measures of skin fragility and encouraged studies that are now ongoing in both RDEB and JEB.

More than promising, a multinational randomized phase 3 study with birch bark extract recently published in the British Journal of Dermatology, associated treatment with this topical gel, known as Oleogel-S10, with higher rates of complete wound closure at 45 days (41.3% vs. 28.9% in the control vehicle arm) and a low risk of adverse events.

“This therapy is now approved in Europe and the United Kingdom, although, unfortunately, it is not yet available in the United States,” Dr. Mellerio noted.

Importantly, none of these therapies are necessarily effective across subtypes of EB, which often have different underlying pathogenic mechanisms, she said. However, the growing sophistication with which the pathophysiology of these subtypes is understood makes the numerous treatments in the pipeline “exciting.”

“We are at a point where we can really start to think of personalized medicine in EB,” Dr. Mellerio said. With the clinical advances already available and those expected, she suggested the recently approved treatment options are just the beginning. She expects the treatment landscape to evolve quickly over the next few years.

This does not appear to be a personal opinion. Another prominent researcher in EB, M. Peter Marinkovich, MD, director of the Stanford Bullous Disease and Psoriasis Clinics at Stanford (Calif.) University, is seeing the same real-world promise of therapies that have been in gestation for a decade or more.

“Dr. Mellerio is right. This is an exciting time for EB patients,” Dr. Marinkovich said in an interview. While the approval of B-VEC, the first gene therapy for EB, is the proof, Dr. Marinkovich, the lead author of the NEJM paper on B-VEC, noted that “many other potential EB therapies are being studied right now.” Based on promise in earlier clinical studies with many of these agents, he, like Dr. Mellerio, expects progress in real-world treatments for EB to accelerate.

Dr. Mellerio reported financial relationships with Amryt Pharma and Krystal Biotech. Dr. Marinkovich receives research support from Abeona Therapeutics, Castle Creek Pharmaceuticals, Krystal Biotech, Phoenix Tissue Repair, and WINGS Therapeutics.

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

New guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Chemistry (AACC) and American Diabetes Association (ADA) address laboratory measures in the diagnosis and management of diabetes.

The document, titled, “Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus,” is primarily aimed at both laboratory professionals and clinicians involved in diabetes care.

The guidance is focused “on the practical aspects of care in order to assist with decisions regarding the use or interpretation of laboratory tests while screening, diagnosing, or monitoring patients with diabetes,” wrote David B. Sacks, MBChB, chief of the clinical chemistry service at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Md., and coauthors. It was published online in both Clinical Chemistry and Diabetes Care, including the guidelines and executive summary.  

Coauthor M. Sue Kirkman, MD, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said in an interview: “One objective of the guidelines is to increase clinicians’ understanding of the strengths and limitations of tests done in a laboratory and also at the point of care, or in daily life, by people with diabetes.”

The evidence-based recommendations, an update of prior versions published in 2011 and 2002, are meant as a supplement to the ADA Standards of Care in Diabetes and do not address aspects of clinical management, she stressed.
 

Addition of advice on CGM

A significant addition since 2011 is detailed information regarding the use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), with a “strong” recommendation based on a “high” level of evidence for use in teens and adults with type 1 diabetes who meet certain criteria, and lower-grade advice to use real-time or intermittently scanned CGM in other populations, including children with diabetes, pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, and adults with type 2 diabetes taking insulin.

The document also reminds clinicians to consider test limitations, Dr. Kirkman pointed out.

“We do a lot of testing in screening, diagnosis, and monitoring of diabetes and its complications, yet for many clinicians we think that any result we get – or that a patient gets from home testing – is perfect. We often don’t think about the accuracy or precision of some tests, things that might interfere with the result, intra-individual variation of the test, or how one test may compare to a test of higher accuracy,” she said.

One example is a recommendation to collect blood samples for glucose analysis in tubes containing a rapidly effective inhibitor of glycolysis such as a granulated citrate buffer. If unavailable, the sample tube should be placed immediately into an ice water slurry and centrifuged within 15-30 minutes to remove the cells.

Without those measures, “red cells in blood sitting in the test tube continue to break down glucose, so the concentration of glucose will start to fall very soon. ... How the specimen is handled makes a huge difference in the result,” Dr. Kirkman emphasized.

Another is the recommendation of a confirmatory test when diagnosing diabetes, regardless of the initial test used (A1c, fasting glucose, or oral glucose tolerance test). “There is large intra-individual variation of fasting glucose and even larger for 2-hour glucose on the oral glucose tolerance test. ... This means if you do the test one week and then repeat it the next day or a week later, the results will be quite different. This is a reason why confirmation of an abnormal test is important. Yet many times this isn’t done,” she noted.

Other “strong” recommendations based on “high” evidence levels include:

• Fasting glucose should be measured in venous plasma when used to establish the diagnosis of diabetes, with a diagnostic cutoff of > 7.0 mmol/L (> 126 mg/dL) for diabetes.
• Frequent blood glucose monitoring is recommended for all people with diabetes treated with intensive insulin regimens (with multiple daily injections or insulin pump therapy) and who are not using CGM.
• Routine use of blood glucose monitoring is not recommended for people with type 2 diabetes who are treated with diet and/or oral agents alone.
• Treatment goals should be based on ADA recommendations, i.e., A1c < 7% (< 53 mmol/mol) if it can be achieved without significant hypoglycemia or other adverse treatment effects, with higher targets for special populations.
• Annual testing for albuminuria should begin in pubertal or postpubertal individuals 5 years after diagnosis of type 1 diabetes and at time of diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, regardless of treatment.
• Urine albumin should be measured annually in adults with diabetes using morning spot urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.

Other guidance in the document pertains to use of ketone testing, genetic markers, autoimmune markers, and C-peptide.

According to Dr. Sacks, “It’s important to measure accurately, but it’s also very important to communicate the relevance to clinicians and to listen to them and share information. ... Patient care is a team effort.”

Dr. Sachs has reported receiving funding from the NIH. Dr. Kirkman has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

New guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Chemistry (AACC) and American Diabetes Association (ADA) address laboratory measures in the diagnosis and management of diabetes.

The document, titled, “Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus,” is primarily aimed at both laboratory professionals and clinicians involved in diabetes care.

The guidance is focused “on the practical aspects of care in order to assist with decisions regarding the use or interpretation of laboratory tests while screening, diagnosing, or monitoring patients with diabetes,” wrote David B. Sacks, MBChB, chief of the clinical chemistry service at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Md., and coauthors. It was published online in both Clinical Chemistry and Diabetes Care, including the guidelines and executive summary.  

Coauthor M. Sue Kirkman, MD, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said in an interview: “One objective of the guidelines is to increase clinicians’ understanding of the strengths and limitations of tests done in a laboratory and also at the point of care, or in daily life, by people with diabetes.”

The evidence-based recommendations, an update of prior versions published in 2011 and 2002, are meant as a supplement to the ADA Standards of Care in Diabetes and do not address aspects of clinical management, she stressed.
 

Addition of advice on CGM

A significant addition since 2011 is detailed information regarding the use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), with a “strong” recommendation based on a “high” level of evidence for use in teens and adults with type 1 diabetes who meet certain criteria, and lower-grade advice to use real-time or intermittently scanned CGM in other populations, including children with diabetes, pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, and adults with type 2 diabetes taking insulin.

The document also reminds clinicians to consider test limitations, Dr. Kirkman pointed out.

“We do a lot of testing in screening, diagnosis, and monitoring of diabetes and its complications, yet for many clinicians we think that any result we get – or that a patient gets from home testing – is perfect. We often don’t think about the accuracy or precision of some tests, things that might interfere with the result, intra-individual variation of the test, or how one test may compare to a test of higher accuracy,” she said.

One example is a recommendation to collect blood samples for glucose analysis in tubes containing a rapidly effective inhibitor of glycolysis such as a granulated citrate buffer. If unavailable, the sample tube should be placed immediately into an ice water slurry and centrifuged within 15-30 minutes to remove the cells.

Without those measures, “red cells in blood sitting in the test tube continue to break down glucose, so the concentration of glucose will start to fall very soon. ... How the specimen is handled makes a huge difference in the result,” Dr. Kirkman emphasized.

Another is the recommendation of a confirmatory test when diagnosing diabetes, regardless of the initial test used (A1c, fasting glucose, or oral glucose tolerance test). “There is large intra-individual variation of fasting glucose and even larger for 2-hour glucose on the oral glucose tolerance test. ... This means if you do the test one week and then repeat it the next day or a week later, the results will be quite different. This is a reason why confirmation of an abnormal test is important. Yet many times this isn’t done,” she noted.

Other “strong” recommendations based on “high” evidence levels include:

• Fasting glucose should be measured in venous plasma when used to establish the diagnosis of diabetes, with a diagnostic cutoff of > 7.0 mmol/L (> 126 mg/dL) for diabetes.
• Frequent blood glucose monitoring is recommended for all people with diabetes treated with intensive insulin regimens (with multiple daily injections or insulin pump therapy) and who are not using CGM.
• Routine use of blood glucose monitoring is not recommended for people with type 2 diabetes who are treated with diet and/or oral agents alone.
• Treatment goals should be based on ADA recommendations, i.e., A1c < 7% (< 53 mmol/mol) if it can be achieved without significant hypoglycemia or other adverse treatment effects, with higher targets for special populations.
• Annual testing for albuminuria should begin in pubertal or postpubertal individuals 5 years after diagnosis of type 1 diabetes and at time of diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, regardless of treatment.
• Urine albumin should be measured annually in adults with diabetes using morning spot urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.

Other guidance in the document pertains to use of ketone testing, genetic markers, autoimmune markers, and C-peptide.

According to Dr. Sacks, “It’s important to measure accurately, but it’s also very important to communicate the relevance to clinicians and to listen to them and share information. ... Patient care is a team effort.”

Dr. Sachs has reported receiving funding from the NIH. Dr. Kirkman has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

New guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Chemistry (AACC) and American Diabetes Association (ADA) address laboratory measures in the diagnosis and management of diabetes.

The document, titled, “Guidelines and recommendations for laboratory analysis in the diagnosis and management of diabetes mellitus,” is primarily aimed at both laboratory professionals and clinicians involved in diabetes care.

The guidance is focused “on the practical aspects of care in order to assist with decisions regarding the use or interpretation of laboratory tests while screening, diagnosing, or monitoring patients with diabetes,” wrote David B. Sacks, MBChB, chief of the clinical chemistry service at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Md., and coauthors. It was published online in both Clinical Chemistry and Diabetes Care, including the guidelines and executive summary.  

Coauthor M. Sue Kirkman, MD, of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, said in an interview: “One objective of the guidelines is to increase clinicians’ understanding of the strengths and limitations of tests done in a laboratory and also at the point of care, or in daily life, by people with diabetes.”

The evidence-based recommendations, an update of prior versions published in 2011 and 2002, are meant as a supplement to the ADA Standards of Care in Diabetes and do not address aspects of clinical management, she stressed.
 

Addition of advice on CGM

A significant addition since 2011 is detailed information regarding the use of real-time continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), with a “strong” recommendation based on a “high” level of evidence for use in teens and adults with type 1 diabetes who meet certain criteria, and lower-grade advice to use real-time or intermittently scanned CGM in other populations, including children with diabetes, pregnant women with type 1 diabetes, and adults with type 2 diabetes taking insulin.

The document also reminds clinicians to consider test limitations, Dr. Kirkman pointed out.

“We do a lot of testing in screening, diagnosis, and monitoring of diabetes and its complications, yet for many clinicians we think that any result we get – or that a patient gets from home testing – is perfect. We often don’t think about the accuracy or precision of some tests, things that might interfere with the result, intra-individual variation of the test, or how one test may compare to a test of higher accuracy,” she said.

One example is a recommendation to collect blood samples for glucose analysis in tubes containing a rapidly effective inhibitor of glycolysis such as a granulated citrate buffer. If unavailable, the sample tube should be placed immediately into an ice water slurry and centrifuged within 15-30 minutes to remove the cells.

Without those measures, “red cells in blood sitting in the test tube continue to break down glucose, so the concentration of glucose will start to fall very soon. ... How the specimen is handled makes a huge difference in the result,” Dr. Kirkman emphasized.

Another is the recommendation of a confirmatory test when diagnosing diabetes, regardless of the initial test used (A1c, fasting glucose, or oral glucose tolerance test). “There is large intra-individual variation of fasting glucose and even larger for 2-hour glucose on the oral glucose tolerance test. ... This means if you do the test one week and then repeat it the next day or a week later, the results will be quite different. This is a reason why confirmation of an abnormal test is important. Yet many times this isn’t done,” she noted.

Other “strong” recommendations based on “high” evidence levels include:

• Fasting glucose should be measured in venous plasma when used to establish the diagnosis of diabetes, with a diagnostic cutoff of > 7.0 mmol/L (> 126 mg/dL) for diabetes.
• Frequent blood glucose monitoring is recommended for all people with diabetes treated with intensive insulin regimens (with multiple daily injections or insulin pump therapy) and who are not using CGM.
• Routine use of blood glucose monitoring is not recommended for people with type 2 diabetes who are treated with diet and/or oral agents alone.
• Treatment goals should be based on ADA recommendations, i.e., A1c < 7% (< 53 mmol/mol) if it can be achieved without significant hypoglycemia or other adverse treatment effects, with higher targets for special populations.
• Annual testing for albuminuria should begin in pubertal or postpubertal individuals 5 years after diagnosis of type 1 diabetes and at time of diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, regardless of treatment.
• Urine albumin should be measured annually in adults with diabetes using morning spot urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio.

Other guidance in the document pertains to use of ketone testing, genetic markers, autoimmune markers, and C-peptide.

According to Dr. Sacks, “It’s important to measure accurately, but it’s also very important to communicate the relevance to clinicians and to listen to them and share information. ... Patient care is a team effort.”

Dr. Sachs has reported receiving funding from the NIH. Dr. Kirkman has reported no relevant financial relationships.
 

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

Testing children with acute sinusitis symptoms for specific bacteria may dramatically decrease unnecessary antibiotic use, new research suggests.

The study, published in JAMA, found that children with positive nasopharyngeal tests for one or more of Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, or Moraxella catarrhalis had better resolution of symptoms with antibiotics than those without these bacteria.

If antibiotic use was limited to children with H. influenzae or S. pneumoniae in their nasopharynx at the time of diagnosis, antibiotic use would decrease by 53%, according to the study authors.

Sinusitis is common in children, and symptoms are similar with uncomplicated viral upper respiratory infections.

“We have not had a good way to predict which children will benefit from antibiotics,” said Nader Shaikh, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and clinical and translational science at the University of Pittsburgh, and the lead study author. “When a child comes in with a sore throat, we test for strep. If the test is positive, we prescribe antibiotics.”

Dr. Shaikh and his colleagues found that the same approach – swabbing the nose and testing for various bacteria – worked for children with sinusitis.

“Children who tested negative for bacteria did not benefit from antibiotics,” Dr. Shaikh said.

In the double-blind clinical trial, Dr. Shaikh and his colleagues randomized 510 children between ages 2 and 11 with acute sinusitis at six academic primary care offices over a 6-year period. Almost two-thirds of participants were between ages 2 and 5, around half were male, and around half were White. All participants had an initial score of nine or higher on the validated Pediatric Rhinosinusitis Symptom Scale (PRSS).

For 10 days, 254 children received oral amoxicillin (90 mg/kg/day) and clavulanate (6.4mg/kg/day) and 256 received placebo.

In children receiving antibiotics, symptoms resolved over a median of 7 days, compared with 9 days for those given placebo (P = .003).

Children without detected nasopharyngeal pathogens did not benefit from antibiotics as much as those with the pathogens, the researchers found. Among those with pathogens, the mean symptom burden score was 1.95 points lower in the group that received antibiotics, compared with the group that received placebo. For those without pathogens, there was a 0.88-point difference between the antibiotic and placebo groups (P = .02).

The researchers also took nasal swabs at the first and final study visits and tested for S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, and M. catarrhalis. During that time, parents or caregivers used the PRSS to assess their child’s symptoms, and they recorded the nasal discharge color. Nasal discharge color, Dr. Shaikh and colleagues found, was not linked with antibiotic effect.
 

Welcome findings

Pediatricians and primary care providers face a significant clinical dilemma when they consider using antibiotics with upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), according to John H. Greinwald Jr., MD, professor in the department of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

“These findings certainly make sense because most respiratory infections in children are viral,” Dr. Greinwald said. “The investigators follow the appropriate clinical guidelines for considering antibiotic use in patients with URTIs, which include URTI symptoms lasting longer than 10 days or symptoms initially getting better, then worsening again day 6 through 10.”

Not only is antibiotic resistance a major public health concern, but the drugs can have side effects such as diarrhea, and their long-term effects on the microbiome are unknown.

“Differentiating who has acute sinusitis from who has a viral infection is difficult for primary care providers,” said Eelam A. Adil, MD, MBA, assistant professor of otolaryngology at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

The findings may help clinicians be more selective with antibiotic prescriptions, according to Jacob G. Eide, MD, a head and neck surgeon at Henry Ford Health in Detroit.

“However, we do not want to deny antibiotics when they are beneficial,” Dr. Eide said. “And the difficulty and costs involved in developing the tests need to be considered.”

Dr. Shaikh and his team are studying ways to bring nasal testing into clinical practice, potentially utilizing commercially available molecular testing and rapid antigen tests that work like COVID-19 at-home tests. They are also exploring if other biomarkers in nasal discharge may indicate the presence of bacteria.

All study authors as well as outside experts reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

Testing children with acute sinusitis symptoms for specific bacteria may dramatically decrease unnecessary antibiotic use, new research suggests.

The study, published in JAMA, found that children with positive nasopharyngeal tests for one or more of Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, or Moraxella catarrhalis had better resolution of symptoms with antibiotics than those without these bacteria.

If antibiotic use was limited to children with H. influenzae or S. pneumoniae in their nasopharynx at the time of diagnosis, antibiotic use would decrease by 53%, according to the study authors.

Sinusitis is common in children, and symptoms are similar with uncomplicated viral upper respiratory infections.

“We have not had a good way to predict which children will benefit from antibiotics,” said Nader Shaikh, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and clinical and translational science at the University of Pittsburgh, and the lead study author. “When a child comes in with a sore throat, we test for strep. If the test is positive, we prescribe antibiotics.”

Dr. Shaikh and his colleagues found that the same approach – swabbing the nose and testing for various bacteria – worked for children with sinusitis.

“Children who tested negative for bacteria did not benefit from antibiotics,” Dr. Shaikh said.

In the double-blind clinical trial, Dr. Shaikh and his colleagues randomized 510 children between ages 2 and 11 with acute sinusitis at six academic primary care offices over a 6-year period. Almost two-thirds of participants were between ages 2 and 5, around half were male, and around half were White. All participants had an initial score of nine or higher on the validated Pediatric Rhinosinusitis Symptom Scale (PRSS).

For 10 days, 254 children received oral amoxicillin (90 mg/kg/day) and clavulanate (6.4mg/kg/day) and 256 received placebo.

In children receiving antibiotics, symptoms resolved over a median of 7 days, compared with 9 days for those given placebo (P = .003).

Children without detected nasopharyngeal pathogens did not benefit from antibiotics as much as those with the pathogens, the researchers found. Among those with pathogens, the mean symptom burden score was 1.95 points lower in the group that received antibiotics, compared with the group that received placebo. For those without pathogens, there was a 0.88-point difference between the antibiotic and placebo groups (P = .02).

The researchers also took nasal swabs at the first and final study visits and tested for S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, and M. catarrhalis. During that time, parents or caregivers used the PRSS to assess their child’s symptoms, and they recorded the nasal discharge color. Nasal discharge color, Dr. Shaikh and colleagues found, was not linked with antibiotic effect.
 

Welcome findings

Pediatricians and primary care providers face a significant clinical dilemma when they consider using antibiotics with upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), according to John H. Greinwald Jr., MD, professor in the department of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

“These findings certainly make sense because most respiratory infections in children are viral,” Dr. Greinwald said. “The investigators follow the appropriate clinical guidelines for considering antibiotic use in patients with URTIs, which include URTI symptoms lasting longer than 10 days or symptoms initially getting better, then worsening again day 6 through 10.”

Not only is antibiotic resistance a major public health concern, but the drugs can have side effects such as diarrhea, and their long-term effects on the microbiome are unknown.

“Differentiating who has acute sinusitis from who has a viral infection is difficult for primary care providers,” said Eelam A. Adil, MD, MBA, assistant professor of otolaryngology at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

The findings may help clinicians be more selective with antibiotic prescriptions, according to Jacob G. Eide, MD, a head and neck surgeon at Henry Ford Health in Detroit.

“However, we do not want to deny antibiotics when they are beneficial,” Dr. Eide said. “And the difficulty and costs involved in developing the tests need to be considered.”

Dr. Shaikh and his team are studying ways to bring nasal testing into clinical practice, potentially utilizing commercially available molecular testing and rapid antigen tests that work like COVID-19 at-home tests. They are also exploring if other biomarkers in nasal discharge may indicate the presence of bacteria.

All study authors as well as outside experts reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

Testing children with acute sinusitis symptoms for specific bacteria may dramatically decrease unnecessary antibiotic use, new research suggests.

The study, published in JAMA, found that children with positive nasopharyngeal tests for one or more of Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, or Moraxella catarrhalis had better resolution of symptoms with antibiotics than those without these bacteria.

If antibiotic use was limited to children with H. influenzae or S. pneumoniae in their nasopharynx at the time of diagnosis, antibiotic use would decrease by 53%, according to the study authors.

Sinusitis is common in children, and symptoms are similar with uncomplicated viral upper respiratory infections.

“We have not had a good way to predict which children will benefit from antibiotics,” said Nader Shaikh, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and clinical and translational science at the University of Pittsburgh, and the lead study author. “When a child comes in with a sore throat, we test for strep. If the test is positive, we prescribe antibiotics.”

Dr. Shaikh and his colleagues found that the same approach – swabbing the nose and testing for various bacteria – worked for children with sinusitis.

“Children who tested negative for bacteria did not benefit from antibiotics,” Dr. Shaikh said.

In the double-blind clinical trial, Dr. Shaikh and his colleagues randomized 510 children between ages 2 and 11 with acute sinusitis at six academic primary care offices over a 6-year period. Almost two-thirds of participants were between ages 2 and 5, around half were male, and around half were White. All participants had an initial score of nine or higher on the validated Pediatric Rhinosinusitis Symptom Scale (PRSS).

For 10 days, 254 children received oral amoxicillin (90 mg/kg/day) and clavulanate (6.4mg/kg/day) and 256 received placebo.

In children receiving antibiotics, symptoms resolved over a median of 7 days, compared with 9 days for those given placebo (P = .003).

Children without detected nasopharyngeal pathogens did not benefit from antibiotics as much as those with the pathogens, the researchers found. Among those with pathogens, the mean symptom burden score was 1.95 points lower in the group that received antibiotics, compared with the group that received placebo. For those without pathogens, there was a 0.88-point difference between the antibiotic and placebo groups (P = .02).

The researchers also took nasal swabs at the first and final study visits and tested for S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, and M. catarrhalis. During that time, parents or caregivers used the PRSS to assess their child’s symptoms, and they recorded the nasal discharge color. Nasal discharge color, Dr. Shaikh and colleagues found, was not linked with antibiotic effect.
 

Welcome findings

Pediatricians and primary care providers face a significant clinical dilemma when they consider using antibiotics with upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), according to John H. Greinwald Jr., MD, professor in the department of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

“These findings certainly make sense because most respiratory infections in children are viral,” Dr. Greinwald said. “The investigators follow the appropriate clinical guidelines for considering antibiotic use in patients with URTIs, which include URTI symptoms lasting longer than 10 days or symptoms initially getting better, then worsening again day 6 through 10.”

Not only is antibiotic resistance a major public health concern, but the drugs can have side effects such as diarrhea, and their long-term effects on the microbiome are unknown.

“Differentiating who has acute sinusitis from who has a viral infection is difficult for primary care providers,” said Eelam A. Adil, MD, MBA, assistant professor of otolaryngology at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

The findings may help clinicians be more selective with antibiotic prescriptions, according to Jacob G. Eide, MD, a head and neck surgeon at Henry Ford Health in Detroit.

“However, we do not want to deny antibiotics when they are beneficial,” Dr. Eide said. “And the difficulty and costs involved in developing the tests need to be considered.”

Dr. Shaikh and his team are studying ways to bring nasal testing into clinical practice, potentially utilizing commercially available molecular testing and rapid antigen tests that work like COVID-19 at-home tests. They are also exploring if other biomarkers in nasal discharge may indicate the presence of bacteria.

All study authors as well as outside experts reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

A Georgia doctor was cleared in June of having failed to diagnose and treat a child whose acute pancreatitis developed life-threatening complications, according to a report posted on the website of Courtroom View Network.

In 2018, the parents of the then 9-year-old child brought him to Wellstar Paulding Hospital in Hiram, Ga., because of his severe abdominal pain and distention, among other symptoms. Following their examination, medical personnel at the hospital suspected the child’s symptoms were the result of severe constipation.

That evening, he was transferred to Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, where a pediatric gastroenterologist oversaw his care. (Neither the Atlanta hospital nor Wellstar Paulding were defendants in the subsequent lawsuit.)

Late the following day, the child went into hypovolemic shock, a condition that interrupted the blood supply to his body. Admitted to the pediatric ICU, he was diagnosed with a dangerous complication of acute pancreatitis, necrotizing pancreatitis.

Further complications of his original disease led to a 4-month hospital stay, multiple surgeries, and other interventions. To this point, his medical expenses totaled more than $2.5 million.

His parents then sued the pediatric gastroenterologist who had overseen their child’s care. At issue during the 4-day trial was whether the doctor had properly monitored and treated his patient before his hypovolemic shock set in.

Their attorney sketched the “timeline” of the child’s decline, including his rapid heart rate and repeated vomiting. Given these symptoms, he argued, the standard of care required that steps be taken – including the proper tests and other interventions – to prevent the child’s acute pancreatitis from progressing even further.

“We are not asking you to say, ‘Should [the doctor] have immediately diagnosed pancreatitis,’ “ the attorney told the jury. “But the totality here requires you to think, ‘This might be more than just a backed-up kid.’ ”

The defense pushed back strenuously, however. It argued that the pediatric gastroenterologist had acted appropriately given the prevailing consensus, namely that the child was suffering from extreme constipation. Doctors at Wellstar Paulding, the first hospital where he was seen, suspected this diagnosis – and so, based on his exam and the child’s “non-specific” symptoms, did their client, the pediatric gastroenterologist, who saw him subsequently. “The only clinicians who actually laid hands on [the child] all thought constipation,” the attorney said during his closing argument.

The jury agreed, finding that the pediatric gastroenterologist had acted appropriately, based on the available evidence. Following the jury verdict, the defense attorney noted: Absent the “classic” symptoms of pancreatitis, the jury saw that his client “was working with a reasonable diagnosis until [the child’s] clinical picture deteriorated.”
 

ED doctors can reduce system errors, study says

Emergency physicians are often blamed for system errors beyond their control, asserts a study in the June issue of Emergency Medicine News.

The study – conducted by Tom Belanger, MD, an emergency physician in Texas and chair-elect of the American College of Emergency Physicians Workforce Section – sought to understand to what extent doctors themselves were aware of systemic problems affecting their job. Dr. Belanger surveyed 99 doctors who were asked to comment on a series of ED–related adverse outcomes.

To mitigate response bias, he randomly manipulated the degree to which system error was a perceived factor in each of the adverse cases. In other words, in some cases, the system was represented as a major factor leading to error, while, in other cases, its role was diminished.

Dr. Belanger also divided his doctor/respondents into two groups: The first was asked about his or her personal experience with systemic issues before being presented with the adverse cases; the second group was queried about this experience after being presented with the cases.

The result confirmed Dr. Belanger’s suspicions: Physicians in the first group – that is, those asked about “system factors” before reading about the cases – “were 1.7 times more likely ... to attribute the adverse outcomes in the cases to system factors. (Other significant variables – including whether their shift was busy – also contributed to doctors’ perceptions of adverse outcomes.)

Concluded Dr. Belanger: Since doctors “can identify factors that increase their chances of making mistakes,” system designers should take heed and make efforts to reduce “the probability of error.” If they drag their heels or continue to point to individual doctor error, “they should be held medically and legally liable.”
 

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

A Georgia doctor was cleared in June of having failed to diagnose and treat a child whose acute pancreatitis developed life-threatening complications, according to a report posted on the website of Courtroom View Network.

In 2018, the parents of the then 9-year-old child brought him to Wellstar Paulding Hospital in Hiram, Ga., because of his severe abdominal pain and distention, among other symptoms. Following their examination, medical personnel at the hospital suspected the child’s symptoms were the result of severe constipation.

That evening, he was transferred to Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, where a pediatric gastroenterologist oversaw his care. (Neither the Atlanta hospital nor Wellstar Paulding were defendants in the subsequent lawsuit.)

Late the following day, the child went into hypovolemic shock, a condition that interrupted the blood supply to his body. Admitted to the pediatric ICU, he was diagnosed with a dangerous complication of acute pancreatitis, necrotizing pancreatitis.

Further complications of his original disease led to a 4-month hospital stay, multiple surgeries, and other interventions. To this point, his medical expenses totaled more than $2.5 million.

His parents then sued the pediatric gastroenterologist who had overseen their child’s care. At issue during the 4-day trial was whether the doctor had properly monitored and treated his patient before his hypovolemic shock set in.

Their attorney sketched the “timeline” of the child’s decline, including his rapid heart rate and repeated vomiting. Given these symptoms, he argued, the standard of care required that steps be taken – including the proper tests and other interventions – to prevent the child’s acute pancreatitis from progressing even further.

“We are not asking you to say, ‘Should [the doctor] have immediately diagnosed pancreatitis,’ “ the attorney told the jury. “But the totality here requires you to think, ‘This might be more than just a backed-up kid.’ ”

The defense pushed back strenuously, however. It argued that the pediatric gastroenterologist had acted appropriately given the prevailing consensus, namely that the child was suffering from extreme constipation. Doctors at Wellstar Paulding, the first hospital where he was seen, suspected this diagnosis – and so, based on his exam and the child’s “non-specific” symptoms, did their client, the pediatric gastroenterologist, who saw him subsequently. “The only clinicians who actually laid hands on [the child] all thought constipation,” the attorney said during his closing argument.

The jury agreed, finding that the pediatric gastroenterologist had acted appropriately, based on the available evidence. Following the jury verdict, the defense attorney noted: Absent the “classic” symptoms of pancreatitis, the jury saw that his client “was working with a reasonable diagnosis until [the child’s] clinical picture deteriorated.”
 

ED doctors can reduce system errors, study says

Emergency physicians are often blamed for system errors beyond their control, asserts a study in the June issue of Emergency Medicine News.

The study – conducted by Tom Belanger, MD, an emergency physician in Texas and chair-elect of the American College of Emergency Physicians Workforce Section – sought to understand to what extent doctors themselves were aware of systemic problems affecting their job. Dr. Belanger surveyed 99 doctors who were asked to comment on a series of ED–related adverse outcomes.

To mitigate response bias, he randomly manipulated the degree to which system error was a perceived factor in each of the adverse cases. In other words, in some cases, the system was represented as a major factor leading to error, while, in other cases, its role was diminished.

Dr. Belanger also divided his doctor/respondents into two groups: The first was asked about his or her personal experience with systemic issues before being presented with the adverse cases; the second group was queried about this experience after being presented with the cases.

The result confirmed Dr. Belanger’s suspicions: Physicians in the first group – that is, those asked about “system factors” before reading about the cases – “were 1.7 times more likely ... to attribute the adverse outcomes in the cases to system factors. (Other significant variables – including whether their shift was busy – also contributed to doctors’ perceptions of adverse outcomes.)

Concluded Dr. Belanger: Since doctors “can identify factors that increase their chances of making mistakes,” system designers should take heed and make efforts to reduce “the probability of error.” If they drag their heels or continue to point to individual doctor error, “they should be held medically and legally liable.”
 

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

A Georgia doctor was cleared in June of having failed to diagnose and treat a child whose acute pancreatitis developed life-threatening complications, according to a report posted on the website of Courtroom View Network.

In 2018, the parents of the then 9-year-old child brought him to Wellstar Paulding Hospital in Hiram, Ga., because of his severe abdominal pain and distention, among other symptoms. Following their examination, medical personnel at the hospital suspected the child’s symptoms were the result of severe constipation.

That evening, he was transferred to Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, where a pediatric gastroenterologist oversaw his care. (Neither the Atlanta hospital nor Wellstar Paulding were defendants in the subsequent lawsuit.)

Late the following day, the child went into hypovolemic shock, a condition that interrupted the blood supply to his body. Admitted to the pediatric ICU, he was diagnosed with a dangerous complication of acute pancreatitis, necrotizing pancreatitis.

Further complications of his original disease led to a 4-month hospital stay, multiple surgeries, and other interventions. To this point, his medical expenses totaled more than $2.5 million.

His parents then sued the pediatric gastroenterologist who had overseen their child’s care. At issue during the 4-day trial was whether the doctor had properly monitored and treated his patient before his hypovolemic shock set in.

Their attorney sketched the “timeline” of the child’s decline, including his rapid heart rate and repeated vomiting. Given these symptoms, he argued, the standard of care required that steps be taken – including the proper tests and other interventions – to prevent the child’s acute pancreatitis from progressing even further.

“We are not asking you to say, ‘Should [the doctor] have immediately diagnosed pancreatitis,’ “ the attorney told the jury. “But the totality here requires you to think, ‘This might be more than just a backed-up kid.’ ”

The defense pushed back strenuously, however. It argued that the pediatric gastroenterologist had acted appropriately given the prevailing consensus, namely that the child was suffering from extreme constipation. Doctors at Wellstar Paulding, the first hospital where he was seen, suspected this diagnosis – and so, based on his exam and the child’s “non-specific” symptoms, did their client, the pediatric gastroenterologist, who saw him subsequently. “The only clinicians who actually laid hands on [the child] all thought constipation,” the attorney said during his closing argument.

The jury agreed, finding that the pediatric gastroenterologist had acted appropriately, based on the available evidence. Following the jury verdict, the defense attorney noted: Absent the “classic” symptoms of pancreatitis, the jury saw that his client “was working with a reasonable diagnosis until [the child’s] clinical picture deteriorated.”
 

ED doctors can reduce system errors, study says

Emergency physicians are often blamed for system errors beyond their control, asserts a study in the June issue of Emergency Medicine News.

The study – conducted by Tom Belanger, MD, an emergency physician in Texas and chair-elect of the American College of Emergency Physicians Workforce Section – sought to understand to what extent doctors themselves were aware of systemic problems affecting their job. Dr. Belanger surveyed 99 doctors who were asked to comment on a series of ED–related adverse outcomes.

To mitigate response bias, he randomly manipulated the degree to which system error was a perceived factor in each of the adverse cases. In other words, in some cases, the system was represented as a major factor leading to error, while, in other cases, its role was diminished.

Dr. Belanger also divided his doctor/respondents into two groups: The first was asked about his or her personal experience with systemic issues before being presented with the adverse cases; the second group was queried about this experience after being presented with the cases.

The result confirmed Dr. Belanger’s suspicions: Physicians in the first group – that is, those asked about “system factors” before reading about the cases – “were 1.7 times more likely ... to attribute the adverse outcomes in the cases to system factors. (Other significant variables – including whether their shift was busy – also contributed to doctors’ perceptions of adverse outcomes.)

Concluded Dr. Belanger: Since doctors “can identify factors that increase their chances of making mistakes,” system designers should take heed and make efforts to reduce “the probability of error.” If they drag their heels or continue to point to individual doctor error, “they should be held medically and legally liable.”
 

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

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – TikTok, typical of several forms of social media, has been intentionally repositioned to rival Google as a primary source of information, meaning that health care professionals, including those who provide dermatologic care to children, should be thinking about how to get on board to counter myths, erroneous facts, and fake news, warned an expert at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

“If we don’t get involved, we are basically letting misinformation win. We need to be there,” said Angelo Landriscina, MD, director of dermatology at a Mount Sinai Doctors Clinic in New York.

Most of the content currently available on medical topics, including dermatology and pediatric dermatology, is not created by health care professionals, Dr. Landriscina noted. Not surprisingly, given that much of the content is based on personal opinion from individuals who have no expertise in medical care, he described the information as being of “low quality” when not fully erroneous.

Dr. Landriscina has been active on social media, including TikTok, for several years. Most of his posts involve responses to misinformation. When he sets the record straight on the basis of existing evidence, he often supports his counterargument with references.

He acknowledged that when he became involved in social media he faced criticism from colleagues about participating on an entertainment platform that many considered unworthy of providing objective information. If that was ever true, he argued, it is no longer the case.

“TikTok has adopted a new strategy. The goal is to unseat Google as a search tool, and it’s working,” he said. He explained that many people now use TikTok and other social media sites as their primary source of information on essentially every topic, from where to eat to whether to be screened for cancer.

The particular problem with TikTok – one of the most popular social media outlets – is that there is no mechanism for vetting the source of information. YouTube, by contrast, now requires some sort of validation for anyone who claims to have a medical degree or any other verifiable qualification, according to Dr. Landriscina. TikTok, like many other platforms, has no such requirement.

“Anyone can buy a pair of scrubs [implying expertise] and then post a video,” Dr. Landriscina said.

Even if information from one content provider is more valid than information from others, the TikTok algorithm is specifically designed to emphasize content that has the potential for going viral, which means it favors videos that are provocative over those that are not.

“The algorithm favors any content that is more controversial, more surprising, and keeps viewers engaged,” Dr. Landriscina pointed out.

This does not mean that objective and factual information is ignored, but the algorithm is indifferent to the validity of information, meaning that it allows videos to be posted without regard to whether the content is true, untrue, purposefully misleading, or utter nonsense. For that reason, it is often easier to attract attention by responding to a post that has already gone viral. Information that is clear and digestible can attract viewers and therefore is distributed more widely with the TikTok algorithm.
 

Parents are on Tiktok too

There is a misperception that the TikTok audience is younger, according to Dr. Landriscina. While peak use in the United States fell among people between the ages of 25 and 34 years in 2022, he said the number of users falls off relatively slowly with subsequent 10-year increments in age. In 2022, there were nearly 20 million users in the peak 10-year age range, but 7.5 million users were 55 years of age or older.

“Pediatric dermatologists should recognize that it is not just kids who are looking for information about their skin diseases, but also their parents,” Dr. Landriscina said.

The top three dermatology topics searched on TikTok in a recent period were acne, alopecia, and cysts. But top searches are very fluid and are extremely hard to quantify, because the basis of the algorithm, which is a proprietary secret, is not only unknown but produces different results for every user.

“The second you touch the app, it changes,” Dr. Landriscina said. He explained that an inquiry about any subject, including those that are medically related, yields content that is different, or at least ordered differently, “depending on how you behaved on the app in the past.”

The phenomenon that drives social media predates this technology. Dr. Landriscina cited a study in 1956 that described the “parasocial interaction theory.” The theory was based on the observation that those who consume media, such as television, which was relatively new in 1956, believed that they had a personal relationship with media figures.

“The users begin to trust influencers as a source, like a friend providing them advice,” Dr. Landriscina said. As an example, he suggested that a fan of the television show Friends who follows actor Jennifer Aniston on social media platforms may begin to think of her as a trusted source of information on any topic, including those for which she may not have expertise.

The reason that he urges medical professionals to become active on TikTok and other social media platforms is that they have a potentially critical role in responding to information that is not just wrong but harmful.

On TikTok and other social media platforms, “there is a lot of interest in content about dermatologic conditions in children. There is a real need for accurate information,” he said,

In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, Dr. Landriscina’s message was not uniformly embraced. One risk, according to an audience member, is that medical professionals will begin to express their own personal opinions rather than rely on evidence, with the result that they will “just add to the sea of misinformation.”

However, this opinion appeared to be the minority view. Most of those who commented took a “that-ship-has-sailed” stance, recognizing the irreversible ascendancy of social media.

“Whether you like it or not, social media is here to stay. We cannot fight it. Rather, we need to embrace it in a responsible way,” said Dakara R. Wright, MD, a dermatologist at the Mid-Atlantic Kaiser Permanente Group, Halethorpe, Md. She, like others, reported that she has come to recognize that social media is a major source of medical information for her patients.

“We need to be a presence on these platforms for the benefit of our patients and their parents,” she said. She acknowledged that she has not been active in posting on social media in the past but said that she has been speaking with administrators in her organization about how to become involved in a responsible way that can be useful to patients.

Candrice R. Heath, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, has been active on social media for several years, posting content on her own account, which is not related to her academic affiliation. She posts for many reasons, not least of which is drawing attention to her expertise.

Like Dr. Landriscina, she recognizes that users of these platforms are guided by the content to make decisions about health care. She also agreed that physicians should not ignore this phenomenon.

Tips on providing content

Given the fact that the algorithm is intended to produce posts that go viral, Dr. Landriscina urged clinicians to make their content easy to watch. He said it is not necessary to overthink content beyond providing accurate information, but he advised that videos be made with attention to adequate lighting and other simple factors to promote visual quality. He said that accurate information is not necessarily dull.

“Some facts can actually be surprising to patients,” he said. He noted that a calm, coherent video can be particularly effective in attracting an audience when it is in reaction to information that has gone viral but is misleading or patently incorrect.

Dr. Landriscina has been an influencer associated with multiple social media platforms, including TikTok. He has in the past been paid for consulting work for TikTok. Dr. Wright and Dr. Heath reported no potential conflicts of interest.

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

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – TikTok, typical of several forms of social media, has been intentionally repositioned to rival Google as a primary source of information, meaning that health care professionals, including those who provide dermatologic care to children, should be thinking about how to get on board to counter myths, erroneous facts, and fake news, warned an expert at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

“If we don’t get involved, we are basically letting misinformation win. We need to be there,” said Angelo Landriscina, MD, director of dermatology at a Mount Sinai Doctors Clinic in New York.

Most of the content currently available on medical topics, including dermatology and pediatric dermatology, is not created by health care professionals, Dr. Landriscina noted. Not surprisingly, given that much of the content is based on personal opinion from individuals who have no expertise in medical care, he described the information as being of “low quality” when not fully erroneous.

Dr. Landriscina has been active on social media, including TikTok, for several years. Most of his posts involve responses to misinformation. When he sets the record straight on the basis of existing evidence, he often supports his counterargument with references.

He acknowledged that when he became involved in social media he faced criticism from colleagues about participating on an entertainment platform that many considered unworthy of providing objective information. If that was ever true, he argued, it is no longer the case.

“TikTok has adopted a new strategy. The goal is to unseat Google as a search tool, and it’s working,” he said. He explained that many people now use TikTok and other social media sites as their primary source of information on essentially every topic, from where to eat to whether to be screened for cancer.

The particular problem with TikTok – one of the most popular social media outlets – is that there is no mechanism for vetting the source of information. YouTube, by contrast, now requires some sort of validation for anyone who claims to have a medical degree or any other verifiable qualification, according to Dr. Landriscina. TikTok, like many other platforms, has no such requirement.

“Anyone can buy a pair of scrubs [implying expertise] and then post a video,” Dr. Landriscina said.

Even if information from one content provider is more valid than information from others, the TikTok algorithm is specifically designed to emphasize content that has the potential for going viral, which means it favors videos that are provocative over those that are not.

“The algorithm favors any content that is more controversial, more surprising, and keeps viewers engaged,” Dr. Landriscina pointed out.

This does not mean that objective and factual information is ignored, but the algorithm is indifferent to the validity of information, meaning that it allows videos to be posted without regard to whether the content is true, untrue, purposefully misleading, or utter nonsense. For that reason, it is often easier to attract attention by responding to a post that has already gone viral. Information that is clear and digestible can attract viewers and therefore is distributed more widely with the TikTok algorithm.
 

Parents are on Tiktok too

There is a misperception that the TikTok audience is younger, according to Dr. Landriscina. While peak use in the United States fell among people between the ages of 25 and 34 years in 2022, he said the number of users falls off relatively slowly with subsequent 10-year increments in age. In 2022, there were nearly 20 million users in the peak 10-year age range, but 7.5 million users were 55 years of age or older.

“Pediatric dermatologists should recognize that it is not just kids who are looking for information about their skin diseases, but also their parents,” Dr. Landriscina said.

The top three dermatology topics searched on TikTok in a recent period were acne, alopecia, and cysts. But top searches are very fluid and are extremely hard to quantify, because the basis of the algorithm, which is a proprietary secret, is not only unknown but produces different results for every user.

“The second you touch the app, it changes,” Dr. Landriscina said. He explained that an inquiry about any subject, including those that are medically related, yields content that is different, or at least ordered differently, “depending on how you behaved on the app in the past.”

The phenomenon that drives social media predates this technology. Dr. Landriscina cited a study in 1956 that described the “parasocial interaction theory.” The theory was based on the observation that those who consume media, such as television, which was relatively new in 1956, believed that they had a personal relationship with media figures.

“The users begin to trust influencers as a source, like a friend providing them advice,” Dr. Landriscina said. As an example, he suggested that a fan of the television show Friends who follows actor Jennifer Aniston on social media platforms may begin to think of her as a trusted source of information on any topic, including those for which she may not have expertise.

The reason that he urges medical professionals to become active on TikTok and other social media platforms is that they have a potentially critical role in responding to information that is not just wrong but harmful.

On TikTok and other social media platforms, “there is a lot of interest in content about dermatologic conditions in children. There is a real need for accurate information,” he said,

In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, Dr. Landriscina’s message was not uniformly embraced. One risk, according to an audience member, is that medical professionals will begin to express their own personal opinions rather than rely on evidence, with the result that they will “just add to the sea of misinformation.”

However, this opinion appeared to be the minority view. Most of those who commented took a “that-ship-has-sailed” stance, recognizing the irreversible ascendancy of social media.

“Whether you like it or not, social media is here to stay. We cannot fight it. Rather, we need to embrace it in a responsible way,” said Dakara R. Wright, MD, a dermatologist at the Mid-Atlantic Kaiser Permanente Group, Halethorpe, Md. She, like others, reported that she has come to recognize that social media is a major source of medical information for her patients.

“We need to be a presence on these platforms for the benefit of our patients and their parents,” she said. She acknowledged that she has not been active in posting on social media in the past but said that she has been speaking with administrators in her organization about how to become involved in a responsible way that can be useful to patients.

Candrice R. Heath, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, has been active on social media for several years, posting content on her own account, which is not related to her academic affiliation. She posts for many reasons, not least of which is drawing attention to her expertise.

Like Dr. Landriscina, she recognizes that users of these platforms are guided by the content to make decisions about health care. She also agreed that physicians should not ignore this phenomenon.

Tips on providing content

Given the fact that the algorithm is intended to produce posts that go viral, Dr. Landriscina urged clinicians to make their content easy to watch. He said it is not necessary to overthink content beyond providing accurate information, but he advised that videos be made with attention to adequate lighting and other simple factors to promote visual quality. He said that accurate information is not necessarily dull.

“Some facts can actually be surprising to patients,” he said. He noted that a calm, coherent video can be particularly effective in attracting an audience when it is in reaction to information that has gone viral but is misleading or patently incorrect.

Dr. Landriscina has been an influencer associated with multiple social media platforms, including TikTok. He has in the past been paid for consulting work for TikTok. Dr. Wright and Dr. Heath reported no potential conflicts of interest.

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

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – TikTok, typical of several forms of social media, has been intentionally repositioned to rival Google as a primary source of information, meaning that health care professionals, including those who provide dermatologic care to children, should be thinking about how to get on board to counter myths, erroneous facts, and fake news, warned an expert at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

“If we don’t get involved, we are basically letting misinformation win. We need to be there,” said Angelo Landriscina, MD, director of dermatology at a Mount Sinai Doctors Clinic in New York.

Most of the content currently available on medical topics, including dermatology and pediatric dermatology, is not created by health care professionals, Dr. Landriscina noted. Not surprisingly, given that much of the content is based on personal opinion from individuals who have no expertise in medical care, he described the information as being of “low quality” when not fully erroneous.

Dr. Landriscina has been active on social media, including TikTok, for several years. Most of his posts involve responses to misinformation. When he sets the record straight on the basis of existing evidence, he often supports his counterargument with references.

He acknowledged that when he became involved in social media he faced criticism from colleagues about participating on an entertainment platform that many considered unworthy of providing objective information. If that was ever true, he argued, it is no longer the case.

“TikTok has adopted a new strategy. The goal is to unseat Google as a search tool, and it’s working,” he said. He explained that many people now use TikTok and other social media sites as their primary source of information on essentially every topic, from where to eat to whether to be screened for cancer.

The particular problem with TikTok – one of the most popular social media outlets – is that there is no mechanism for vetting the source of information. YouTube, by contrast, now requires some sort of validation for anyone who claims to have a medical degree or any other verifiable qualification, according to Dr. Landriscina. TikTok, like many other platforms, has no such requirement.

“Anyone can buy a pair of scrubs [implying expertise] and then post a video,” Dr. Landriscina said.

Even if information from one content provider is more valid than information from others, the TikTok algorithm is specifically designed to emphasize content that has the potential for going viral, which means it favors videos that are provocative over those that are not.

“The algorithm favors any content that is more controversial, more surprising, and keeps viewers engaged,” Dr. Landriscina pointed out.

This does not mean that objective and factual information is ignored, but the algorithm is indifferent to the validity of information, meaning that it allows videos to be posted without regard to whether the content is true, untrue, purposefully misleading, or utter nonsense. For that reason, it is often easier to attract attention by responding to a post that has already gone viral. Information that is clear and digestible can attract viewers and therefore is distributed more widely with the TikTok algorithm.
 

Parents are on Tiktok too

There is a misperception that the TikTok audience is younger, according to Dr. Landriscina. While peak use in the United States fell among people between the ages of 25 and 34 years in 2022, he said the number of users falls off relatively slowly with subsequent 10-year increments in age. In 2022, there were nearly 20 million users in the peak 10-year age range, but 7.5 million users were 55 years of age or older.

“Pediatric dermatologists should recognize that it is not just kids who are looking for information about their skin diseases, but also their parents,” Dr. Landriscina said.

The top three dermatology topics searched on TikTok in a recent period were acne, alopecia, and cysts. But top searches are very fluid and are extremely hard to quantify, because the basis of the algorithm, which is a proprietary secret, is not only unknown but produces different results for every user.

“The second you touch the app, it changes,” Dr. Landriscina said. He explained that an inquiry about any subject, including those that are medically related, yields content that is different, or at least ordered differently, “depending on how you behaved on the app in the past.”

The phenomenon that drives social media predates this technology. Dr. Landriscina cited a study in 1956 that described the “parasocial interaction theory.” The theory was based on the observation that those who consume media, such as television, which was relatively new in 1956, believed that they had a personal relationship with media figures.

“The users begin to trust influencers as a source, like a friend providing them advice,” Dr. Landriscina said. As an example, he suggested that a fan of the television show Friends who follows actor Jennifer Aniston on social media platforms may begin to think of her as a trusted source of information on any topic, including those for which she may not have expertise.

The reason that he urges medical professionals to become active on TikTok and other social media platforms is that they have a potentially critical role in responding to information that is not just wrong but harmful.

On TikTok and other social media platforms, “there is a lot of interest in content about dermatologic conditions in children. There is a real need for accurate information,” he said,

In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, Dr. Landriscina’s message was not uniformly embraced. One risk, according to an audience member, is that medical professionals will begin to express their own personal opinions rather than rely on evidence, with the result that they will “just add to the sea of misinformation.”

However, this opinion appeared to be the minority view. Most of those who commented took a “that-ship-has-sailed” stance, recognizing the irreversible ascendancy of social media.

“Whether you like it or not, social media is here to stay. We cannot fight it. Rather, we need to embrace it in a responsible way,” said Dakara R. Wright, MD, a dermatologist at the Mid-Atlantic Kaiser Permanente Group, Halethorpe, Md. She, like others, reported that she has come to recognize that social media is a major source of medical information for her patients.

“We need to be a presence on these platforms for the benefit of our patients and their parents,” she said. She acknowledged that she has not been active in posting on social media in the past but said that she has been speaking with administrators in her organization about how to become involved in a responsible way that can be useful to patients.

Candrice R. Heath, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, has been active on social media for several years, posting content on her own account, which is not related to her academic affiliation. She posts for many reasons, not least of which is drawing attention to her expertise.

Like Dr. Landriscina, she recognizes that users of these platforms are guided by the content to make decisions about health care. She also agreed that physicians should not ignore this phenomenon.

Tips on providing content

Given the fact that the algorithm is intended to produce posts that go viral, Dr. Landriscina urged clinicians to make their content easy to watch. He said it is not necessary to overthink content beyond providing accurate information, but he advised that videos be made with attention to adequate lighting and other simple factors to promote visual quality. He said that accurate information is not necessarily dull.

“Some facts can actually be surprising to patients,” he said. He noted that a calm, coherent video can be particularly effective in attracting an audience when it is in reaction to information that has gone viral but is misleading or patently incorrect.

Dr. Landriscina has been an influencer associated with multiple social media platforms, including TikTok. He has in the past been paid for consulting work for TikTok. Dr. Wright and Dr. Heath reported no potential conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE

A new American Academy of Pediatrics study reveals that 17.2% of toddlers started but did not finish at least one recommended early childhood vaccine series.

METHODOLOGY

• Examined data collected in 2019 from the National Immunization Survey – Child.
• 16,365 children ages 19-35 months were included.
• Vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, pneumococcal infections, Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella were included.

TAKEAWAY

• 72.9% of toddlers completed the seven-vaccine series.
• 17.2% initiated but did not complete one or more of a multidose vaccine series.
• The strongest association with not completing the vaccine series was moving across state lines and not having insurance.
• Children with more siblings at home were less likely to complete a vaccine series.

IN PRACTICE

The study suggests that the “children experienced structural barriers to vaccination,” and the authors urge an “increased focus on strategies to encourage multidose series completion ... to optimize protection from preventable diseases and achieve vaccination coverage goals.”

SOURCE

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and published online July 25 in Pediatrics. Sarah Y. Michels, an epidemiology specialist from the University of Montana in Missoula, was the lead author.

LIMITATIONS

Though the researchers studied the risk factors for series noncompletion, they did not have information on the specific reasons why children were missing vaccine doses. Children whose parents chose to participate in the National Immunization Survey – Child may have had higher vaccination coverage than children whose parents declined participation.

DISCLOSURES

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE

A new American Academy of Pediatrics study reveals that 17.2% of toddlers started but did not finish at least one recommended early childhood vaccine series.

METHODOLOGY

• Examined data collected in 2019 from the National Immunization Survey – Child.
• 16,365 children ages 19-35 months were included.
• Vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, pneumococcal infections, Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella were included.

TAKEAWAY

• 72.9% of toddlers completed the seven-vaccine series.
• 17.2% initiated but did not complete one or more of a multidose vaccine series.
• The strongest association with not completing the vaccine series was moving across state lines and not having insurance.
• Children with more siblings at home were less likely to complete a vaccine series.

IN PRACTICE

The study suggests that the “children experienced structural barriers to vaccination,” and the authors urge an “increased focus on strategies to encourage multidose series completion ... to optimize protection from preventable diseases and achieve vaccination coverage goals.”

SOURCE

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and published online July 25 in Pediatrics. Sarah Y. Michels, an epidemiology specialist from the University of Montana in Missoula, was the lead author.

LIMITATIONS

Though the researchers studied the risk factors for series noncompletion, they did not have information on the specific reasons why children were missing vaccine doses. Children whose parents chose to participate in the National Immunization Survey – Child may have had higher vaccination coverage than children whose parents declined participation.

DISCLOSURES

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE

A new American Academy of Pediatrics study reveals that 17.2% of toddlers started but did not finish at least one recommended early childhood vaccine series.

METHODOLOGY

• Examined data collected in 2019 from the National Immunization Survey – Child.
• 16,365 children ages 19-35 months were included.
• Vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, pneumococcal infections, Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella were included.

TAKEAWAY

• 72.9% of toddlers completed the seven-vaccine series.
• 17.2% initiated but did not complete one or more of a multidose vaccine series.
• The strongest association with not completing the vaccine series was moving across state lines and not having insurance.
• Children with more siblings at home were less likely to complete a vaccine series.

IN PRACTICE

The study suggests that the “children experienced structural barriers to vaccination,” and the authors urge an “increased focus on strategies to encourage multidose series completion ... to optimize protection from preventable diseases and achieve vaccination coverage goals.”

SOURCE

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and published online July 25 in Pediatrics. Sarah Y. Michels, an epidemiology specialist from the University of Montana in Missoula, was the lead author.

LIMITATIONS

Though the researchers studied the risk factors for series noncompletion, they did not have information on the specific reasons why children were missing vaccine doses. Children whose parents chose to participate in the National Immunization Survey – Child may have had higher vaccination coverage than children whose parents declined participation.

DISCLOSURES

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

Asian American, Hispanic/Latino, and older individuals appear to have the greatest burden of vitiligo in the United States, according to the results of a cross sectional study.

To investigate the incidence and prevalence of diagnosed vitiligo in the United States, researchers used a 15% random sample of electronic medical records from the IBM Explorys database. Two cohorts were included: 2,980,778 patients diagnosed with vitiligo between Jan. 1, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2019 (incidence analysis), and 1,057,534 patients diagnosed with vitiligo between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, 2019 (prevalence analysis).The main outcomes were incidence (per 100,000 person-years) and prevalence of diagnosed vitiligo overall and by age, race/ethnicity, and sex. Amit Garg, MD, a dermatologist with Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, N.Y., led the study, which was published in JAMA Dermatology.

The age- and sex-adjusted overall incidence rate of diagnosed vitiligo was 22.6 per 100,000 person-years, and the prevalence was 0.16%, the authors reported. The sex-adjusted IR was highest among patients aged 60-69 years (25.3 per 100,000 person-years); prevalence was highest among patients aged 70 years or older (0.21%).

The highest age-adjusted IR was among Asian American patients (41.2 per 100,000 person-years), followed by Hispanic/Latino patients (37.3 per 100,000 PY), those reporting other or multiple races (31.1 per 100,000), Black patients (29.6 per 100,000 person-years), and White patients (18.7 per 100,000 person-years). The highest age-adjusted prevalence was among Hispanic/Latino patients (0.29%), followed by Asian American patients (0.27%), those reporting other or multiple races (0.24%), Black patients (0.22%), and White patients (0.13%).

The burden of vitiligo in the United States is poorly understood, and the findings “may support improving awareness of vitiligo disease burden in medical and public sectors, informing research agendas, improving enrollment of racial and ethnic minority populations in trials, and developing health policies,” the authors wrote.

Limitations of the study included that the analysis only captured patients who sought care in health systems included in the database, and there was the potential for underreporting, “since not all patients with vitiligo seek care,” the authors noted.

Dr. Garg reported being an adviser for and receiving honoraria from many pharmaceutical companies. He has also received research grants from AbbVie, UCB, the National Psoriasis Foundation, and the CHORD COUSIN Collaboration. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Asian American, Hispanic/Latino, and older individuals appear to have the greatest burden of vitiligo in the United States, according to the results of a cross sectional study.

To investigate the incidence and prevalence of diagnosed vitiligo in the United States, researchers used a 15% random sample of electronic medical records from the IBM Explorys database. Two cohorts were included: 2,980,778 patients diagnosed with vitiligo between Jan. 1, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2019 (incidence analysis), and 1,057,534 patients diagnosed with vitiligo between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, 2019 (prevalence analysis).The main outcomes were incidence (per 100,000 person-years) and prevalence of diagnosed vitiligo overall and by age, race/ethnicity, and sex. Amit Garg, MD, a dermatologist with Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, N.Y., led the study, which was published in JAMA Dermatology.

The age- and sex-adjusted overall incidence rate of diagnosed vitiligo was 22.6 per 100,000 person-years, and the prevalence was 0.16%, the authors reported. The sex-adjusted IR was highest among patients aged 60-69 years (25.3 per 100,000 person-years); prevalence was highest among patients aged 70 years or older (0.21%).

The highest age-adjusted IR was among Asian American patients (41.2 per 100,000 person-years), followed by Hispanic/Latino patients (37.3 per 100,000 PY), those reporting other or multiple races (31.1 per 100,000), Black patients (29.6 per 100,000 person-years), and White patients (18.7 per 100,000 person-years). The highest age-adjusted prevalence was among Hispanic/Latino patients (0.29%), followed by Asian American patients (0.27%), those reporting other or multiple races (0.24%), Black patients (0.22%), and White patients (0.13%).

The burden of vitiligo in the United States is poorly understood, and the findings “may support improving awareness of vitiligo disease burden in medical and public sectors, informing research agendas, improving enrollment of racial and ethnic minority populations in trials, and developing health policies,” the authors wrote.

Limitations of the study included that the analysis only captured patients who sought care in health systems included in the database, and there was the potential for underreporting, “since not all patients with vitiligo seek care,” the authors noted.

Dr. Garg reported being an adviser for and receiving honoraria from many pharmaceutical companies. He has also received research grants from AbbVie, UCB, the National Psoriasis Foundation, and the CHORD COUSIN Collaboration. No other disclosures were reported.

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

Asian American, Hispanic/Latino, and older individuals appear to have the greatest burden of vitiligo in the United States, according to the results of a cross sectional study.

To investigate the incidence and prevalence of diagnosed vitiligo in the United States, researchers used a 15% random sample of electronic medical records from the IBM Explorys database. Two cohorts were included: 2,980,778 patients diagnosed with vitiligo between Jan. 1, 2015, and Dec. 31, 2019 (incidence analysis), and 1,057,534 patients diagnosed with vitiligo between Jan. 1 and Dec. 31, 2019 (prevalence analysis).The main outcomes were incidence (per 100,000 person-years) and prevalence of diagnosed vitiligo overall and by age, race/ethnicity, and sex. Amit Garg, MD, a dermatologist with Northwell Health, New Hyde Park, N.Y., led the study, which was published in JAMA Dermatology.

The age- and sex-adjusted overall incidence rate of diagnosed vitiligo was 22.6 per 100,000 person-years, and the prevalence was 0.16%, the authors reported. The sex-adjusted IR was highest among patients aged 60-69 years (25.3 per 100,000 person-years); prevalence was highest among patients aged 70 years or older (0.21%).

The highest age-adjusted IR was among Asian American patients (41.2 per 100,000 person-years), followed by Hispanic/Latino patients (37.3 per 100,000 PY), those reporting other or multiple races (31.1 per 100,000), Black patients (29.6 per 100,000 person-years), and White patients (18.7 per 100,000 person-years). The highest age-adjusted prevalence was among Hispanic/Latino patients (0.29%), followed by Asian American patients (0.27%), those reporting other or multiple races (0.24%), Black patients (0.22%), and White patients (0.13%).

The burden of vitiligo in the United States is poorly understood, and the findings “may support improving awareness of vitiligo disease burden in medical and public sectors, informing research agendas, improving enrollment of racial and ethnic minority populations in trials, and developing health policies,” the authors wrote.

Limitations of the study included that the analysis only captured patients who sought care in health systems included in the database, and there was the potential for underreporting, “since not all patients with vitiligo seek care,” the authors noted.

Dr. Garg reported being an adviser for and receiving honoraria from many pharmaceutical companies. He has also received research grants from AbbVie, UCB, the National Psoriasis Foundation, and the CHORD COUSIN Collaboration. No other disclosures were reported.

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