MDedge Pediatrics

News of physicians accused or convicted of sexually inappropriate behavior toward patients during medical exams has been frequent recently. And patient advocates have brought up the fact that many patients are uncomfortable during sensitive exams.

As a result, more doctors and medical organizations are using chaperones to protect the patient and the physician.

For some institutions, the movement has been toward mandating chaperones. Chaperones can be present for any examination of what are often referred to as sensitive areas, such as breasts, genitalia, and the perianal area. For example, Yale University Health requires patients to use a medical staff member as a chaperone for all sensitive exams except in emergency situations. UCLA Health, on the other hand, allows any adult or child aged 12 years or older to decline a chaperone if they wish to do so. Michigan Medicine provides a chaperone on request, although a patient can opt out.

Many physicians fully support the concept. “If a patient requests a chaperone I think we all, as practitioners, should honor that request respectfully,” said Shieva Ghofrany, MD, an ob.gyn. practicing in Stamford, Conn., and cofounder of tribecalledv, a women’s health knowledge platform. “It’s a clear sign a patient wants to ensure that they feel safe and comfortable.”

However, using a chaperone can be challenging for many primary care physicians and specialists in terms of logistics. Should a chaperone’s job be purely observational? Or should the chaperone also be a medical professional who assists during the procedure? How, specifically, should a chaperone perform their duty during an exam? Where should the chaperone stand? What about legal and ethical ramifications?
 

Who should be a chaperone?

The role of a chaperone is sometimes vaguely defined. It’s logical that a chaperone should have sufficient medical knowledge. Could it be a medical student? Should it be a nurse or another doctor? Would a patient representative suffice even if they aren’t a direct-care clinician?

There are no set standards about who can assume the role. However, the American Medical Association recommends that a patient chaperone be an authorized member of a health care team. For many patients, this is vital.

“As a survivor of sexual assault by an ob.gyn. while I was pregnant, I can assure you that the heinous crime committed against me and hundreds of other women would have been prevented had there been another medical professional in the room,” said Laurie Kanyok, founder of a dance company in New York City, whose former doctor was recently convicted of federal sex abuse charges and is scheduled to be sentenced in July 2023. “The chaperone should be a physician assistant, nurse or medical professional. Qualified professionals better understand the nature and protocols of an exam.”

For children and adolescents, allowing a parent to be a chaperone might be a logical and comforting choice. However, a new British study found that it’s not appropriate.

Study authors Rebecca Jane Moon and Justin Huw Davies looked at pubertal staging–related exams and contend that a chaperone should always be impartial, and a parent’s presence could conceivably open up a physician to false charges of misconduct.

The solution: A parent should have the option be present during any physical exam of their child, with a medical professional additionally acting as chaperone. This can also work for any patient who wishes to bring a trusted friend or family member to their medical appointments.
 

How does a chaperoned exam work?

A research team from the Medical College of Wisconsin and Louisiana State University Health conducted a recent systematic review of patient and clinician perspectives on carrying out a chaperoned urology exam. The review found that the protocol could use improvement. For example, it was reported that over one-quarter of patients didn’t feel comfortable asking for a chaperone if they were not offered one. “Patients should not have to request this,” said Diana Londoño, MD, a board-certified urologist and assistant clinical professor at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

The researchers also found that 93% of female patients preferred a chaperone of the same gender, whereas male patients were split on this issue. Key duties of a chaperone should be to ensure privacy, help interpret instructions from doctor to patient, and continually clarify that consent is being requested as a sensitive exam proceeds, the researchers report. Although clinical practice standards for chaperones aren’t uniform, keeping these important points in mind can easily be adopted by any health care provider.

Many doctors do follow their own set guidelines. “Often, we have our medical assistants be our chaperones,” explained Dr. Ghofrany. “Ideally they ‘room’ the patient – take vitals and ask the patient what specific concerns they would like to address. This helps with exam set-up.

“For example, if a patient has a breast concern versus a concern about their genital area, this would change what drapes are used. The medical assistant would then stand near me if they are helping with a Pap smear or cultures, or they may stand by the patient’s head at the bedside and offer support if needed. Some patients want to hold someone’s hand during an uncomfortable exam.”

The issue of positioning is important. A patient may feel very uneasy if it appears that the chaperone is looking at their body from the doctor’s angle, negating the point of reassurance. The key is to explain before an exam exactly how a chaperone is needed during the exam itself and whether the chaperone is a medical assistant or nurse.

“Chaperones usually stand next to me on either side or on the side of the patient facing me, depending on if they are immediately assisting me or helping the patient,” said Dr. Londoño. If a chaperone will be moving back and forth during the exam, that should be conveyed as well. For virtual visits, a chaperone can act as a third party and be present on a split screen, a process Michigan Medicine uses.

It’s also important to inform patients that a chaperone can step in and stop an exam at any point, both at the patient’s request or because of any observation of inappropriate physician behavior. Understanding this can help reluctant patients feel less worry.

When Christian Miller was diagnosed with a sleep disorder, his doctor suggested having a chaperone present during his physical exams. At first, he was apprehensive but then found the experience to be very positive. “Having someone there with me gave me an extra measure of assurance that nothing untoward would happen,” he said. “I found that having a chaperone was reassuring. The chaperone was not intrusive but stood close enough to ensure everything went smoothly and respectfully.”
 

Do chaperones help protect physicians legally?

Some states mandate that chaperones be present by patient request during sensitive exams, such as Texas and Oregon. For the most part, though, physicians have no legal obligation to offer chaperones, although it could be in their best interest to do so.

Ob.gyn. is one of the most litigated specialties, for example, so these physicians may find chaperones can play a key role in averting lawsuits. According to data from Physicians’ Insurance, having a reliable witness in an exam room can mitigate claims, and doctors should follow a clear practice policy regarding chaperones for all patients to further reduce liability.

Another advantage to having a chaperone present: protection for a doctor against a problematic patient. The risk for assault or aggression during an exam can of course go both ways. It’s important to be able to prove any patient misconduct through a witness, and a chaperone can lessen the prospect of violence in any form. “Having a chaperone in an exam room is about protecting the doctors as well as the patient,” said Ms. Kanyok.

A chaperone can also defuse ethical dilemmas. Consider a patient who refuses to allow a chaperone in an exam, but a chaperone is required by the physician’s health care organization. Asking a patient to state their reasons for wanting privacy with the chaperone present before the actual exam can help document the patient’s wish respectfully as well as protect a physician and organization from any potential liability if the patient refuses the exam altogether or if an exception for the patient is made.
 

Making a chaperone policy work best

• Have your staff inform patients of a medical chaperone policy at the time an appointment is made. Have fact sheets available for the patient before appointments fully outlining your policy.
• Inform the chaperone fully about the details of the exam and the patient’s case prior to the exam, in accordance with HIPAA.
• The chaperone can introduce themselves to the patient in the waiting room or exam room before you enter the room. The chaperone can go over the policy again verbally and answer any questions the patient may have initially. You can then clarify whether the patient understands your chaperone policy when you come in.
• Document, document, document. Write down who the chaperone was for each exam in patient notes and note the details of any interactions that are significant, such as patient questions or conflicts.
• Practice respect, above all. “A patient’s safety and level of comfort should be prioritized,” said Ms. Kanyok.

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

News of physicians accused or convicted of sexually inappropriate behavior toward patients during medical exams has been frequent recently. And patient advocates have brought up the fact that many patients are uncomfortable during sensitive exams.

As a result, more doctors and medical organizations are using chaperones to protect the patient and the physician.

For some institutions, the movement has been toward mandating chaperones. Chaperones can be present for any examination of what are often referred to as sensitive areas, such as breasts, genitalia, and the perianal area. For example, Yale University Health requires patients to use a medical staff member as a chaperone for all sensitive exams except in emergency situations. UCLA Health, on the other hand, allows any adult or child aged 12 years or older to decline a chaperone if they wish to do so. Michigan Medicine provides a chaperone on request, although a patient can opt out.

Many physicians fully support the concept. “If a patient requests a chaperone I think we all, as practitioners, should honor that request respectfully,” said Shieva Ghofrany, MD, an ob.gyn. practicing in Stamford, Conn., and cofounder of tribecalledv, a women’s health knowledge platform. “It’s a clear sign a patient wants to ensure that they feel safe and comfortable.”

However, using a chaperone can be challenging for many primary care physicians and specialists in terms of logistics. Should a chaperone’s job be purely observational? Or should the chaperone also be a medical professional who assists during the procedure? How, specifically, should a chaperone perform their duty during an exam? Where should the chaperone stand? What about legal and ethical ramifications?
 

Who should be a chaperone?

The role of a chaperone is sometimes vaguely defined. It’s logical that a chaperone should have sufficient medical knowledge. Could it be a medical student? Should it be a nurse or another doctor? Would a patient representative suffice even if they aren’t a direct-care clinician?

There are no set standards about who can assume the role. However, the American Medical Association recommends that a patient chaperone be an authorized member of a health care team. For many patients, this is vital.

“As a survivor of sexual assault by an ob.gyn. while I was pregnant, I can assure you that the heinous crime committed against me and hundreds of other women would have been prevented had there been another medical professional in the room,” said Laurie Kanyok, founder of a dance company in New York City, whose former doctor was recently convicted of federal sex abuse charges and is scheduled to be sentenced in July 2023. “The chaperone should be a physician assistant, nurse or medical professional. Qualified professionals better understand the nature and protocols of an exam.”

For children and adolescents, allowing a parent to be a chaperone might be a logical and comforting choice. However, a new British study found that it’s not appropriate.

Study authors Rebecca Jane Moon and Justin Huw Davies looked at pubertal staging–related exams and contend that a chaperone should always be impartial, and a parent’s presence could conceivably open up a physician to false charges of misconduct.

The solution: A parent should have the option be present during any physical exam of their child, with a medical professional additionally acting as chaperone. This can also work for any patient who wishes to bring a trusted friend or family member to their medical appointments.
 

How does a chaperoned exam work?

A research team from the Medical College of Wisconsin and Louisiana State University Health conducted a recent systematic review of patient and clinician perspectives on carrying out a chaperoned urology exam. The review found that the protocol could use improvement. For example, it was reported that over one-quarter of patients didn’t feel comfortable asking for a chaperone if they were not offered one. “Patients should not have to request this,” said Diana Londoño, MD, a board-certified urologist and assistant clinical professor at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

The researchers also found that 93% of female patients preferred a chaperone of the same gender, whereas male patients were split on this issue. Key duties of a chaperone should be to ensure privacy, help interpret instructions from doctor to patient, and continually clarify that consent is being requested as a sensitive exam proceeds, the researchers report. Although clinical practice standards for chaperones aren’t uniform, keeping these important points in mind can easily be adopted by any health care provider.

Many doctors do follow their own set guidelines. “Often, we have our medical assistants be our chaperones,” explained Dr. Ghofrany. “Ideally they ‘room’ the patient – take vitals and ask the patient what specific concerns they would like to address. This helps with exam set-up.

“For example, if a patient has a breast concern versus a concern about their genital area, this would change what drapes are used. The medical assistant would then stand near me if they are helping with a Pap smear or cultures, or they may stand by the patient’s head at the bedside and offer support if needed. Some patients want to hold someone’s hand during an uncomfortable exam.”

The issue of positioning is important. A patient may feel very uneasy if it appears that the chaperone is looking at their body from the doctor’s angle, negating the point of reassurance. The key is to explain before an exam exactly how a chaperone is needed during the exam itself and whether the chaperone is a medical assistant or nurse.

“Chaperones usually stand next to me on either side or on the side of the patient facing me, depending on if they are immediately assisting me or helping the patient,” said Dr. Londoño. If a chaperone will be moving back and forth during the exam, that should be conveyed as well. For virtual visits, a chaperone can act as a third party and be present on a split screen, a process Michigan Medicine uses.

It’s also important to inform patients that a chaperone can step in and stop an exam at any point, both at the patient’s request or because of any observation of inappropriate physician behavior. Understanding this can help reluctant patients feel less worry.

When Christian Miller was diagnosed with a sleep disorder, his doctor suggested having a chaperone present during his physical exams. At first, he was apprehensive but then found the experience to be very positive. “Having someone there with me gave me an extra measure of assurance that nothing untoward would happen,” he said. “I found that having a chaperone was reassuring. The chaperone was not intrusive but stood close enough to ensure everything went smoothly and respectfully.”
 

Do chaperones help protect physicians legally?

Some states mandate that chaperones be present by patient request during sensitive exams, such as Texas and Oregon. For the most part, though, physicians have no legal obligation to offer chaperones, although it could be in their best interest to do so.

Ob.gyn. is one of the most litigated specialties, for example, so these physicians may find chaperones can play a key role in averting lawsuits. According to data from Physicians’ Insurance, having a reliable witness in an exam room can mitigate claims, and doctors should follow a clear practice policy regarding chaperones for all patients to further reduce liability.

Another advantage to having a chaperone present: protection for a doctor against a problematic patient. The risk for assault or aggression during an exam can of course go both ways. It’s important to be able to prove any patient misconduct through a witness, and a chaperone can lessen the prospect of violence in any form. “Having a chaperone in an exam room is about protecting the doctors as well as the patient,” said Ms. Kanyok.

A chaperone can also defuse ethical dilemmas. Consider a patient who refuses to allow a chaperone in an exam, but a chaperone is required by the physician’s health care organization. Asking a patient to state their reasons for wanting privacy with the chaperone present before the actual exam can help document the patient’s wish respectfully as well as protect a physician and organization from any potential liability if the patient refuses the exam altogether or if an exception for the patient is made.
 

Making a chaperone policy work best

• Have your staff inform patients of a medical chaperone policy at the time an appointment is made. Have fact sheets available for the patient before appointments fully outlining your policy.
• Inform the chaperone fully about the details of the exam and the patient’s case prior to the exam, in accordance with HIPAA.
• The chaperone can introduce themselves to the patient in the waiting room or exam room before you enter the room. The chaperone can go over the policy again verbally and answer any questions the patient may have initially. You can then clarify whether the patient understands your chaperone policy when you come in.
• Document, document, document. Write down who the chaperone was for each exam in patient notes and note the details of any interactions that are significant, such as patient questions or conflicts.
• Practice respect, above all. “A patient’s safety and level of comfort should be prioritized,” said Ms. Kanyok.

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

News of physicians accused or convicted of sexually inappropriate behavior toward patients during medical exams has been frequent recently. And patient advocates have brought up the fact that many patients are uncomfortable during sensitive exams.

As a result, more doctors and medical organizations are using chaperones to protect the patient and the physician.

For some institutions, the movement has been toward mandating chaperones. Chaperones can be present for any examination of what are often referred to as sensitive areas, such as breasts, genitalia, and the perianal area. For example, Yale University Health requires patients to use a medical staff member as a chaperone for all sensitive exams except in emergency situations. UCLA Health, on the other hand, allows any adult or child aged 12 years or older to decline a chaperone if they wish to do so. Michigan Medicine provides a chaperone on request, although a patient can opt out.

Many physicians fully support the concept. “If a patient requests a chaperone I think we all, as practitioners, should honor that request respectfully,” said Shieva Ghofrany, MD, an ob.gyn. practicing in Stamford, Conn., and cofounder of tribecalledv, a women’s health knowledge platform. “It’s a clear sign a patient wants to ensure that they feel safe and comfortable.”

However, using a chaperone can be challenging for many primary care physicians and specialists in terms of logistics. Should a chaperone’s job be purely observational? Or should the chaperone also be a medical professional who assists during the procedure? How, specifically, should a chaperone perform their duty during an exam? Where should the chaperone stand? What about legal and ethical ramifications?
 

Who should be a chaperone?

The role of a chaperone is sometimes vaguely defined. It’s logical that a chaperone should have sufficient medical knowledge. Could it be a medical student? Should it be a nurse or another doctor? Would a patient representative suffice even if they aren’t a direct-care clinician?

There are no set standards about who can assume the role. However, the American Medical Association recommends that a patient chaperone be an authorized member of a health care team. For many patients, this is vital.

“As a survivor of sexual assault by an ob.gyn. while I was pregnant, I can assure you that the heinous crime committed against me and hundreds of other women would have been prevented had there been another medical professional in the room,” said Laurie Kanyok, founder of a dance company in New York City, whose former doctor was recently convicted of federal sex abuse charges and is scheduled to be sentenced in July 2023. “The chaperone should be a physician assistant, nurse or medical professional. Qualified professionals better understand the nature and protocols of an exam.”

For children and adolescents, allowing a parent to be a chaperone might be a logical and comforting choice. However, a new British study found that it’s not appropriate.

Study authors Rebecca Jane Moon and Justin Huw Davies looked at pubertal staging–related exams and contend that a chaperone should always be impartial, and a parent’s presence could conceivably open up a physician to false charges of misconduct.

The solution: A parent should have the option be present during any physical exam of their child, with a medical professional additionally acting as chaperone. This can also work for any patient who wishes to bring a trusted friend or family member to their medical appointments.
 

How does a chaperoned exam work?

A research team from the Medical College of Wisconsin and Louisiana State University Health conducted a recent systematic review of patient and clinician perspectives on carrying out a chaperoned urology exam. The review found that the protocol could use improvement. For example, it was reported that over one-quarter of patients didn’t feel comfortable asking for a chaperone if they were not offered one. “Patients should not have to request this,” said Diana Londoño, MD, a board-certified urologist and assistant clinical professor at City of Hope National Medical Center in Duarte, Calif.

The researchers also found that 93% of female patients preferred a chaperone of the same gender, whereas male patients were split on this issue. Key duties of a chaperone should be to ensure privacy, help interpret instructions from doctor to patient, and continually clarify that consent is being requested as a sensitive exam proceeds, the researchers report. Although clinical practice standards for chaperones aren’t uniform, keeping these important points in mind can easily be adopted by any health care provider.

Many doctors do follow their own set guidelines. “Often, we have our medical assistants be our chaperones,” explained Dr. Ghofrany. “Ideally they ‘room’ the patient – take vitals and ask the patient what specific concerns they would like to address. This helps with exam set-up.

“For example, if a patient has a breast concern versus a concern about their genital area, this would change what drapes are used. The medical assistant would then stand near me if they are helping with a Pap smear or cultures, or they may stand by the patient’s head at the bedside and offer support if needed. Some patients want to hold someone’s hand during an uncomfortable exam.”

The issue of positioning is important. A patient may feel very uneasy if it appears that the chaperone is looking at their body from the doctor’s angle, negating the point of reassurance. The key is to explain before an exam exactly how a chaperone is needed during the exam itself and whether the chaperone is a medical assistant or nurse.

“Chaperones usually stand next to me on either side or on the side of the patient facing me, depending on if they are immediately assisting me or helping the patient,” said Dr. Londoño. If a chaperone will be moving back and forth during the exam, that should be conveyed as well. For virtual visits, a chaperone can act as a third party and be present on a split screen, a process Michigan Medicine uses.

It’s also important to inform patients that a chaperone can step in and stop an exam at any point, both at the patient’s request or because of any observation of inappropriate physician behavior. Understanding this can help reluctant patients feel less worry.

When Christian Miller was diagnosed with a sleep disorder, his doctor suggested having a chaperone present during his physical exams. At first, he was apprehensive but then found the experience to be very positive. “Having someone there with me gave me an extra measure of assurance that nothing untoward would happen,” he said. “I found that having a chaperone was reassuring. The chaperone was not intrusive but stood close enough to ensure everything went smoothly and respectfully.”
 

Do chaperones help protect physicians legally?

Some states mandate that chaperones be present by patient request during sensitive exams, such as Texas and Oregon. For the most part, though, physicians have no legal obligation to offer chaperones, although it could be in their best interest to do so.

Ob.gyn. is one of the most litigated specialties, for example, so these physicians may find chaperones can play a key role in averting lawsuits. According to data from Physicians’ Insurance, having a reliable witness in an exam room can mitigate claims, and doctors should follow a clear practice policy regarding chaperones for all patients to further reduce liability.

Another advantage to having a chaperone present: protection for a doctor against a problematic patient. The risk for assault or aggression during an exam can of course go both ways. It’s important to be able to prove any patient misconduct through a witness, and a chaperone can lessen the prospect of violence in any form. “Having a chaperone in an exam room is about protecting the doctors as well as the patient,” said Ms. Kanyok.

A chaperone can also defuse ethical dilemmas. Consider a patient who refuses to allow a chaperone in an exam, but a chaperone is required by the physician’s health care organization. Asking a patient to state their reasons for wanting privacy with the chaperone present before the actual exam can help document the patient’s wish respectfully as well as protect a physician and organization from any potential liability if the patient refuses the exam altogether or if an exception for the patient is made.
 

Making a chaperone policy work best

• Have your staff inform patients of a medical chaperone policy at the time an appointment is made. Have fact sheets available for the patient before appointments fully outlining your policy.
• Inform the chaperone fully about the details of the exam and the patient’s case prior to the exam, in accordance with HIPAA.
• The chaperone can introduce themselves to the patient in the waiting room or exam room before you enter the room. The chaperone can go over the policy again verbally and answer any questions the patient may have initially. You can then clarify whether the patient understands your chaperone policy when you come in.
• Document, document, document. Write down who the chaperone was for each exam in patient notes and note the details of any interactions that are significant, such as patient questions or conflicts.
• Practice respect, above all. “A patient’s safety and level of comfort should be prioritized,” said Ms. Kanyok.

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

Children and adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) show greater improvement in symptoms with viloxazine extended release (ER) compared with treatment with atomoxetine, new research suggests.

Investigators studied patients who started out taking atomoxetine and, after a washout period, initiated treatment with viloxazine. Participants’ ADHD symptoms were assessed prior to initiation of each treatment and after 4 weeks.

Children and adults showed significantly larger improvement in inattentiveness and hyperactivity/impulsivity when taking viloxazine vs. atomoxetine, with almost all patients preferring the former to the latter, according to results of the study.

In addition, close to one half of the study participants were taking a prior stimulant, and 85% were able to taper off stimulant treatment. Viloxazine’s effects were more rapid than were those of atomoxetine.

“It is timely to have a rapidly acting, and highly effective nonstimulant option across the full spectrum of ADHD symptoms, for both children and adults, in light of recent stimulant shortages and the new [Food and Drug Administration] boxed warnings regarding increased mortality associated with overuse of stimulants” study investigator Maxwell Z. Price, a medical student at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, Nutley, N.J., said in an interview.
 

Nonstimulant treatment options

Study coauthor Richard L. Price, MD, noted that the study was conducted to find a more acceptable alternative to psychostimulant treatments for ADHD, which are currently considered the “gold standard.”

Although they are effective, said Dr. Price, they are fraught with adverse effects, including appetite suppression, insomnia, exacerbation of mood disorders, anxiety, tics, or misuse.

Atomoxetine, a nonstimulant option, has been around for a few decades and is often used in combination with a stimulant medication. However, he said, the drug has a mild effect, requires frequent dosage adjustment, takes a long time to work, and people have “soured” on its utility, Dr. Price added.

Like atomoxetine, viloxazine is a selective norepinephrine inhibitor that has been used an antidepressant in Europe for 30 years. It was recently reformulated as an extended-release medication and approved by the FDA for pediatric and adult ADHD.

However, unlike atomoxetine, viloxazine is associated with increased prefrontal cortex 5-hydroxytrytamine, norepinephrine, and dopamine levels in vivo.

There have been no head-to-head trials comparing the two agents. However, even in head-to-head ADHD medication trials, the agents that are under investigation are typically compared in matched patients. The current investigators wanted to compare the two agents in the same patients whose insurers mandate a trial of generic atomoxetine prior to covering branded viloxazine.

“We wanted to find out whether patients taking atomoxetine for ADHD combined type would experience improvement in ADHD symptoms following voluntary, open-label switch to viloxazine,” said Dr. Price.

The researchers studied 50 patients who presented with ADHD combined type and had no other psychiatric, medical, or substance-related comorbidities or prior exposure to atomoxetine or viloxazine.

The study included 35 children (mean age, 11.9 ± 2.9 years; 94.3% male) and 15 adults (mean age, 29.3 ± 9.0 years; 73.3% male). Of these, 42.9% and 73.3%, respectively, were taking concurrent stimulants.

Patients received mean doses of atomoxetine once daily followed by viloxazine once daily after a 5-day washout period between the two drugs. Participants were seen weekly for titration and monitoring.

At baseline, the pediatric ADHD–Rating Scale 5 (ADHD-RS-5) and the Adult Investigator Symptoms Rating Scale (AISRS) were completed, then again after 4 weeks of treatment with atomoxetine (or upon earlier response or discontinuation due to side effects, whichever came first), and 5 days after discontinuing atomoxetine, which “reestablished the baseline score.” The same protocol was then repeated with viloxazine.
 

‘Paradigm shift’

At baseline, the total ADHD-RS-5 mean score was 40.3 ± 10.3. Improvements at 4 weeks were greater in viloxazine vs atomoxetine, with scores of 13.9 ± 10.2 vs 33.1 ± 12.1, respectively (t = -10.12, P < .00001). In inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity, the t values were –8.57 and –9.87, respectively (both P values < .0001).

Similarly, from the baseline total, AISRS mean score of 37.3 ± 11.8, improvements were greater on viloxazine vs. atomoxetine, with scores of 11.9 ± 9.4 vs. 28.8 ± 14.9, respectively (t = −4.18, P = .0009 overall; for inattention, t = −3.50, P > .004 and for hyperactivity/impulsivity, t = 3.90, P > .002).

By 2 weeks, 86% of patients taking viloxazine reported a positive response vs. 14% when taking atomoxetine.

Side effects were lower in viloxazine vs. atomoxetine, with 36% of patients discontinuing treatment with atomoxetine because of side effects that included gastrointestinal upset, irritability, fatigue, and insomnia vs. 4% who discontinued viloxazine because of fatigue.

Almost all participants (96%) preferred viloxazine over atomoxetine and 85% were able to taper off stimulant treatment following stabilization on viloxazine.

“These were not small differences,” said Dr. Richard L. Price. “These were clinically and statistically meaningful differences.”

The findings could represent “a paradigm shift for the field” because “we always think of starting ADHD treatment with stimulants, but perhaps treatment with viloxazine could help patients to avoid stimulants entirely,” he suggested.
 

Real-world study

Commenting for this article, Greg Mattingly, MD, associate clinical professor, Washington University, St. Louis, called it “a timely addition to the clinical literature where for the first time ever we have two nonstimulant options approved for adults with ADHD.”

This real-world clinic study “yields many answers,” said Dr. Mattingly, president-elect of the American Professional Society of ADHD and Related Disorders (APSARD), who was not involved with the study.

“Simply put, this real-world study of 50 clinic patients found that viloxazine ER had faster onset, was significantly more effective, and was preferred by 96% of patients as compared to atomoxetine,” he said.

“Another intriguing part of the study that will be of high interest to both patients and providers was that, of those initially treated concurrently with stimulant and viloxazine ER, 85% were able to discontinue their stimulant medication,” Dr. Mattingly added.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The open access fee was funded by the investigators. Dr. Maxwell Z. Price certifies that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript. Dr. Richard L. Price has received honoraria from AbbVie, Alkermes, Idorsia, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Jazz, Lundbeck, Neuronetics, Otsuka, and Supernus. Dr. Mattingly reports financial disclosures with various pharmaceutical companies, which are listed in full in the paper.

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

Children and adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) show greater improvement in symptoms with viloxazine extended release (ER) compared with treatment with atomoxetine, new research suggests.

Investigators studied patients who started out taking atomoxetine and, after a washout period, initiated treatment with viloxazine. Participants’ ADHD symptoms were assessed prior to initiation of each treatment and after 4 weeks.

Children and adults showed significantly larger improvement in inattentiveness and hyperactivity/impulsivity when taking viloxazine vs. atomoxetine, with almost all patients preferring the former to the latter, according to results of the study.

In addition, close to one half of the study participants were taking a prior stimulant, and 85% were able to taper off stimulant treatment. Viloxazine’s effects were more rapid than were those of atomoxetine.

“It is timely to have a rapidly acting, and highly effective nonstimulant option across the full spectrum of ADHD symptoms, for both children and adults, in light of recent stimulant shortages and the new [Food and Drug Administration] boxed warnings regarding increased mortality associated with overuse of stimulants” study investigator Maxwell Z. Price, a medical student at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, Nutley, N.J., said in an interview.
 

Nonstimulant treatment options

Study coauthor Richard L. Price, MD, noted that the study was conducted to find a more acceptable alternative to psychostimulant treatments for ADHD, which are currently considered the “gold standard.”

Although they are effective, said Dr. Price, they are fraught with adverse effects, including appetite suppression, insomnia, exacerbation of mood disorders, anxiety, tics, or misuse.

Atomoxetine, a nonstimulant option, has been around for a few decades and is often used in combination with a stimulant medication. However, he said, the drug has a mild effect, requires frequent dosage adjustment, takes a long time to work, and people have “soured” on its utility, Dr. Price added.

Like atomoxetine, viloxazine is a selective norepinephrine inhibitor that has been used an antidepressant in Europe for 30 years. It was recently reformulated as an extended-release medication and approved by the FDA for pediatric and adult ADHD.

However, unlike atomoxetine, viloxazine is associated with increased prefrontal cortex 5-hydroxytrytamine, norepinephrine, and dopamine levels in vivo.

There have been no head-to-head trials comparing the two agents. However, even in head-to-head ADHD medication trials, the agents that are under investigation are typically compared in matched patients. The current investigators wanted to compare the two agents in the same patients whose insurers mandate a trial of generic atomoxetine prior to covering branded viloxazine.

“We wanted to find out whether patients taking atomoxetine for ADHD combined type would experience improvement in ADHD symptoms following voluntary, open-label switch to viloxazine,” said Dr. Price.

The researchers studied 50 patients who presented with ADHD combined type and had no other psychiatric, medical, or substance-related comorbidities or prior exposure to atomoxetine or viloxazine.

The study included 35 children (mean age, 11.9 ± 2.9 years; 94.3% male) and 15 adults (mean age, 29.3 ± 9.0 years; 73.3% male). Of these, 42.9% and 73.3%, respectively, were taking concurrent stimulants.

Patients received mean doses of atomoxetine once daily followed by viloxazine once daily after a 5-day washout period between the two drugs. Participants were seen weekly for titration and monitoring.

At baseline, the pediatric ADHD–Rating Scale 5 (ADHD-RS-5) and the Adult Investigator Symptoms Rating Scale (AISRS) were completed, then again after 4 weeks of treatment with atomoxetine (or upon earlier response or discontinuation due to side effects, whichever came first), and 5 days after discontinuing atomoxetine, which “reestablished the baseline score.” The same protocol was then repeated with viloxazine.
 

‘Paradigm shift’

At baseline, the total ADHD-RS-5 mean score was 40.3 ± 10.3. Improvements at 4 weeks were greater in viloxazine vs atomoxetine, with scores of 13.9 ± 10.2 vs 33.1 ± 12.1, respectively (t = -10.12, P < .00001). In inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity, the t values were –8.57 and –9.87, respectively (both P values < .0001).

Similarly, from the baseline total, AISRS mean score of 37.3 ± 11.8, improvements were greater on viloxazine vs. atomoxetine, with scores of 11.9 ± 9.4 vs. 28.8 ± 14.9, respectively (t = −4.18, P = .0009 overall; for inattention, t = −3.50, P > .004 and for hyperactivity/impulsivity, t = 3.90, P > .002).

By 2 weeks, 86% of patients taking viloxazine reported a positive response vs. 14% when taking atomoxetine.

Side effects were lower in viloxazine vs. atomoxetine, with 36% of patients discontinuing treatment with atomoxetine because of side effects that included gastrointestinal upset, irritability, fatigue, and insomnia vs. 4% who discontinued viloxazine because of fatigue.

Almost all participants (96%) preferred viloxazine over atomoxetine and 85% were able to taper off stimulant treatment following stabilization on viloxazine.

“These were not small differences,” said Dr. Richard L. Price. “These were clinically and statistically meaningful differences.”

The findings could represent “a paradigm shift for the field” because “we always think of starting ADHD treatment with stimulants, but perhaps treatment with viloxazine could help patients to avoid stimulants entirely,” he suggested.
 

Real-world study

Commenting for this article, Greg Mattingly, MD, associate clinical professor, Washington University, St. Louis, called it “a timely addition to the clinical literature where for the first time ever we have two nonstimulant options approved for adults with ADHD.”

This real-world clinic study “yields many answers,” said Dr. Mattingly, president-elect of the American Professional Society of ADHD and Related Disorders (APSARD), who was not involved with the study.

“Simply put, this real-world study of 50 clinic patients found that viloxazine ER had faster onset, was significantly more effective, and was preferred by 96% of patients as compared to atomoxetine,” he said.

“Another intriguing part of the study that will be of high interest to both patients and providers was that, of those initially treated concurrently with stimulant and viloxazine ER, 85% were able to discontinue their stimulant medication,” Dr. Mattingly added.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The open access fee was funded by the investigators. Dr. Maxwell Z. Price certifies that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript. Dr. Richard L. Price has received honoraria from AbbVie, Alkermes, Idorsia, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Jazz, Lundbeck, Neuronetics, Otsuka, and Supernus. Dr. Mattingly reports financial disclosures with various pharmaceutical companies, which are listed in full in the paper.

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

Children and adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) show greater improvement in symptoms with viloxazine extended release (ER) compared with treatment with atomoxetine, new research suggests.

Investigators studied patients who started out taking atomoxetine and, after a washout period, initiated treatment with viloxazine. Participants’ ADHD symptoms were assessed prior to initiation of each treatment and after 4 weeks.

Children and adults showed significantly larger improvement in inattentiveness and hyperactivity/impulsivity when taking viloxazine vs. atomoxetine, with almost all patients preferring the former to the latter, according to results of the study.

In addition, close to one half of the study participants were taking a prior stimulant, and 85% were able to taper off stimulant treatment. Viloxazine’s effects were more rapid than were those of atomoxetine.

“It is timely to have a rapidly acting, and highly effective nonstimulant option across the full spectrum of ADHD symptoms, for both children and adults, in light of recent stimulant shortages and the new [Food and Drug Administration] boxed warnings regarding increased mortality associated with overuse of stimulants” study investigator Maxwell Z. Price, a medical student at Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine, Nutley, N.J., said in an interview.
 

Nonstimulant treatment options

Study coauthor Richard L. Price, MD, noted that the study was conducted to find a more acceptable alternative to psychostimulant treatments for ADHD, which are currently considered the “gold standard.”

Although they are effective, said Dr. Price, they are fraught with adverse effects, including appetite suppression, insomnia, exacerbation of mood disorders, anxiety, tics, or misuse.

Atomoxetine, a nonstimulant option, has been around for a few decades and is often used in combination with a stimulant medication. However, he said, the drug has a mild effect, requires frequent dosage adjustment, takes a long time to work, and people have “soured” on its utility, Dr. Price added.

Like atomoxetine, viloxazine is a selective norepinephrine inhibitor that has been used an antidepressant in Europe for 30 years. It was recently reformulated as an extended-release medication and approved by the FDA for pediatric and adult ADHD.

However, unlike atomoxetine, viloxazine is associated with increased prefrontal cortex 5-hydroxytrytamine, norepinephrine, and dopamine levels in vivo.

There have been no head-to-head trials comparing the two agents. However, even in head-to-head ADHD medication trials, the agents that are under investigation are typically compared in matched patients. The current investigators wanted to compare the two agents in the same patients whose insurers mandate a trial of generic atomoxetine prior to covering branded viloxazine.

“We wanted to find out whether patients taking atomoxetine for ADHD combined type would experience improvement in ADHD symptoms following voluntary, open-label switch to viloxazine,” said Dr. Price.

The researchers studied 50 patients who presented with ADHD combined type and had no other psychiatric, medical, or substance-related comorbidities or prior exposure to atomoxetine or viloxazine.

The study included 35 children (mean age, 11.9 ± 2.9 years; 94.3% male) and 15 adults (mean age, 29.3 ± 9.0 years; 73.3% male). Of these, 42.9% and 73.3%, respectively, were taking concurrent stimulants.

Patients received mean doses of atomoxetine once daily followed by viloxazine once daily after a 5-day washout period between the two drugs. Participants were seen weekly for titration and monitoring.

At baseline, the pediatric ADHD–Rating Scale 5 (ADHD-RS-5) and the Adult Investigator Symptoms Rating Scale (AISRS) were completed, then again after 4 weeks of treatment with atomoxetine (or upon earlier response or discontinuation due to side effects, whichever came first), and 5 days after discontinuing atomoxetine, which “reestablished the baseline score.” The same protocol was then repeated with viloxazine.
 

‘Paradigm shift’

At baseline, the total ADHD-RS-5 mean score was 40.3 ± 10.3. Improvements at 4 weeks were greater in viloxazine vs atomoxetine, with scores of 13.9 ± 10.2 vs 33.1 ± 12.1, respectively (t = -10.12, P < .00001). In inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity, the t values were –8.57 and –9.87, respectively (both P values < .0001).

Similarly, from the baseline total, AISRS mean score of 37.3 ± 11.8, improvements were greater on viloxazine vs. atomoxetine, with scores of 11.9 ± 9.4 vs. 28.8 ± 14.9, respectively (t = −4.18, P = .0009 overall; for inattention, t = −3.50, P > .004 and for hyperactivity/impulsivity, t = 3.90, P > .002).

By 2 weeks, 86% of patients taking viloxazine reported a positive response vs. 14% when taking atomoxetine.

Side effects were lower in viloxazine vs. atomoxetine, with 36% of patients discontinuing treatment with atomoxetine because of side effects that included gastrointestinal upset, irritability, fatigue, and insomnia vs. 4% who discontinued viloxazine because of fatigue.

Almost all participants (96%) preferred viloxazine over atomoxetine and 85% were able to taper off stimulant treatment following stabilization on viloxazine.

“These were not small differences,” said Dr. Richard L. Price. “These were clinically and statistically meaningful differences.”

The findings could represent “a paradigm shift for the field” because “we always think of starting ADHD treatment with stimulants, but perhaps treatment with viloxazine could help patients to avoid stimulants entirely,” he suggested.
 

Real-world study

Commenting for this article, Greg Mattingly, MD, associate clinical professor, Washington University, St. Louis, called it “a timely addition to the clinical literature where for the first time ever we have two nonstimulant options approved for adults with ADHD.”

This real-world clinic study “yields many answers,” said Dr. Mattingly, president-elect of the American Professional Society of ADHD and Related Disorders (APSARD), who was not involved with the study.

“Simply put, this real-world study of 50 clinic patients found that viloxazine ER had faster onset, was significantly more effective, and was preferred by 96% of patients as compared to atomoxetine,” he said.

“Another intriguing part of the study that will be of high interest to both patients and providers was that, of those initially treated concurrently with stimulant and viloxazine ER, 85% were able to discontinue their stimulant medication,” Dr. Mattingly added.

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The open access fee was funded by the investigators. Dr. Maxwell Z. Price certifies that there is no conflict of interest with any financial organization regarding the material discussed in the manuscript. Dr. Richard L. Price has received honoraria from AbbVie, Alkermes, Idorsia, Intra-Cellular Therapies, Janssen, Jazz, Lundbeck, Neuronetics, Otsuka, and Supernus. Dr. Mattingly reports financial disclosures with various pharmaceutical companies, which are listed in full in the paper.

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

On July 21, 2023, topical cantharidin became the first Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment of molluscum contagiosum (molluscum), for adults and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older.

The product is a drug-device combination that contains a formulation of cantharidin solution (0.7%), delivered topically via a single-use applicator, which allows for precise dosing and targeted administration. According to a press release from Verrica Pharmaceuticals, cantharidin is expected to be available by September 2023 and should be administered only by a trained health care professional; it is not for use in the home.

The approval of the product, also known as VP-102, is based on results from two identical multicenter phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated the drug’s safety and efficacy in patients 2 years of age and older diagnosed with molluscum: Cantharidin Application in Molluscum Patients-1 (CAMP-1) and CAMP-2. Patients in both trials met the primary endpoint of complete clearance of all treatable molluscum lesions. Specifically, 46% of CAMP-1 participants treated with VP-102 achieved complete clearance of molluscum lesions compared with 18% of participants in the vehicle group (P < .0001), while 54% of CAMP-2 participants treated with VP-102 achieved complete clearance of molluscum lesions compared with 13% of participants in the vehicle group (P < .0001).

A post hoc analysis of both trials found that complete clearance of all lesions was significantly higher in the VP-102 group than vehicle across all body regions. It also found that there were no serious adverse reactions reported in the trials. Adverse reactions were mostly mild to moderate and included application site vesicles, erythema, pain, dryness, scab, discoloration, pruritus, and edema.

The product will be marketed as Ycanth.

In March of 2023, the FDA accepted a new drug application for another treatment for molluscum contagiosum, berdazimer gel 10.3%. That product is being developed by Novan.

On July 21, 2023, topical cantharidin became the first Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment of molluscum contagiosum (molluscum), for adults and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older.

The product is a drug-device combination that contains a formulation of cantharidin solution (0.7%), delivered topically via a single-use applicator, which allows for precise dosing and targeted administration. According to a press release from Verrica Pharmaceuticals, cantharidin is expected to be available by September 2023 and should be administered only by a trained health care professional; it is not for use in the home.

The approval of the product, also known as VP-102, is based on results from two identical multicenter phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated the drug’s safety and efficacy in patients 2 years of age and older diagnosed with molluscum: Cantharidin Application in Molluscum Patients-1 (CAMP-1) and CAMP-2. Patients in both trials met the primary endpoint of complete clearance of all treatable molluscum lesions. Specifically, 46% of CAMP-1 participants treated with VP-102 achieved complete clearance of molluscum lesions compared with 18% of participants in the vehicle group (P < .0001), while 54% of CAMP-2 participants treated with VP-102 achieved complete clearance of molluscum lesions compared with 13% of participants in the vehicle group (P < .0001).

A post hoc analysis of both trials found that complete clearance of all lesions was significantly higher in the VP-102 group than vehicle across all body regions. It also found that there were no serious adverse reactions reported in the trials. Adverse reactions were mostly mild to moderate and included application site vesicles, erythema, pain, dryness, scab, discoloration, pruritus, and edema.

The product will be marketed as Ycanth.

In March of 2023, the FDA accepted a new drug application for another treatment for molluscum contagiosum, berdazimer gel 10.3%. That product is being developed by Novan.

On July 21, 2023, topical cantharidin became the first Food and Drug Administration–approved treatment of molluscum contagiosum (molluscum), for adults and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older.

The product is a drug-device combination that contains a formulation of cantharidin solution (0.7%), delivered topically via a single-use applicator, which allows for precise dosing and targeted administration. According to a press release from Verrica Pharmaceuticals, cantharidin is expected to be available by September 2023 and should be administered only by a trained health care professional; it is not for use in the home.

The approval of the product, also known as VP-102, is based on results from two identical multicenter phase 3 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials that evaluated the drug’s safety and efficacy in patients 2 years of age and older diagnosed with molluscum: Cantharidin Application in Molluscum Patients-1 (CAMP-1) and CAMP-2. Patients in both trials met the primary endpoint of complete clearance of all treatable molluscum lesions. Specifically, 46% of CAMP-1 participants treated with VP-102 achieved complete clearance of molluscum lesions compared with 18% of participants in the vehicle group (P < .0001), while 54% of CAMP-2 participants treated with VP-102 achieved complete clearance of molluscum lesions compared with 13% of participants in the vehicle group (P < .0001).

A post hoc analysis of both trials found that complete clearance of all lesions was significantly higher in the VP-102 group than vehicle across all body regions. It also found that there were no serious adverse reactions reported in the trials. Adverse reactions were mostly mild to moderate and included application site vesicles, erythema, pain, dryness, scab, discoloration, pruritus, and edema.

The product will be marketed as Ycanth.

In March of 2023, the FDA accepted a new drug application for another treatment for molluscum contagiosum, berdazimer gel 10.3%. That product is being developed by Novan.

Among more than 1,000 skin biopsies performed over the last 6 years by pediatric dermatologists at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), the three most common biopsy results were compound nevus, pyogenic granuloma, and spongiotic dermatitis.

In addition, fewer biopsies were performed in the first 3 years of the global COVID-19 pandemic than in the previous 3 years.

These findings from a retrospective analysis were presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. The analysis set out to evaluate which patients required biopsy, which skin conditions were sampled, and if practice patterns changed following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The work is important because very few pediatric patients, relative to adult patients seen in dermatology clinics, have a biopsy done,” Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, one of the study authors, told this news organization.

“Approximately 1%-4% of pediatric patients visiting a dermatology clinic will have a biopsy done as compared to 30%-50% of adult patients. Understanding what is being biopsied in children sheds light on the medical decision-making required to decide when a biopsy is necessary,” said Dr. Cordoro, chief of pediatric dermatology at UCSF.

For the study, the researchers retrospectively reviewed 1,196 biopsy specimens from 1,080 unique patients that were performed by pediatric dermatologists at UCSF from 2017 to 2022. Half of the patients were female, their mean age was 11.5 years, and they ranged in age from 1 day to 61 years. Nearly half of biopsies (47%) were performed in patients aged 12-18 years and one-quarter (25.6%) were performed in those aged 6-11 years. In the remaining biopsies, 6.6% came from patients younger than 1 year, 5.8% of those aged 1-2 years, 7.3% from those aged 3-5 years, and 3.9% each in those aged 19-21 years and in those older than 21 years.

The five most common biopsy results were compound nevus (99 biopsies), pyogenic granuloma (96), spongiotic dermatitis (57), intradermal nevus (53), and pilomatricoma (40).

The researchers identified 30 malignant diagnoses in 28 unique patients, most commonly mycosis fungoides (in 16 patients with a median age of 12.5 years), basal cell carcinoma (in 5 patients with a median age of 9 years), and dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (in 4 patients with a median age of 2 years).

There was no significant sex-based difference in the number of biopsies performed at a given age (P = .47), but Dr. Cordoro and colleagues noted a statistically significant decrease in the number of biopsies during the pandemic compared with the 3 years prior to the pandemic (P = .04).

“There was a slight uptick in 2022, although it remains to be seen whether this trend will continue,” they wrote in their abstract. “While the most common diagnoses in the years leading up to – versus following the start of the pandemic – were similar, there was one clear outlier. The histopathologic diagnosis of pernio spiked in 2020, reflecting the ‘COVID toes’ phenomenon”.

In an interview, Dr. Cordoro said that growths and rashes in children of all ages can, and should, be biopsied, but special considerations are necessary depending on the patient’s age and context. 

“Our data showed that neoplastic conditions were biopsied more often than inflammatory conditions, with an emphasis on lesions that required removal (such as pyogenic granuloma), raised concerns for atypia (nevi), or had implications for systemic management (such as Langerhans cell histiocytosis and graft-versus-host disease). Importantly, cutaneous malignancies in children are rare but do occur, and a high index of suspicion is required when approaching any child with a complex neoplasm or rash.”

Dr. Cordoro characterized the medical decision making and rationale for biopsying skin lesions and rashes in children as “a complex process that involves weighing the risks of the biopsy itself against the benefit of the information it will provide; shared decision-making with the caregivers, the patient (if age-appropriate), and other members of the health care team; age of the child and clinical context; and whether the biopsy can be done at the bedside or requires sedation.”

Based on the study results, Dr. Cordoro said, the rationale to proceed with a biopsy boils down to three main goals: To make or confirm a diagnosis, to make decisions about management, and/or the biopsy itself is therapeutic. 

UCSF dermatopathology fellow Suzanne W. Birmingham, MD, performed the study in collaboration with Dr. Cordoro and UCSF dermatopathologist Thaddeus W. Mully, MD. Additional analyses of this data set are in progress. The researchers reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

Among more than 1,000 skin biopsies performed over the last 6 years by pediatric dermatologists at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), the three most common biopsy results were compound nevus, pyogenic granuloma, and spongiotic dermatitis.

In addition, fewer biopsies were performed in the first 3 years of the global COVID-19 pandemic than in the previous 3 years.

These findings from a retrospective analysis were presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. The analysis set out to evaluate which patients required biopsy, which skin conditions were sampled, and if practice patterns changed following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The work is important because very few pediatric patients, relative to adult patients seen in dermatology clinics, have a biopsy done,” Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, one of the study authors, told this news organization.

“Approximately 1%-4% of pediatric patients visiting a dermatology clinic will have a biopsy done as compared to 30%-50% of adult patients. Understanding what is being biopsied in children sheds light on the medical decision-making required to decide when a biopsy is necessary,” said Dr. Cordoro, chief of pediatric dermatology at UCSF.

For the study, the researchers retrospectively reviewed 1,196 biopsy specimens from 1,080 unique patients that were performed by pediatric dermatologists at UCSF from 2017 to 2022. Half of the patients were female, their mean age was 11.5 years, and they ranged in age from 1 day to 61 years. Nearly half of biopsies (47%) were performed in patients aged 12-18 years and one-quarter (25.6%) were performed in those aged 6-11 years. In the remaining biopsies, 6.6% came from patients younger than 1 year, 5.8% of those aged 1-2 years, 7.3% from those aged 3-5 years, and 3.9% each in those aged 19-21 years and in those older than 21 years.

The five most common biopsy results were compound nevus (99 biopsies), pyogenic granuloma (96), spongiotic dermatitis (57), intradermal nevus (53), and pilomatricoma (40).

The researchers identified 30 malignant diagnoses in 28 unique patients, most commonly mycosis fungoides (in 16 patients with a median age of 12.5 years), basal cell carcinoma (in 5 patients with a median age of 9 years), and dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (in 4 patients with a median age of 2 years).

There was no significant sex-based difference in the number of biopsies performed at a given age (P = .47), but Dr. Cordoro and colleagues noted a statistically significant decrease in the number of biopsies during the pandemic compared with the 3 years prior to the pandemic (P = .04).

“There was a slight uptick in 2022, although it remains to be seen whether this trend will continue,” they wrote in their abstract. “While the most common diagnoses in the years leading up to – versus following the start of the pandemic – were similar, there was one clear outlier. The histopathologic diagnosis of pernio spiked in 2020, reflecting the ‘COVID toes’ phenomenon”.

In an interview, Dr. Cordoro said that growths and rashes in children of all ages can, and should, be biopsied, but special considerations are necessary depending on the patient’s age and context. 

“Our data showed that neoplastic conditions were biopsied more often than inflammatory conditions, with an emphasis on lesions that required removal (such as pyogenic granuloma), raised concerns for atypia (nevi), or had implications for systemic management (such as Langerhans cell histiocytosis and graft-versus-host disease). Importantly, cutaneous malignancies in children are rare but do occur, and a high index of suspicion is required when approaching any child with a complex neoplasm or rash.”

Dr. Cordoro characterized the medical decision making and rationale for biopsying skin lesions and rashes in children as “a complex process that involves weighing the risks of the biopsy itself against the benefit of the information it will provide; shared decision-making with the caregivers, the patient (if age-appropriate), and other members of the health care team; age of the child and clinical context; and whether the biopsy can be done at the bedside or requires sedation.”

Based on the study results, Dr. Cordoro said, the rationale to proceed with a biopsy boils down to three main goals: To make or confirm a diagnosis, to make decisions about management, and/or the biopsy itself is therapeutic. 

UCSF dermatopathology fellow Suzanne W. Birmingham, MD, performed the study in collaboration with Dr. Cordoro and UCSF dermatopathologist Thaddeus W. Mully, MD. Additional analyses of this data set are in progress. The researchers reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

Among more than 1,000 skin biopsies performed over the last 6 years by pediatric dermatologists at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), the three most common biopsy results were compound nevus, pyogenic granuloma, and spongiotic dermatitis.

In addition, fewer biopsies were performed in the first 3 years of the global COVID-19 pandemic than in the previous 3 years.

These findings from a retrospective analysis were presented during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. The analysis set out to evaluate which patients required biopsy, which skin conditions were sampled, and if practice patterns changed following the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

“The work is important because very few pediatric patients, relative to adult patients seen in dermatology clinics, have a biopsy done,” Kelly M. Cordoro, MD, one of the study authors, told this news organization.

“Approximately 1%-4% of pediatric patients visiting a dermatology clinic will have a biopsy done as compared to 30%-50% of adult patients. Understanding what is being biopsied in children sheds light on the medical decision-making required to decide when a biopsy is necessary,” said Dr. Cordoro, chief of pediatric dermatology at UCSF.

For the study, the researchers retrospectively reviewed 1,196 biopsy specimens from 1,080 unique patients that were performed by pediatric dermatologists at UCSF from 2017 to 2022. Half of the patients were female, their mean age was 11.5 years, and they ranged in age from 1 day to 61 years. Nearly half of biopsies (47%) were performed in patients aged 12-18 years and one-quarter (25.6%) were performed in those aged 6-11 years. In the remaining biopsies, 6.6% came from patients younger than 1 year, 5.8% of those aged 1-2 years, 7.3% from those aged 3-5 years, and 3.9% each in those aged 19-21 years and in those older than 21 years.

The five most common biopsy results were compound nevus (99 biopsies), pyogenic granuloma (96), spongiotic dermatitis (57), intradermal nevus (53), and pilomatricoma (40).

The researchers identified 30 malignant diagnoses in 28 unique patients, most commonly mycosis fungoides (in 16 patients with a median age of 12.5 years), basal cell carcinoma (in 5 patients with a median age of 9 years), and dermatofibrosarcoma protuberans (in 4 patients with a median age of 2 years).

There was no significant sex-based difference in the number of biopsies performed at a given age (P = .47), but Dr. Cordoro and colleagues noted a statistically significant decrease in the number of biopsies during the pandemic compared with the 3 years prior to the pandemic (P = .04).

“There was a slight uptick in 2022, although it remains to be seen whether this trend will continue,” they wrote in their abstract. “While the most common diagnoses in the years leading up to – versus following the start of the pandemic – were similar, there was one clear outlier. The histopathologic diagnosis of pernio spiked in 2020, reflecting the ‘COVID toes’ phenomenon”.

In an interview, Dr. Cordoro said that growths and rashes in children of all ages can, and should, be biopsied, but special considerations are necessary depending on the patient’s age and context. 

“Our data showed that neoplastic conditions were biopsied more often than inflammatory conditions, with an emphasis on lesions that required removal (such as pyogenic granuloma), raised concerns for atypia (nevi), or had implications for systemic management (such as Langerhans cell histiocytosis and graft-versus-host disease). Importantly, cutaneous malignancies in children are rare but do occur, and a high index of suspicion is required when approaching any child with a complex neoplasm or rash.”

Dr. Cordoro characterized the medical decision making and rationale for biopsying skin lesions and rashes in children as “a complex process that involves weighing the risks of the biopsy itself against the benefit of the information it will provide; shared decision-making with the caregivers, the patient (if age-appropriate), and other members of the health care team; age of the child and clinical context; and whether the biopsy can be done at the bedside or requires sedation.”

Based on the study results, Dr. Cordoro said, the rationale to proceed with a biopsy boils down to three main goals: To make or confirm a diagnosis, to make decisions about management, and/or the biopsy itself is therapeutic. 

UCSF dermatopathology fellow Suzanne W. Birmingham, MD, performed the study in collaboration with Dr. Cordoro and UCSF dermatopathologist Thaddeus W. Mully, MD. Additional analyses of this data set are in progress. The researchers reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency has granted a positive opinion for ritlecitinib, a once-daily 50-mg oral treatment for severe alopecia areata, paving the way for possible marketing authorization of the drug in the European Union for individuals 12 years of age and older. A final decision is expected in the coming months.

The development, which was announced by the manufacturer, Pfizer, on July 21, 2023, follows approval of ritlecitinib (Litfulo) for the treatment of severe alopecia areata in adults and adolescents 12 years and older by the Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare in June 2023. According to a press release from Pfizer, submissions to other regulatory agencies for the use of ritlecitinib in alopecia areata are ongoing.

The Marketing Authorization Application for ritlecitinib was based on results from a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind ALLEGRO Phase 2b/3 study.






 

The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency has granted a positive opinion for ritlecitinib, a once-daily 50-mg oral treatment for severe alopecia areata, paving the way for possible marketing authorization of the drug in the European Union for individuals 12 years of age and older. A final decision is expected in the coming months.

The development, which was announced by the manufacturer, Pfizer, on July 21, 2023, follows approval of ritlecitinib (Litfulo) for the treatment of severe alopecia areata in adults and adolescents 12 years and older by the Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare in June 2023. According to a press release from Pfizer, submissions to other regulatory agencies for the use of ritlecitinib in alopecia areata are ongoing.

The Marketing Authorization Application for ritlecitinib was based on results from a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind ALLEGRO Phase 2b/3 study.






 

The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency has granted a positive opinion for ritlecitinib, a once-daily 50-mg oral treatment for severe alopecia areata, paving the way for possible marketing authorization of the drug in the European Union for individuals 12 years of age and older. A final decision is expected in the coming months.

The development, which was announced by the manufacturer, Pfizer, on July 21, 2023, follows approval of ritlecitinib (Litfulo) for the treatment of severe alopecia areata in adults and adolescents 12 years and older by the Food and Drug Administration and the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare in June 2023. According to a press release from Pfizer, submissions to other regulatory agencies for the use of ritlecitinib in alopecia areata are ongoing.

The Marketing Authorization Application for ritlecitinib was based on results from a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind ALLEGRO Phase 2b/3 study.






 

Among U.S. high school students, males and non-Whites are at greatest risk for not using sunscreen, a cornerstone of skin cancer prevention, according to results from a systematic review.

“We know that skin cancer is one of the most common malignancies in the world, and sun protection methods such as sunscreen make it highly preventable,” first author Carly R. Stevens, a student at Tulane University, New Orleans, said in an interview. “This study demonstrates the adolescent populations that are most vulnerable to sun damage and how we can help mitigate their risk of developing skin cancer through education methods, such as Sun Protection Outreach Teaching by Students.”  

Ms. Stevens and coauthors presented the findings during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

To investigate predictors of sunscreen use among high school students, they searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science using the terms (“sunscreen” or “SPF” or “sun protection”) and (“high school” or “teen” or “teenager” or “adolescent”) and limited the analysis to English studies reporting data on sunscreen use in U.S. high school students up to November 2021.

A total of 20 studies were included in the final review. The study populations ranged in number from 208 to 24,645. Of 11 studies that examined gender, all showed increased sunscreen use in females compared with males. Of five studies that examined age, all showed increased sunscreen use in younger adolescents, compared with their older counterparts.

Of four studies that examined the role of ethnicity on sunscreen use, White students were more likely to use sunscreen, compared with their peers of other ethnicities. “This may be due to perceived sun sensitivity, as [these four studies] also showed increased sunscreen use in populations that believed were more susceptible to sun damage,” the researchers wrote in their abstract.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/Thinkstock

In other findings, two studies that examined perceived self-efficacy concluded that higher levels of sunscreen use correlated with higher self-efficacy, while four studies concluded that high school students were more likely to use sunscreen if their parents encouraged them the wear it or if the parent used it themselves.

“With 40%-50% of ultraviolet damage being done before the age of 20, it’s crucial that we find ways to educate adolescents on the importance of sunscreen use and target those populations who were found to rarely use sunscreen in our study,” Ms. Stevens said.

In one outreach program, Sun Protection Outreach Teaching by Students (SPOTS), medical students visit middle and high schools to educate them about the importance of practicing sun protection. The program began as a collaboration between Saint Louis University and Washington University in St. Louis, but has expanded nationwide. Ms. Stevens described SPOTS as “a great way for medical students to present the information to middle and high school students in a way that is engaging and interactive.”

The researchers reported having no disclosures.

Among U.S. high school students, males and non-Whites are at greatest risk for not using sunscreen, a cornerstone of skin cancer prevention, according to results from a systematic review.

“We know that skin cancer is one of the most common malignancies in the world, and sun protection methods such as sunscreen make it highly preventable,” first author Carly R. Stevens, a student at Tulane University, New Orleans, said in an interview. “This study demonstrates the adolescent populations that are most vulnerable to sun damage and how we can help mitigate their risk of developing skin cancer through education methods, such as Sun Protection Outreach Teaching by Students.”  

Ms. Stevens and coauthors presented the findings during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

To investigate predictors of sunscreen use among high school students, they searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science using the terms (“sunscreen” or “SPF” or “sun protection”) and (“high school” or “teen” or “teenager” or “adolescent”) and limited the analysis to English studies reporting data on sunscreen use in U.S. high school students up to November 2021.

A total of 20 studies were included in the final review. The study populations ranged in number from 208 to 24,645. Of 11 studies that examined gender, all showed increased sunscreen use in females compared with males. Of five studies that examined age, all showed increased sunscreen use in younger adolescents, compared with their older counterparts.

Of four studies that examined the role of ethnicity on sunscreen use, White students were more likely to use sunscreen, compared with their peers of other ethnicities. “This may be due to perceived sun sensitivity, as [these four studies] also showed increased sunscreen use in populations that believed were more susceptible to sun damage,” the researchers wrote in their abstract.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/Thinkstock

In other findings, two studies that examined perceived self-efficacy concluded that higher levels of sunscreen use correlated with higher self-efficacy, while four studies concluded that high school students were more likely to use sunscreen if their parents encouraged them the wear it or if the parent used it themselves.

“With 40%-50% of ultraviolet damage being done before the age of 20, it’s crucial that we find ways to educate adolescents on the importance of sunscreen use and target those populations who were found to rarely use sunscreen in our study,” Ms. Stevens said.

In one outreach program, Sun Protection Outreach Teaching by Students (SPOTS), medical students visit middle and high schools to educate them about the importance of practicing sun protection. The program began as a collaboration between Saint Louis University and Washington University in St. Louis, but has expanded nationwide. Ms. Stevens described SPOTS as “a great way for medical students to present the information to middle and high school students in a way that is engaging and interactive.”

The researchers reported having no disclosures.

Among U.S. high school students, males and non-Whites are at greatest risk for not using sunscreen, a cornerstone of skin cancer prevention, according to results from a systematic review.

“We know that skin cancer is one of the most common malignancies in the world, and sun protection methods such as sunscreen make it highly preventable,” first author Carly R. Stevens, a student at Tulane University, New Orleans, said in an interview. “This study demonstrates the adolescent populations that are most vulnerable to sun damage and how we can help mitigate their risk of developing skin cancer through education methods, such as Sun Protection Outreach Teaching by Students.”  

Ms. Stevens and coauthors presented the findings during a poster session at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

To investigate predictors of sunscreen use among high school students, they searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science using the terms (“sunscreen” or “SPF” or “sun protection”) and (“high school” or “teen” or “teenager” or “adolescent”) and limited the analysis to English studies reporting data on sunscreen use in U.S. high school students up to November 2021.

A total of 20 studies were included in the final review. The study populations ranged in number from 208 to 24,645. Of 11 studies that examined gender, all showed increased sunscreen use in females compared with males. Of five studies that examined age, all showed increased sunscreen use in younger adolescents, compared with their older counterparts.

Of four studies that examined the role of ethnicity on sunscreen use, White students were more likely to use sunscreen, compared with their peers of other ethnicities. “This may be due to perceived sun sensitivity, as [these four studies] also showed increased sunscreen use in populations that believed were more susceptible to sun damage,” the researchers wrote in their abstract.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/Thinkstock

In other findings, two studies that examined perceived self-efficacy concluded that higher levels of sunscreen use correlated with higher self-efficacy, while four studies concluded that high school students were more likely to use sunscreen if their parents encouraged them the wear it or if the parent used it themselves.

“With 40%-50% of ultraviolet damage being done before the age of 20, it’s crucial that we find ways to educate adolescents on the importance of sunscreen use and target those populations who were found to rarely use sunscreen in our study,” Ms. Stevens said.

In one outreach program, Sun Protection Outreach Teaching by Students (SPOTS), medical students visit middle and high schools to educate them about the importance of practicing sun protection. The program began as a collaboration between Saint Louis University and Washington University in St. Louis, but has expanded nationwide. Ms. Stevens described SPOTS as “a great way for medical students to present the information to middle and high school students in a way that is engaging and interactive.”

The researchers reported having no disclosures.

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – Treating atopic dermatitis (AD) in most children­ – and working with parents – might be less dependent on the next, even better therapy than considering facets of poor response and dissatisfaction with treatment, according to a three-member expert panel mulling over strategies at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

In introductory remarks, the three panelists briefly addressed different aspects for controlling AD, including drugs in the pipeline, the potential value of alternative therapies, and whom to blame when compliance is poor.

Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine

Wake Forest University School of Medicine

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

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – Treating atopic dermatitis (AD) in most children­ – and working with parents – might be less dependent on the next, even better therapy than considering facets of poor response and dissatisfaction with treatment, according to a three-member expert panel mulling over strategies at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

In introductory remarks, the three panelists briefly addressed different aspects for controlling AD, including drugs in the pipeline, the potential value of alternative therapies, and whom to blame when compliance is poor.

Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine

Wake Forest University School of Medicine

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

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – Treating atopic dermatitis (AD) in most children­ – and working with parents – might be less dependent on the next, even better therapy than considering facets of poor response and dissatisfaction with treatment, according to a three-member expert panel mulling over strategies at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

In introductory remarks, the three panelists briefly addressed different aspects for controlling AD, including drugs in the pipeline, the potential value of alternative therapies, and whom to blame when compliance is poor.

Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine

Wake Forest University School of Medicine

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

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – The relative absorption of topical corticosteroids, which can induce cataracts and glaucoma, is 300-fold greater across the eyelids than plantar skin, but pediatric dermatologists need not dwell on this ratio when employing steroids near the eye, according to one of several clinical messages from a pediatric ophthalmologist who spoke at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.  

“There is a lot of steroid fear out there, which you can argue is actually harmful in itself, because not treating periorbital eczema is related to a lot of eye problems, including chronic discomfort and the eye rubbing that can cause corneal abrasions and keratoconus,” said Sara Grace, MD, a pediatric ophthalmologist who is on the clinical staff at Duke University, Durham, N.C. She maintains a practice at North Carolina Eye, Ear, Nose, and Throat in Durham.

Although the risks of periorbital steroid absorption are real, a limited course of low potency topical steroids is generally adequate for common periorbital indications, and these appear to be safe.

“There is insufficient evidence to link weak periocular topical corticosteroids such as desonide or hydrocortisone with ocular complications,” said Dr. Grace, suggesting that pediatric dermatologists can be reassured when using these medications at low concentrations.

“Potent periocular steroids have been associated with ocular complications, but this has typically involved exposures over months to years,” Dr. Grace specified.

When topical corticosteroids are applied at high concentrations on the face away from the periorbital area, glaucoma and other feared ophthalmic complications cannot be entirely ruled out, but, again, the risk is low in the absence of “very large quantities” of potent topical agents applied for lengthy periods of time, according to Dr. Grace, basing this observation on case studies.

In children, as in adults, the potential exception is a child with existing ocular disease. In such cases, or in children with risk factors for ocular disease, Dr. Grace recommends referral to an ophthalmologist for a baseline examination prior to a course of topical corticosteroids with the potential of periocular absorption. With a baseline assessment, adverse effects are more easily documented if exposure is prolonged.

The message, although not identical, is similar for use of dupilumab (Dupixent) or other biologics that target the interleukin-13 (IL-13) pathway. The potential for complications cannot be ignored but these are often time-limited and the benefit is likely to exceed the risk in children who have severe atopic dermatitis or other skin conditions for which these treatments are effective.

There are several potential mechanisms by which biologics targeting IL-13 might increase risk of ocular complications, one of which is the role that IL-13 plays in ocular mucus production, regulation of conjunctival goblet cells, and tear production, according to several published reports.

“Up to 30% of children will get some type of eye complication but, fortunately, most of them will not have to stop therapy,” Dr. Grace said. These side effects include conjunctivitis, blepharitis, keratitis, dry eye, and itching, but they are typically manageable. Topical steroids or calcineurin inhibitors can be offered if needed, but many of these conditions will self-resolve. Dr. Grace estimated that less than 1% of patients need to stop treatment because of ophthalmic side effects.

Lesions that obstruct vision

Dr. Grace urged pediatric dermatologists to be aware of the risk for amblyopia in young children with lesions that obstruct vision in one eye. In early development, prolonged obstruction of vision in one eye can alter neural communication with the brain, producing permanent vision impairment.

She explained that clearing the obstructed vision, whether from a capillary hemangioma or any periorbital growth, should be considered urgent to avoid irreversible damage.

Similarly, periorbital port-wine stains associated with Sturge-Weber syndrome, which is primarily a vascular disorder that predisposes children to glaucoma, represents a condition that requires prompt attention. Sturge-Weber syndrome is often but not always identified at birth, but it is a condition for which evaluation and treatment should involve the participation of an ophthalmologist.

Meibomian gland disease is another disorder that is often seen first by a pediatric dermatologist but also requires collaborative management. The challenge is sorting out the underlying cause or causes and initiating a therapy that unclogs the gland without having to resort to incision and drainage.

“Drainage is hard to do and is not necessarily effective,” explained Dr. Grace. While scrubs, warmth, and massage frequently are adequate to unclog the gland – which secretes meibum, a complex of lipids that perform several functions in protecting the eye – therapies specific to the cause, such as Demodex-related blepharitis, chalazions, and styes, might be needed.

Dr. Grace indicated that patience is often needed. The process of unclogging these glands often takes time, but she emphasized that a first-line conservative approach is always appropriate to avoid the difficulty and potential problems of incisions.

In general, these messages are not novel, but they provide a refresher for pediatric dermatologists who do not regularly confront complications that involve the eyes. According to session moderator, Elizabeth Neiman, MD, assistant professor of pediatric dermatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the messages regarding topical steroids on the face and the eyes are “important” and worth emphasizing.

“It’s useful to reinforce the point that corticosteroids should be used when needed in the periorbital area [to control skin diseases] if they are used in low concentrations,” Dr. Neiman told this news organization.

Similarly, conjunctivitis and other ocular complications of dupilumab are a source of concern for parents as well as dermatologists. Dr. Neiman indicated that a review of the benefit-to-risk ratio is important when considering these treatments in patients with indications for severe skin disorders.

Dr. Grace and Dr. Nieman have no potential financial conflicts related to this topic.

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

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – The relative absorption of topical corticosteroids, which can induce cataracts and glaucoma, is 300-fold greater across the eyelids than plantar skin, but pediatric dermatologists need not dwell on this ratio when employing steroids near the eye, according to one of several clinical messages from a pediatric ophthalmologist who spoke at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.  

“There is a lot of steroid fear out there, which you can argue is actually harmful in itself, because not treating periorbital eczema is related to a lot of eye problems, including chronic discomfort and the eye rubbing that can cause corneal abrasions and keratoconus,” said Sara Grace, MD, a pediatric ophthalmologist who is on the clinical staff at Duke University, Durham, N.C. She maintains a practice at North Carolina Eye, Ear, Nose, and Throat in Durham.

Although the risks of periorbital steroid absorption are real, a limited course of low potency topical steroids is generally adequate for common periorbital indications, and these appear to be safe.

“There is insufficient evidence to link weak periocular topical corticosteroids such as desonide or hydrocortisone with ocular complications,” said Dr. Grace, suggesting that pediatric dermatologists can be reassured when using these medications at low concentrations.

“Potent periocular steroids have been associated with ocular complications, but this has typically involved exposures over months to years,” Dr. Grace specified.

When topical corticosteroids are applied at high concentrations on the face away from the periorbital area, glaucoma and other feared ophthalmic complications cannot be entirely ruled out, but, again, the risk is low in the absence of “very large quantities” of potent topical agents applied for lengthy periods of time, according to Dr. Grace, basing this observation on case studies.

In children, as in adults, the potential exception is a child with existing ocular disease. In such cases, or in children with risk factors for ocular disease, Dr. Grace recommends referral to an ophthalmologist for a baseline examination prior to a course of topical corticosteroids with the potential of periocular absorption. With a baseline assessment, adverse effects are more easily documented if exposure is prolonged.

The message, although not identical, is similar for use of dupilumab (Dupixent) or other biologics that target the interleukin-13 (IL-13) pathway. The potential for complications cannot be ignored but these are often time-limited and the benefit is likely to exceed the risk in children who have severe atopic dermatitis or other skin conditions for which these treatments are effective.

There are several potential mechanisms by which biologics targeting IL-13 might increase risk of ocular complications, one of which is the role that IL-13 plays in ocular mucus production, regulation of conjunctival goblet cells, and tear production, according to several published reports.

“Up to 30% of children will get some type of eye complication but, fortunately, most of them will not have to stop therapy,” Dr. Grace said. These side effects include conjunctivitis, blepharitis, keratitis, dry eye, and itching, but they are typically manageable. Topical steroids or calcineurin inhibitors can be offered if needed, but many of these conditions will self-resolve. Dr. Grace estimated that less than 1% of patients need to stop treatment because of ophthalmic side effects.

Lesions that obstruct vision

Dr. Grace urged pediatric dermatologists to be aware of the risk for amblyopia in young children with lesions that obstruct vision in one eye. In early development, prolonged obstruction of vision in one eye can alter neural communication with the brain, producing permanent vision impairment.

She explained that clearing the obstructed vision, whether from a capillary hemangioma or any periorbital growth, should be considered urgent to avoid irreversible damage.

Similarly, periorbital port-wine stains associated with Sturge-Weber syndrome, which is primarily a vascular disorder that predisposes children to glaucoma, represents a condition that requires prompt attention. Sturge-Weber syndrome is often but not always identified at birth, but it is a condition for which evaluation and treatment should involve the participation of an ophthalmologist.

Meibomian gland disease is another disorder that is often seen first by a pediatric dermatologist but also requires collaborative management. The challenge is sorting out the underlying cause or causes and initiating a therapy that unclogs the gland without having to resort to incision and drainage.

“Drainage is hard to do and is not necessarily effective,” explained Dr. Grace. While scrubs, warmth, and massage frequently are adequate to unclog the gland – which secretes meibum, a complex of lipids that perform several functions in protecting the eye – therapies specific to the cause, such as Demodex-related blepharitis, chalazions, and styes, might be needed.

Dr. Grace indicated that patience is often needed. The process of unclogging these glands often takes time, but she emphasized that a first-line conservative approach is always appropriate to avoid the difficulty and potential problems of incisions.

In general, these messages are not novel, but they provide a refresher for pediatric dermatologists who do not regularly confront complications that involve the eyes. According to session moderator, Elizabeth Neiman, MD, assistant professor of pediatric dermatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the messages regarding topical steroids on the face and the eyes are “important” and worth emphasizing.

“It’s useful to reinforce the point that corticosteroids should be used when needed in the periorbital area [to control skin diseases] if they are used in low concentrations,” Dr. Neiman told this news organization.

Similarly, conjunctivitis and other ocular complications of dupilumab are a source of concern for parents as well as dermatologists. Dr. Neiman indicated that a review of the benefit-to-risk ratio is important when considering these treatments in patients with indications for severe skin disorders.

Dr. Grace and Dr. Nieman have no potential financial conflicts related to this topic.

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

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – The relative absorption of topical corticosteroids, which can induce cataracts and glaucoma, is 300-fold greater across the eyelids than plantar skin, but pediatric dermatologists need not dwell on this ratio when employing steroids near the eye, according to one of several clinical messages from a pediatric ophthalmologist who spoke at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.  

“There is a lot of steroid fear out there, which you can argue is actually harmful in itself, because not treating periorbital eczema is related to a lot of eye problems, including chronic discomfort and the eye rubbing that can cause corneal abrasions and keratoconus,” said Sara Grace, MD, a pediatric ophthalmologist who is on the clinical staff at Duke University, Durham, N.C. She maintains a practice at North Carolina Eye, Ear, Nose, and Throat in Durham.

Although the risks of periorbital steroid absorption are real, a limited course of low potency topical steroids is generally adequate for common periorbital indications, and these appear to be safe.

“There is insufficient evidence to link weak periocular topical corticosteroids such as desonide or hydrocortisone with ocular complications,” said Dr. Grace, suggesting that pediatric dermatologists can be reassured when using these medications at low concentrations.

“Potent periocular steroids have been associated with ocular complications, but this has typically involved exposures over months to years,” Dr. Grace specified.

When topical corticosteroids are applied at high concentrations on the face away from the periorbital area, glaucoma and other feared ophthalmic complications cannot be entirely ruled out, but, again, the risk is low in the absence of “very large quantities” of potent topical agents applied for lengthy periods of time, according to Dr. Grace, basing this observation on case studies.

In children, as in adults, the potential exception is a child with existing ocular disease. In such cases, or in children with risk factors for ocular disease, Dr. Grace recommends referral to an ophthalmologist for a baseline examination prior to a course of topical corticosteroids with the potential of periocular absorption. With a baseline assessment, adverse effects are more easily documented if exposure is prolonged.

The message, although not identical, is similar for use of dupilumab (Dupixent) or other biologics that target the interleukin-13 (IL-13) pathway. The potential for complications cannot be ignored but these are often time-limited and the benefit is likely to exceed the risk in children who have severe atopic dermatitis or other skin conditions for which these treatments are effective.

There are several potential mechanisms by which biologics targeting IL-13 might increase risk of ocular complications, one of which is the role that IL-13 plays in ocular mucus production, regulation of conjunctival goblet cells, and tear production, according to several published reports.

“Up to 30% of children will get some type of eye complication but, fortunately, most of them will not have to stop therapy,” Dr. Grace said. These side effects include conjunctivitis, blepharitis, keratitis, dry eye, and itching, but they are typically manageable. Topical steroids or calcineurin inhibitors can be offered if needed, but many of these conditions will self-resolve. Dr. Grace estimated that less than 1% of patients need to stop treatment because of ophthalmic side effects.

Lesions that obstruct vision

Dr. Grace urged pediatric dermatologists to be aware of the risk for amblyopia in young children with lesions that obstruct vision in one eye. In early development, prolonged obstruction of vision in one eye can alter neural communication with the brain, producing permanent vision impairment.

She explained that clearing the obstructed vision, whether from a capillary hemangioma or any periorbital growth, should be considered urgent to avoid irreversible damage.

Similarly, periorbital port-wine stains associated with Sturge-Weber syndrome, which is primarily a vascular disorder that predisposes children to glaucoma, represents a condition that requires prompt attention. Sturge-Weber syndrome is often but not always identified at birth, but it is a condition for which evaluation and treatment should involve the participation of an ophthalmologist.

Meibomian gland disease is another disorder that is often seen first by a pediatric dermatologist but also requires collaborative management. The challenge is sorting out the underlying cause or causes and initiating a therapy that unclogs the gland without having to resort to incision and drainage.

“Drainage is hard to do and is not necessarily effective,” explained Dr. Grace. While scrubs, warmth, and massage frequently are adequate to unclog the gland – which secretes meibum, a complex of lipids that perform several functions in protecting the eye – therapies specific to the cause, such as Demodex-related blepharitis, chalazions, and styes, might be needed.

Dr. Grace indicated that patience is often needed. The process of unclogging these glands often takes time, but she emphasized that a first-line conservative approach is always appropriate to avoid the difficulty and potential problems of incisions.

In general, these messages are not novel, but they provide a refresher for pediatric dermatologists who do not regularly confront complications that involve the eyes. According to session moderator, Elizabeth Neiman, MD, assistant professor of pediatric dermatology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the messages regarding topical steroids on the face and the eyes are “important” and worth emphasizing.

“It’s useful to reinforce the point that corticosteroids should be used when needed in the periorbital area [to control skin diseases] if they are used in low concentrations,” Dr. Neiman told this news organization.

Similarly, conjunctivitis and other ocular complications of dupilumab are a source of concern for parents as well as dermatologists. Dr. Neiman indicated that a review of the benefit-to-risk ratio is important when considering these treatments in patients with indications for severe skin disorders.

Dr. Grace and Dr. Nieman have no potential financial conflicts related to this topic.

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

Private equity ownership of medical practices was linked to consumer price increases for 8 of 10 specialties examined in a new report, with the most notable gains reported for oncology and gastroenterology.

The report was a collaboration of University of California, Berkeley, staff and researchers from two nonprofits, the American Antitrust Institute and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. It provides “convincing evidence that incentives to put profits before patients have grown stronger with an increase in private equity ownership of physician practices,” lead author Richard Scheffler, PhD, of UC Berkeley said in a statement.

The report also noted that private equity acquisitions of physician groups have risen sixfold in just a decade, increasing from 75 deals in 2012 to 484 deals in 2021.

Separately, the American Medical Association earlier released a separate report on trends in physician practice arrangements, finding that the percentage of physicians working in private equity–owned groups was 4.5% in 2022, the same as in its previous 2020 report. The share of physicians working in private practices fell by 13 percentage points from 60.1% to 46.7% between 2012 and 2022, the AMA reported.

The Berkeley report and the AMA update come amid rising concerns about the effects of the decline of independent physician practices. The U.S. Senate Finance Committee, which oversees most federal health spending, held a June hearing examining the causes and consequences of increased corporate ownership in health care, including a look at physician practices.

“It’s increasingly clear that consolidation in health care is not lowering costs or increasing the quality of Americans’ health care,” Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in an email. “For private equity in health care in particular, there needs to be more transparency around ownership so the effect on these business relationships can be better understood.”

Federal and state agencies do not generally track acquisitions of physician practices.

The UC Berkeley report impressively documents the rising influence of private equity in health care, for which it’s tough to find good data, said Karen Joynt Maddox, MD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis. Dr. Maddox, a cardiologist and policy researcher who also has studied the effects of consolidation in health care, examined the new report at the request of this news organization.

“They did a great job with the data,” Dr. Maddox said. “One of the big issues around private equity, and in general, ‘corporatization’ and consolidation of health care, is that there’s not a great way to track ownership changes. It’s really difficult to study.”

Dr. Scheffler and colleagues used data from the commercial firm PitchBook to identify acquisitions of physician practices by private equity firms. They consulted IQVIA’s physician databases – OneKey and SK&A Office-Based Physicians Database – to learn about the location, size, and specialties of acquired practices. They also used data from the nonprofit Health Care Cost Institute, which tracks commercial health plan claims, to assess how private equity acquisitions affected prices.

The researchers then matched the findings for practices acquired by private equity firms from 2015 to 2021 against those for comparable physician practices that remained independent from 2012 to 2021.

The authors then tied private-equity ownership to the following price increases:

• Gastroenterology (14%; 95% confidence interval, 7.9%-20.4%
• Oncology (16.4%; 95% CI, 5.5%-28.4%)
• Dermatology (4.0%; 95% CI, 1%-7.1%)
• Ob.gyn. (8.8%; 95% CI, 3.8%-14%)
• Ophthalmology (8.7%; 95% CI, 5.1%-12.3%)
• Radiology (8.2%; 95% CI, 0.8%-16.1%)
• Orthopedics (7.1%; 95% CI, 2.2%-12.3%)
• Primary care (4.1%; 95% CI, 1.3%-7%)

The analysis also found higher prices for cardiology (8.7%; 95% CI, –6.4% to 26.1%) and urology (4.2%; 95% CI, –2.3% to 11.1%), but neither of these findings was statistically significant, one of the authors, Daniel R. Arnold, PhD, of UC Berkeley, said in an email. This was most likely caused by smaller sample sizes for these fields.
 

Factors driving consolidation

The two reports and the Senate Finance consolidation hearing raised similar issues, including calls to look at the factors driving more physicians out of independent practice, including Medicare reimbursement that may not keep up with rising inflation.

The Berkeley report authors called for Congress to add a broad inflation component to the Medicare physician fee schedule. It also called on Congress to add cases where Medicare, the biggest U.S. purchaser of health care, pays less for services when performed in independent practices than in hospital-affiliated ones.

Shawn Martin, executive vice president and CEO of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said his group appreciates how the report from UC Berkeley and nonprofit groups echoed recommendations many clinicians have made, including the call for a broad inflation adjustment for the fee schedule.

“To move the needle forward, Congress must advance site-neutral payment policies while also addressing the administrative requirements that take physicians away from the important work of caring for patients,” Mr. Martin said in an email.

Arnold Ventures provided funding for the report, which was a joint project of the American Antitrust Institute, the Nicholas C. Petris Center on Health Care Markets and Consumer Welfare, UC Berkeley, and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Private equity ownership of medical practices was linked to consumer price increases for 8 of 10 specialties examined in a new report, with the most notable gains reported for oncology and gastroenterology.

The report was a collaboration of University of California, Berkeley, staff and researchers from two nonprofits, the American Antitrust Institute and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. It provides “convincing evidence that incentives to put profits before patients have grown stronger with an increase in private equity ownership of physician practices,” lead author Richard Scheffler, PhD, of UC Berkeley said in a statement.

The report also noted that private equity acquisitions of physician groups have risen sixfold in just a decade, increasing from 75 deals in 2012 to 484 deals in 2021.

Separately, the American Medical Association earlier released a separate report on trends in physician practice arrangements, finding that the percentage of physicians working in private equity–owned groups was 4.5% in 2022, the same as in its previous 2020 report. The share of physicians working in private practices fell by 13 percentage points from 60.1% to 46.7% between 2012 and 2022, the AMA reported.

The Berkeley report and the AMA update come amid rising concerns about the effects of the decline of independent physician practices. The U.S. Senate Finance Committee, which oversees most federal health spending, held a June hearing examining the causes and consequences of increased corporate ownership in health care, including a look at physician practices.

“It’s increasingly clear that consolidation in health care is not lowering costs or increasing the quality of Americans’ health care,” Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in an email. “For private equity in health care in particular, there needs to be more transparency around ownership so the effect on these business relationships can be better understood.”

Federal and state agencies do not generally track acquisitions of physician practices.

The UC Berkeley report impressively documents the rising influence of private equity in health care, for which it’s tough to find good data, said Karen Joynt Maddox, MD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis. Dr. Maddox, a cardiologist and policy researcher who also has studied the effects of consolidation in health care, examined the new report at the request of this news organization.

“They did a great job with the data,” Dr. Maddox said. “One of the big issues around private equity, and in general, ‘corporatization’ and consolidation of health care, is that there’s not a great way to track ownership changes. It’s really difficult to study.”

Dr. Scheffler and colleagues used data from the commercial firm PitchBook to identify acquisitions of physician practices by private equity firms. They consulted IQVIA’s physician databases – OneKey and SK&A Office-Based Physicians Database – to learn about the location, size, and specialties of acquired practices. They also used data from the nonprofit Health Care Cost Institute, which tracks commercial health plan claims, to assess how private equity acquisitions affected prices.

The researchers then matched the findings for practices acquired by private equity firms from 2015 to 2021 against those for comparable physician practices that remained independent from 2012 to 2021.

The authors then tied private-equity ownership to the following price increases:

• Gastroenterology (14%; 95% confidence interval, 7.9%-20.4%
• Oncology (16.4%; 95% CI, 5.5%-28.4%)
• Dermatology (4.0%; 95% CI, 1%-7.1%)
• Ob.gyn. (8.8%; 95% CI, 3.8%-14%)
• Ophthalmology (8.7%; 95% CI, 5.1%-12.3%)
• Radiology (8.2%; 95% CI, 0.8%-16.1%)
• Orthopedics (7.1%; 95% CI, 2.2%-12.3%)
• Primary care (4.1%; 95% CI, 1.3%-7%)

The analysis also found higher prices for cardiology (8.7%; 95% CI, –6.4% to 26.1%) and urology (4.2%; 95% CI, –2.3% to 11.1%), but neither of these findings was statistically significant, one of the authors, Daniel R. Arnold, PhD, of UC Berkeley, said in an email. This was most likely caused by smaller sample sizes for these fields.
 

Factors driving consolidation

The two reports and the Senate Finance consolidation hearing raised similar issues, including calls to look at the factors driving more physicians out of independent practice, including Medicare reimbursement that may not keep up with rising inflation.

The Berkeley report authors called for Congress to add a broad inflation component to the Medicare physician fee schedule. It also called on Congress to add cases where Medicare, the biggest U.S. purchaser of health care, pays less for services when performed in independent practices than in hospital-affiliated ones.

Shawn Martin, executive vice president and CEO of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said his group appreciates how the report from UC Berkeley and nonprofit groups echoed recommendations many clinicians have made, including the call for a broad inflation adjustment for the fee schedule.

“To move the needle forward, Congress must advance site-neutral payment policies while also addressing the administrative requirements that take physicians away from the important work of caring for patients,” Mr. Martin said in an email.

Arnold Ventures provided funding for the report, which was a joint project of the American Antitrust Institute, the Nicholas C. Petris Center on Health Care Markets and Consumer Welfare, UC Berkeley, and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Private equity ownership of medical practices was linked to consumer price increases for 8 of 10 specialties examined in a new report, with the most notable gains reported for oncology and gastroenterology.

The report was a collaboration of University of California, Berkeley, staff and researchers from two nonprofits, the American Antitrust Institute and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. It provides “convincing evidence that incentives to put profits before patients have grown stronger with an increase in private equity ownership of physician practices,” lead author Richard Scheffler, PhD, of UC Berkeley said in a statement.

The report also noted that private equity acquisitions of physician groups have risen sixfold in just a decade, increasing from 75 deals in 2012 to 484 deals in 2021.

Separately, the American Medical Association earlier released a separate report on trends in physician practice arrangements, finding that the percentage of physicians working in private equity–owned groups was 4.5% in 2022, the same as in its previous 2020 report. The share of physicians working in private practices fell by 13 percentage points from 60.1% to 46.7% between 2012 and 2022, the AMA reported.

The Berkeley report and the AMA update come amid rising concerns about the effects of the decline of independent physician practices. The U.S. Senate Finance Committee, which oversees most federal health spending, held a June hearing examining the causes and consequences of increased corporate ownership in health care, including a look at physician practices.

“It’s increasingly clear that consolidation in health care is not lowering costs or increasing the quality of Americans’ health care,” Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in an email. “For private equity in health care in particular, there needs to be more transparency around ownership so the effect on these business relationships can be better understood.”

Federal and state agencies do not generally track acquisitions of physician practices.

The UC Berkeley report impressively documents the rising influence of private equity in health care, for which it’s tough to find good data, said Karen Joynt Maddox, MD, MPH, of Washington University in St. Louis. Dr. Maddox, a cardiologist and policy researcher who also has studied the effects of consolidation in health care, examined the new report at the request of this news organization.

“They did a great job with the data,” Dr. Maddox said. “One of the big issues around private equity, and in general, ‘corporatization’ and consolidation of health care, is that there’s not a great way to track ownership changes. It’s really difficult to study.”

Dr. Scheffler and colleagues used data from the commercial firm PitchBook to identify acquisitions of physician practices by private equity firms. They consulted IQVIA’s physician databases – OneKey and SK&A Office-Based Physicians Database – to learn about the location, size, and specialties of acquired practices. They also used data from the nonprofit Health Care Cost Institute, which tracks commercial health plan claims, to assess how private equity acquisitions affected prices.

The researchers then matched the findings for practices acquired by private equity firms from 2015 to 2021 against those for comparable physician practices that remained independent from 2012 to 2021.

The authors then tied private-equity ownership to the following price increases:

• Gastroenterology (14%; 95% confidence interval, 7.9%-20.4%
• Oncology (16.4%; 95% CI, 5.5%-28.4%)
• Dermatology (4.0%; 95% CI, 1%-7.1%)
• Ob.gyn. (8.8%; 95% CI, 3.8%-14%)
• Ophthalmology (8.7%; 95% CI, 5.1%-12.3%)
• Radiology (8.2%; 95% CI, 0.8%-16.1%)
• Orthopedics (7.1%; 95% CI, 2.2%-12.3%)
• Primary care (4.1%; 95% CI, 1.3%-7%)

The analysis also found higher prices for cardiology (8.7%; 95% CI, –6.4% to 26.1%) and urology (4.2%; 95% CI, –2.3% to 11.1%), but neither of these findings was statistically significant, one of the authors, Daniel R. Arnold, PhD, of UC Berkeley, said in an email. This was most likely caused by smaller sample sizes for these fields.
 

Factors driving consolidation

The two reports and the Senate Finance consolidation hearing raised similar issues, including calls to look at the factors driving more physicians out of independent practice, including Medicare reimbursement that may not keep up with rising inflation.

The Berkeley report authors called for Congress to add a broad inflation component to the Medicare physician fee schedule. It also called on Congress to add cases where Medicare, the biggest U.S. purchaser of health care, pays less for services when performed in independent practices than in hospital-affiliated ones.

Shawn Martin, executive vice president and CEO of the American Academy of Family Physicians, said his group appreciates how the report from UC Berkeley and nonprofit groups echoed recommendations many clinicians have made, including the call for a broad inflation adjustment for the fee schedule.

“To move the needle forward, Congress must advance site-neutral payment policies while also addressing the administrative requirements that take physicians away from the important work of caring for patients,” Mr. Martin said in an email.

Arnold Ventures provided funding for the report, which was a joint project of the American Antitrust Institute, the Nicholas C. Petris Center on Health Care Markets and Consumer Welfare, UC Berkeley, and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

A rare and devastating pediatric skin condition – severe reactive infectious mucocutaneous eruption (RIME) – may now have an additional, previously undescribed trigger, according to a newly published case report.

Lead author Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of dermatology at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, said she wanted to get the word out in part because it seems like RIME is occurring more frequently. “I do feel like we’re seeing more cases and from a more diverse number of pathogens,” Dr. Kirkorian told this news organization.

There was a decrease in RIME during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic when people were isolating more, Dr. Kirkorian said. SARS-CoV-2 has been a trigger for some cases, but she did not find that remarkable, given that respiratory viruses are known RIME precursors. The question is why RIME is being triggered more frequently now that people have essentially gone back to their normal lives, she said.

Dr. Kirkorian and colleagues at Children’s National Hospital and George Washington University, Washington, wrote about a 5-year-old boy with norovirus-triggered RIME in a case report published in Pediatric Dermatology.

RIME – previously known as Mycoplasma pneumoniae–induced rash and mucositis (MIRM) – tends to arise after a viral infection, with upper respiratory viruses such as mycoplasma and Chlamydophila pneumoniae, influenza, and enterovirus among the common triggers. “We think this is actually your own immune system overreacting to a pathogen,” Dr. Kirkorian said in an interview, adding that the mechanism of RIME is still not understood.

While the norovirus discovery was a surprise, it shows that much is still unknown about this rare condition. “I don’t think we know what is usual and what is unusual,” Dr. Kirkorian said.

In this case, the boy swiftly declined, with progressive conjunctivitis, high fever, and rapidly developing mucositis. By the time the 5-year-old got to Children’s National Hospital, he had a spreading, painful rash, including tense vesicles and bullae involving more than 30% of his total body surface area, and areas of denuded skin on both cheeks and the back of his neck.

He had hemorrhagic mucositis of the lips, a large erosion at the urethral meatus, and hemorrhagic conjunctivitis of both eyes with thick yellow crusting on the eyelids.

The clinicians intubated the boy and admitted him to the intensive care unit. He was given a one-time injection of etanercept (25 mg) followed by 8 days of intravenous cyclosporine at a dose of 5 mg per kilogram, divided twice daily, which helped calm the mucositis and stopped the rash from progressing. There is not an accepted protocol or list of evidence-based therapeutics for RIME, Dr. Kirkorian noted.

The severe eye damage required amniotic membrane grafts. The patient was extubated after 9 days but remained in the hospital for a total of 26 days because he needed to receive nutritional support (the mucositis kept him from eating), and for pain control and weaning of sedation.

As the clinicians searched for a potential triggering virus, they came up empty. Results were negative for adenovirus, Epstein Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, herpes simplex, and varicella zoster. But they noted that the child’s household contacts had all been sick a week before with presumed viral gastroenteritis. They decided to run a stool screen and the polymerase chain reaction for norovirus was positive. The boy never had GI symptoms.

Dr. Kirkorian said in the interview that she has seen other RIME cases where a child did not have symptoms associated with the original virus but did have a sudden onset of mucositis.

Although the definition of RIME is evolving, it is defined in part by mucositis in at least two of three areas: the mouth, eyes, and genitals. “Once you have the inflammation of the mucous membranes you should be on alert to think about more serious conditions,” like RIME, said Dr. Kirkorian. “Why does it manifest with the mucositis? I don’t think we know that,” she added.

RIME recurrence has also been vexing for patients, families and clinicians. In May, at the annual Atlantic Dermatology Conference, held in Baltimore, Dr. Kirkorian also discussed an 11-year-old patient who had RIME after SARS-CoV-2 infection early in the pandemic, resulting in a 22-day hospitalization and placement of a peripherally inserted central catheter and a feeding tube. He improved with cyclosporine and was discharged on systemic tacrolimus.

He was fine for several years, until another COVID infection. He again responded to medication. But not long after, an undetermined viral infection triggered another episode of RIME.

Dr. Kirkorian said there is no way to predict recurrence – making a devastating condition all the more worrisome. “Knowing that it might come back and it’s totally haphazard as to what might make it come back – that is very stressful for families,” she said in the interview.

“Some of the most perplexing patients with RIME are those with recurrent disease,” wrote Warren R. Heymann, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at Rowan University, Camden, N.J., wrote in an online column on RIME in the American Academy of Dermatology’s “Dermatology World Insights and Inquiries”.

“Recurrent RIME is of particular interest, given that we could potentially intervene and prevent additional disease,” wrote Camille Introcaso, MD, associate professor of medicine at Rowan University, in response to Dr. Heymann’s remarks. “Although multiple possible mechanisms for the clinical findings of RIME have been proposed, including molecular mimicry between infectious agent proteins and keratinocyte antigens, immune complex deposition, and combinations of medication and infection, the pathophysiology is unknown,” she added.

In the interview, Dr. Kirkorian said that she and colleagues in the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA) are trying to assemble more multicenter trials to assess the underlying pathology of RIME, effectiveness of various treatments, and to “find some predictive factors.” Given that RIME is an acute-onset emergency, it is not easy to conduct randomized controlled trials, she added.

Dr. Kirkorian, Dr. Heymann, and Dr. Introcaso report no relevant financial relationships.

A rare and devastating pediatric skin condition – severe reactive infectious mucocutaneous eruption (RIME) – may now have an additional, previously undescribed trigger, according to a newly published case report.

Lead author Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of dermatology at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, said she wanted to get the word out in part because it seems like RIME is occurring more frequently. “I do feel like we’re seeing more cases and from a more diverse number of pathogens,” Dr. Kirkorian told this news organization.

There was a decrease in RIME during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic when people were isolating more, Dr. Kirkorian said. SARS-CoV-2 has been a trigger for some cases, but she did not find that remarkable, given that respiratory viruses are known RIME precursors. The question is why RIME is being triggered more frequently now that people have essentially gone back to their normal lives, she said.

Dr. Kirkorian and colleagues at Children’s National Hospital and George Washington University, Washington, wrote about a 5-year-old boy with norovirus-triggered RIME in a case report published in Pediatric Dermatology.

RIME – previously known as Mycoplasma pneumoniae–induced rash and mucositis (MIRM) – tends to arise after a viral infection, with upper respiratory viruses such as mycoplasma and Chlamydophila pneumoniae, influenza, and enterovirus among the common triggers. “We think this is actually your own immune system overreacting to a pathogen,” Dr. Kirkorian said in an interview, adding that the mechanism of RIME is still not understood.

While the norovirus discovery was a surprise, it shows that much is still unknown about this rare condition. “I don’t think we know what is usual and what is unusual,” Dr. Kirkorian said.

In this case, the boy swiftly declined, with progressive conjunctivitis, high fever, and rapidly developing mucositis. By the time the 5-year-old got to Children’s National Hospital, he had a spreading, painful rash, including tense vesicles and bullae involving more than 30% of his total body surface area, and areas of denuded skin on both cheeks and the back of his neck.

He had hemorrhagic mucositis of the lips, a large erosion at the urethral meatus, and hemorrhagic conjunctivitis of both eyes with thick yellow crusting on the eyelids.

The clinicians intubated the boy and admitted him to the intensive care unit. He was given a one-time injection of etanercept (25 mg) followed by 8 days of intravenous cyclosporine at a dose of 5 mg per kilogram, divided twice daily, which helped calm the mucositis and stopped the rash from progressing. There is not an accepted protocol or list of evidence-based therapeutics for RIME, Dr. Kirkorian noted.

The severe eye damage required amniotic membrane grafts. The patient was extubated after 9 days but remained in the hospital for a total of 26 days because he needed to receive nutritional support (the mucositis kept him from eating), and for pain control and weaning of sedation.

As the clinicians searched for a potential triggering virus, they came up empty. Results were negative for adenovirus, Epstein Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, herpes simplex, and varicella zoster. But they noted that the child’s household contacts had all been sick a week before with presumed viral gastroenteritis. They decided to run a stool screen and the polymerase chain reaction for norovirus was positive. The boy never had GI symptoms.

Dr. Kirkorian said in the interview that she has seen other RIME cases where a child did not have symptoms associated with the original virus but did have a sudden onset of mucositis.

Although the definition of RIME is evolving, it is defined in part by mucositis in at least two of three areas: the mouth, eyes, and genitals. “Once you have the inflammation of the mucous membranes you should be on alert to think about more serious conditions,” like RIME, said Dr. Kirkorian. “Why does it manifest with the mucositis? I don’t think we know that,” she added.

RIME recurrence has also been vexing for patients, families and clinicians. In May, at the annual Atlantic Dermatology Conference, held in Baltimore, Dr. Kirkorian also discussed an 11-year-old patient who had RIME after SARS-CoV-2 infection early in the pandemic, resulting in a 22-day hospitalization and placement of a peripherally inserted central catheter and a feeding tube. He improved with cyclosporine and was discharged on systemic tacrolimus.

He was fine for several years, until another COVID infection. He again responded to medication. But not long after, an undetermined viral infection triggered another episode of RIME.

Dr. Kirkorian said there is no way to predict recurrence – making a devastating condition all the more worrisome. “Knowing that it might come back and it’s totally haphazard as to what might make it come back – that is very stressful for families,” she said in the interview.

“Some of the most perplexing patients with RIME are those with recurrent disease,” wrote Warren R. Heymann, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at Rowan University, Camden, N.J., wrote in an online column on RIME in the American Academy of Dermatology’s “Dermatology World Insights and Inquiries”.

“Recurrent RIME is of particular interest, given that we could potentially intervene and prevent additional disease,” wrote Camille Introcaso, MD, associate professor of medicine at Rowan University, in response to Dr. Heymann’s remarks. “Although multiple possible mechanisms for the clinical findings of RIME have been proposed, including molecular mimicry between infectious agent proteins and keratinocyte antigens, immune complex deposition, and combinations of medication and infection, the pathophysiology is unknown,” she added.

In the interview, Dr. Kirkorian said that she and colleagues in the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA) are trying to assemble more multicenter trials to assess the underlying pathology of RIME, effectiveness of various treatments, and to “find some predictive factors.” Given that RIME is an acute-onset emergency, it is not easy to conduct randomized controlled trials, she added.

Dr. Kirkorian, Dr. Heymann, and Dr. Introcaso report no relevant financial relationships.

A rare and devastating pediatric skin condition – severe reactive infectious mucocutaneous eruption (RIME) – may now have an additional, previously undescribed trigger, according to a newly published case report.

Lead author Anna Yasmine Kirkorian, MD, chief of dermatology at Children’s National Hospital in Washington, said she wanted to get the word out in part because it seems like RIME is occurring more frequently. “I do feel like we’re seeing more cases and from a more diverse number of pathogens,” Dr. Kirkorian told this news organization.

There was a decrease in RIME during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic when people were isolating more, Dr. Kirkorian said. SARS-CoV-2 has been a trigger for some cases, but she did not find that remarkable, given that respiratory viruses are known RIME precursors. The question is why RIME is being triggered more frequently now that people have essentially gone back to their normal lives, she said.

Dr. Kirkorian and colleagues at Children’s National Hospital and George Washington University, Washington, wrote about a 5-year-old boy with norovirus-triggered RIME in a case report published in Pediatric Dermatology.

RIME – previously known as Mycoplasma pneumoniae–induced rash and mucositis (MIRM) – tends to arise after a viral infection, with upper respiratory viruses such as mycoplasma and Chlamydophila pneumoniae, influenza, and enterovirus among the common triggers. “We think this is actually your own immune system overreacting to a pathogen,” Dr. Kirkorian said in an interview, adding that the mechanism of RIME is still not understood.

While the norovirus discovery was a surprise, it shows that much is still unknown about this rare condition. “I don’t think we know what is usual and what is unusual,” Dr. Kirkorian said.

In this case, the boy swiftly declined, with progressive conjunctivitis, high fever, and rapidly developing mucositis. By the time the 5-year-old got to Children’s National Hospital, he had a spreading, painful rash, including tense vesicles and bullae involving more than 30% of his total body surface area, and areas of denuded skin on both cheeks and the back of his neck.

He had hemorrhagic mucositis of the lips, a large erosion at the urethral meatus, and hemorrhagic conjunctivitis of both eyes with thick yellow crusting on the eyelids.

The clinicians intubated the boy and admitted him to the intensive care unit. He was given a one-time injection of etanercept (25 mg) followed by 8 days of intravenous cyclosporine at a dose of 5 mg per kilogram, divided twice daily, which helped calm the mucositis and stopped the rash from progressing. There is not an accepted protocol or list of evidence-based therapeutics for RIME, Dr. Kirkorian noted.

The severe eye damage required amniotic membrane grafts. The patient was extubated after 9 days but remained in the hospital for a total of 26 days because he needed to receive nutritional support (the mucositis kept him from eating), and for pain control and weaning of sedation.

As the clinicians searched for a potential triggering virus, they came up empty. Results were negative for adenovirus, Epstein Barr virus, cytomegalovirus, herpes simplex, and varicella zoster. But they noted that the child’s household contacts had all been sick a week before with presumed viral gastroenteritis. They decided to run a stool screen and the polymerase chain reaction for norovirus was positive. The boy never had GI symptoms.

Dr. Kirkorian said in the interview that she has seen other RIME cases where a child did not have symptoms associated with the original virus but did have a sudden onset of mucositis.

Although the definition of RIME is evolving, it is defined in part by mucositis in at least two of three areas: the mouth, eyes, and genitals. “Once you have the inflammation of the mucous membranes you should be on alert to think about more serious conditions,” like RIME, said Dr. Kirkorian. “Why does it manifest with the mucositis? I don’t think we know that,” she added.

RIME recurrence has also been vexing for patients, families and clinicians. In May, at the annual Atlantic Dermatology Conference, held in Baltimore, Dr. Kirkorian also discussed an 11-year-old patient who had RIME after SARS-CoV-2 infection early in the pandemic, resulting in a 22-day hospitalization and placement of a peripherally inserted central catheter and a feeding tube. He improved with cyclosporine and was discharged on systemic tacrolimus.

He was fine for several years, until another COVID infection. He again responded to medication. But not long after, an undetermined viral infection triggered another episode of RIME.

Dr. Kirkorian said there is no way to predict recurrence – making a devastating condition all the more worrisome. “Knowing that it might come back and it’s totally haphazard as to what might make it come back – that is very stressful for families,” she said in the interview.

“Some of the most perplexing patients with RIME are those with recurrent disease,” wrote Warren R. Heymann, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at Rowan University, Camden, N.J., wrote in an online column on RIME in the American Academy of Dermatology’s “Dermatology World Insights and Inquiries”.

“Recurrent RIME is of particular interest, given that we could potentially intervene and prevent additional disease,” wrote Camille Introcaso, MD, associate professor of medicine at Rowan University, in response to Dr. Heymann’s remarks. “Although multiple possible mechanisms for the clinical findings of RIME have been proposed, including molecular mimicry between infectious agent proteins and keratinocyte antigens, immune complex deposition, and combinations of medication and infection, the pathophysiology is unknown,” she added.

In the interview, Dr. Kirkorian said that she and colleagues in the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA) are trying to assemble more multicenter trials to assess the underlying pathology of RIME, effectiveness of various treatments, and to “find some predictive factors.” Given that RIME is an acute-onset emergency, it is not easy to conduct randomized controlled trials, she added.

Dr. Kirkorian, Dr. Heymann, and Dr. Introcaso report no relevant financial relationships.