MDedge Pediatrics

Health care providers who give this year’s Moderna COVID-19 vaccine to children aged 6 months to 11 years should be sure they withdraw the correct volume of the vaccine from the vial to ensure a proper dose, the Food and Drug Administration said in a MedWatch issued Nov. 1, 2023.

That dose is 0.25 mL for children 6 months through 11 years. In the MedWatch, the FDA said that it “has become aware” that the single-dose vial for use in this age group “contains notably more than 0.25 mL of the vaccine.” It added: “Some healthcare providers may be withdrawing the entire contents of the vial to administer to an individual.”

The FDA revised the Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccine to clarify that the 0.25 mL should be withdrawn from the vial and that the vial and any excess then should be discarded. It is in a single-dose vial with a blue cap and a green label.

“It is common [for vaccine makers] to put in a little bit of extra vaccine just to make sure everyone gets enough,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. “The provider is supposed to be looking at the syringe when they withdraw it to make sure they get the right amount,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Recently, parents on social media had expressed concerns that their children may have gotten more than the recommended dose, with some parents noticing more reactions such as soreness and fever with the 2023-2024 vaccine dose than they did with their children’s previous COVID vaccinations.

“Since the beginning of the rollout, parents were telling us of cases where pharmacies accidentally gave their children a double dose, while doctors in our group were pointing out that their vials for children contained twice the amount than what was needed,” said Fatima Khan, a parent and cofounder of the group Protect Their Future, an organization that advocates for pediatric vaccine access. Members contacted the FDA and other officials. “We appreciate that the FDA took our concerns seriously and issued this safety update,” Ms. Khan said.

A spokesperson for Moderna is researching how much more vaccine the single-dose vials might contain.
 

No safety risks identified

“The FDA has not identified any safety risks associated with administration of the higher dose in individuals 6 months through 11 years of age and no serious adverse events were identified related to a dosing error for the vaccine,” Cherie Duvall-Jones, an FDA spokesperson, said in an email response.

“The FDA received questions from stakeholders about the dosing issue on Oct. 29, and contacted Moderna to discuss and better understand the issue,” Ms. Duvall-Jones said. The agency then alerted health care providers via the safety communication and other means to be sure the correct dosage is given to the children aged 12 years or younger.
 

One parent’s experience

Jane Jih, MD, an internist in San Francisco, took her 7-year-old daughter to a pharmacy to get the vaccine, and it was the first time the pharmacist had given a pediatric dose. “We both had to double check the dose,” Dr. Jih said. She observed that the vial had about 0.40 mL, which is 0.15 mL above the recommended dose.

A few weeks later, Dr. Jih could access the vaccine for her nearly-3-year-old son. The nurse practitioner who administered it had been giving many pediatric Moderna shots, she said, “so I felt more confident in the second scenario.”
 

Perhaps more reactions, no danger

“If you get a little bit more [than the recommended 0.25 mL], that certainly is not going to harm the child,” Dr. Schaffner said. “There may be a little bit more local reaction. In terms of the child’s immune system, there really isn’t any harm.”

If an entire adult dose is mistakenly given, he said, “I think the reaction locally in some children may be more evident, they may get more sore arms, redness, maybe a little bit more swelling and tenderness. Fever is also a possibility, but “these vaccines have not been associated with too much fever.”

Could a double dose do more harm than that? “It is unknown,” said Aaron Glatt, MD, chief of infectious diseases and hospital epidemiologist for Mount Sinai South Nassau, Oceanside, N.Y. “But there is the theoretical potential for some more complications. I do not know whether this [excess vaccine] would cause an increased likelihood of cardiac inflammatory problems like myocarditis or other rare complications to occur more frequently.”

The message for health care providers giving the vaccine, Dr. Schaffner said, is: “Look at your syringe to make sure the dose is appropriate.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Health care providers who give this year’s Moderna COVID-19 vaccine to children aged 6 months to 11 years should be sure they withdraw the correct volume of the vaccine from the vial to ensure a proper dose, the Food and Drug Administration said in a MedWatch issued Nov. 1, 2023.

That dose is 0.25 mL for children 6 months through 11 years. In the MedWatch, the FDA said that it “has become aware” that the single-dose vial for use in this age group “contains notably more than 0.25 mL of the vaccine.” It added: “Some healthcare providers may be withdrawing the entire contents of the vial to administer to an individual.”

The FDA revised the Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccine to clarify that the 0.25 mL should be withdrawn from the vial and that the vial and any excess then should be discarded. It is in a single-dose vial with a blue cap and a green label.

“It is common [for vaccine makers] to put in a little bit of extra vaccine just to make sure everyone gets enough,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. “The provider is supposed to be looking at the syringe when they withdraw it to make sure they get the right amount,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Recently, parents on social media had expressed concerns that their children may have gotten more than the recommended dose, with some parents noticing more reactions such as soreness and fever with the 2023-2024 vaccine dose than they did with their children’s previous COVID vaccinations.

“Since the beginning of the rollout, parents were telling us of cases where pharmacies accidentally gave their children a double dose, while doctors in our group were pointing out that their vials for children contained twice the amount than what was needed,” said Fatima Khan, a parent and cofounder of the group Protect Their Future, an organization that advocates for pediatric vaccine access. Members contacted the FDA and other officials. “We appreciate that the FDA took our concerns seriously and issued this safety update,” Ms. Khan said.

A spokesperson for Moderna is researching how much more vaccine the single-dose vials might contain.
 

No safety risks identified

“The FDA has not identified any safety risks associated with administration of the higher dose in individuals 6 months through 11 years of age and no serious adverse events were identified related to a dosing error for the vaccine,” Cherie Duvall-Jones, an FDA spokesperson, said in an email response.

“The FDA received questions from stakeholders about the dosing issue on Oct. 29, and contacted Moderna to discuss and better understand the issue,” Ms. Duvall-Jones said. The agency then alerted health care providers via the safety communication and other means to be sure the correct dosage is given to the children aged 12 years or younger.
 

One parent’s experience

Jane Jih, MD, an internist in San Francisco, took her 7-year-old daughter to a pharmacy to get the vaccine, and it was the first time the pharmacist had given a pediatric dose. “We both had to double check the dose,” Dr. Jih said. She observed that the vial had about 0.40 mL, which is 0.15 mL above the recommended dose.

A few weeks later, Dr. Jih could access the vaccine for her nearly-3-year-old son. The nurse practitioner who administered it had been giving many pediatric Moderna shots, she said, “so I felt more confident in the second scenario.”
 

Perhaps more reactions, no danger

“If you get a little bit more [than the recommended 0.25 mL], that certainly is not going to harm the child,” Dr. Schaffner said. “There may be a little bit more local reaction. In terms of the child’s immune system, there really isn’t any harm.”

If an entire adult dose is mistakenly given, he said, “I think the reaction locally in some children may be more evident, they may get more sore arms, redness, maybe a little bit more swelling and tenderness. Fever is also a possibility, but “these vaccines have not been associated with too much fever.”

Could a double dose do more harm than that? “It is unknown,” said Aaron Glatt, MD, chief of infectious diseases and hospital epidemiologist for Mount Sinai South Nassau, Oceanside, N.Y. “But there is the theoretical potential for some more complications. I do not know whether this [excess vaccine] would cause an increased likelihood of cardiac inflammatory problems like myocarditis or other rare complications to occur more frequently.”

The message for health care providers giving the vaccine, Dr. Schaffner said, is: “Look at your syringe to make sure the dose is appropriate.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Health care providers who give this year’s Moderna COVID-19 vaccine to children aged 6 months to 11 years should be sure they withdraw the correct volume of the vaccine from the vial to ensure a proper dose, the Food and Drug Administration said in a MedWatch issued Nov. 1, 2023.

That dose is 0.25 mL for children 6 months through 11 years. In the MedWatch, the FDA said that it “has become aware” that the single-dose vial for use in this age group “contains notably more than 0.25 mL of the vaccine.” It added: “Some healthcare providers may be withdrawing the entire contents of the vial to administer to an individual.”

The FDA revised the Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccine to clarify that the 0.25 mL should be withdrawn from the vial and that the vial and any excess then should be discarded. It is in a single-dose vial with a blue cap and a green label.

“It is common [for vaccine makers] to put in a little bit of extra vaccine just to make sure everyone gets enough,” said William Schaffner, MD, an infectious disease specialist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tenn. “The provider is supposed to be looking at the syringe when they withdraw it to make sure they get the right amount,” Dr. Schaffner said.

Recently, parents on social media had expressed concerns that their children may have gotten more than the recommended dose, with some parents noticing more reactions such as soreness and fever with the 2023-2024 vaccine dose than they did with their children’s previous COVID vaccinations.

“Since the beginning of the rollout, parents were telling us of cases where pharmacies accidentally gave their children a double dose, while doctors in our group were pointing out that their vials for children contained twice the amount than what was needed,” said Fatima Khan, a parent and cofounder of the group Protect Their Future, an organization that advocates for pediatric vaccine access. Members contacted the FDA and other officials. “We appreciate that the FDA took our concerns seriously and issued this safety update,” Ms. Khan said.

A spokesperson for Moderna is researching how much more vaccine the single-dose vials might contain.
 

No safety risks identified

“The FDA has not identified any safety risks associated with administration of the higher dose in individuals 6 months through 11 years of age and no serious adverse events were identified related to a dosing error for the vaccine,” Cherie Duvall-Jones, an FDA spokesperson, said in an email response.

“The FDA received questions from stakeholders about the dosing issue on Oct. 29, and contacted Moderna to discuss and better understand the issue,” Ms. Duvall-Jones said. The agency then alerted health care providers via the safety communication and other means to be sure the correct dosage is given to the children aged 12 years or younger.
 

One parent’s experience

Jane Jih, MD, an internist in San Francisco, took her 7-year-old daughter to a pharmacy to get the vaccine, and it was the first time the pharmacist had given a pediatric dose. “We both had to double check the dose,” Dr. Jih said. She observed that the vial had about 0.40 mL, which is 0.15 mL above the recommended dose.

A few weeks later, Dr. Jih could access the vaccine for her nearly-3-year-old son. The nurse practitioner who administered it had been giving many pediatric Moderna shots, she said, “so I felt more confident in the second scenario.”
 

Perhaps more reactions, no danger

“If you get a little bit more [than the recommended 0.25 mL], that certainly is not going to harm the child,” Dr. Schaffner said. “There may be a little bit more local reaction. In terms of the child’s immune system, there really isn’t any harm.”

If an entire adult dose is mistakenly given, he said, “I think the reaction locally in some children may be more evident, they may get more sore arms, redness, maybe a little bit more swelling and tenderness. Fever is also a possibility, but “these vaccines have not been associated with too much fever.”

Could a double dose do more harm than that? “It is unknown,” said Aaron Glatt, MD, chief of infectious diseases and hospital epidemiologist for Mount Sinai South Nassau, Oceanside, N.Y. “But there is the theoretical potential for some more complications. I do not know whether this [excess vaccine] would cause an increased likelihood of cardiac inflammatory problems like myocarditis or other rare complications to occur more frequently.”

The message for health care providers giving the vaccine, Dr. Schaffner said, is: “Look at your syringe to make sure the dose is appropriate.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Additional data from the phase 3 EASE study conducted in patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) show that regular application of the topical gel Oleogel-S10 (Filsuvez) is associated with a reduced need for daily dressing changes when compared with a control gel.

In a final, post hoc analysis to come from the trial, 15 of 45 (33%) patients treated with Oleogel-S10 versus 5 of 48 (10.4%) treated with the control gel were reported as no longer needing daily dressing changes at 45 days of follow-up.

Moreover, the effect was sustained, with similar percentages of patients no longer requiring daily dressing changes at 60 days (34% vs. 13%, respectively) and 90 days (36% vs. 11%) of follow-up.

The mean reduction in daily dressing changes was 1.36 for Oleogel-S10 and 0.41 for the control gel (P = .005).

“Patients who, in the beginning, had daily dressing changes had almost three fewer dressing changes every 2 weeks if they were treated with Oleogel-S10,” Dimitra Kiritsi, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Freiburg (Germany), reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. By comparison, patients in the control group had just one fewer daily dressing change in 2 weeks.

“You might say okay, but what does this mean in terms of time?” added Dr. Kiritsi. Using historical data on the time required for whole body care (Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020 Jan 3. doi: 10.1186/s13023-019-1279-y), it was estimated that treatment with Oleogel-S10 was associated with an overall time-saving per week of 11 hours (6.6 hours for the patient and 4.4 hours for the caregiver) and use of the control gel was associated with an overall time-saving of 4 hours (2.4 hours for the patient and 1.6 hours for the caregiver).

“This is, for our patients, important,” said Dr. Kiritsi, as “it is time that they can spend doing something nice with the family” instead, avoiding the pain and distress associated with frequent dressing changes.

Approved in Europe, not in the United States

Oleogel-S10, classified as an herbal product, contains triterpenes derived from birch bark extract, which have been formulated with sunflower oil to form a gel.

Despite being approved for use in Europe, Oleogel-S10 has not yet been approved to treat EB in the United States. The FDA did not approve Amryt Pharma’s new drug application in February 2022. The application had included data from the EASE trial.

EASE included 223 patients with dystrophic or junctional EB, including 156 children, at 58 sites in 28 countries. As such, this makes it the largest treatment study in this rare genetic disease to date.

The trial had consisted of an initial 90-day, double-blind treatment period, during which time 109 patients had used Oleogel-S10 and 114 had used a control gel. This was followed by a 24-month open-label phase, during which time all remaining patients (n = 205) had used Oleogel-S10 on top of their standard of care.

Dr. Kiritsi summarized the main results of the EASE trial as follows.

• Complete healing of target wounds (primary endpoint) in 41.3% of patients treated with Oleogel-S10 and 28.9% of patients treated with the control gel (P = .013).
• Improved total body wound burden measured by both Epidermolysis Bullosa Disease Activity and Scarring Index and Body Surface Area Percentage scores.
• Reduced frequency of dressing changes (1 less per 2 weeks for Oleogel-S10 versus 0 less per 2 weeks for control gel).
• Improved pain among participants aged 4 years and older while their dressings were being changed.
• Reduced rates of wound infection (0.9% Oleogel-S10 vs. 4.4% control gel).
• Similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (24.8% vs. 22.8%, respectively), which were mostly deemed to be mild or moderate.

The EASE study – an important trial for EB

EASE is an important trial for EB, the study’s principal investigator Dédée Murrell, MD, DSc, University of New South Wales, Sydney, has pointed out previously.

“This was the first EB study to meet its primary endpoint and demonstrated a statistically significant acceleration of target wound healing by day 45,” Dr. Murrell said in a press release issued by Amryt Pharma to coincide with the online publication of the trial results.

“In addition, the favorable trends we see with key secondary endpoints such as reduced wound burden, pain, and frequency of dressing changes are considered as being very meaningful for patients,” Dr. Murrell said.

The EASE study was funded by Amryt Research Limited. Dr. Kiritsi reported receiving honoraria or consultation fees from Amryt, RHEACELL GmbH, and Fibrx Derm. She also acknowledged grant or research support from DEBRA International, EB Research Partnership, Fritz-Thyssen Foundation, German Research Foundation, and RHEACELL. Dr. Murrell has ties to Amryt and Amicus and is a co-owner of the patent for topical sirolimus for EB simplex.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Additional data from the phase 3 EASE study conducted in patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) show that regular application of the topical gel Oleogel-S10 (Filsuvez) is associated with a reduced need for daily dressing changes when compared with a control gel.

In a final, post hoc analysis to come from the trial, 15 of 45 (33%) patients treated with Oleogel-S10 versus 5 of 48 (10.4%) treated with the control gel were reported as no longer needing daily dressing changes at 45 days of follow-up.

Moreover, the effect was sustained, with similar percentages of patients no longer requiring daily dressing changes at 60 days (34% vs. 13%, respectively) and 90 days (36% vs. 11%) of follow-up.

The mean reduction in daily dressing changes was 1.36 for Oleogel-S10 and 0.41 for the control gel (P = .005).

“Patients who, in the beginning, had daily dressing changes had almost three fewer dressing changes every 2 weeks if they were treated with Oleogel-S10,” Dimitra Kiritsi, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Freiburg (Germany), reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. By comparison, patients in the control group had just one fewer daily dressing change in 2 weeks.

“You might say okay, but what does this mean in terms of time?” added Dr. Kiritsi. Using historical data on the time required for whole body care (Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020 Jan 3. doi: 10.1186/s13023-019-1279-y), it was estimated that treatment with Oleogel-S10 was associated with an overall time-saving per week of 11 hours (6.6 hours for the patient and 4.4 hours for the caregiver) and use of the control gel was associated with an overall time-saving of 4 hours (2.4 hours for the patient and 1.6 hours for the caregiver).

“This is, for our patients, important,” said Dr. Kiritsi, as “it is time that they can spend doing something nice with the family” instead, avoiding the pain and distress associated with frequent dressing changes.

Approved in Europe, not in the United States

Oleogel-S10, classified as an herbal product, contains triterpenes derived from birch bark extract, which have been formulated with sunflower oil to form a gel.

Despite being approved for use in Europe, Oleogel-S10 has not yet been approved to treat EB in the United States. The FDA did not approve Amryt Pharma’s new drug application in February 2022. The application had included data from the EASE trial.

EASE included 223 patients with dystrophic or junctional EB, including 156 children, at 58 sites in 28 countries. As such, this makes it the largest treatment study in this rare genetic disease to date.

The trial had consisted of an initial 90-day, double-blind treatment period, during which time 109 patients had used Oleogel-S10 and 114 had used a control gel. This was followed by a 24-month open-label phase, during which time all remaining patients (n = 205) had used Oleogel-S10 on top of their standard of care.

Dr. Kiritsi summarized the main results of the EASE trial as follows.

• Complete healing of target wounds (primary endpoint) in 41.3% of patients treated with Oleogel-S10 and 28.9% of patients treated with the control gel (P = .013).
• Improved total body wound burden measured by both Epidermolysis Bullosa Disease Activity and Scarring Index and Body Surface Area Percentage scores.
• Reduced frequency of dressing changes (1 less per 2 weeks for Oleogel-S10 versus 0 less per 2 weeks for control gel).
• Improved pain among participants aged 4 years and older while their dressings were being changed.
• Reduced rates of wound infection (0.9% Oleogel-S10 vs. 4.4% control gel).
• Similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (24.8% vs. 22.8%, respectively), which were mostly deemed to be mild or moderate.

The EASE study – an important trial for EB

EASE is an important trial for EB, the study’s principal investigator Dédée Murrell, MD, DSc, University of New South Wales, Sydney, has pointed out previously.

“This was the first EB study to meet its primary endpoint and demonstrated a statistically significant acceleration of target wound healing by day 45,” Dr. Murrell said in a press release issued by Amryt Pharma to coincide with the online publication of the trial results.

“In addition, the favorable trends we see with key secondary endpoints such as reduced wound burden, pain, and frequency of dressing changes are considered as being very meaningful for patients,” Dr. Murrell said.

The EASE study was funded by Amryt Research Limited. Dr. Kiritsi reported receiving honoraria or consultation fees from Amryt, RHEACELL GmbH, and Fibrx Derm. She also acknowledged grant or research support from DEBRA International, EB Research Partnership, Fritz-Thyssen Foundation, German Research Foundation, and RHEACELL. Dr. Murrell has ties to Amryt and Amicus and is a co-owner of the patent for topical sirolimus for EB simplex.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Additional data from the phase 3 EASE study conducted in patients with epidermolysis bullosa (EB) show that regular application of the topical gel Oleogel-S10 (Filsuvez) is associated with a reduced need for daily dressing changes when compared with a control gel.

In a final, post hoc analysis to come from the trial, 15 of 45 (33%) patients treated with Oleogel-S10 versus 5 of 48 (10.4%) treated with the control gel were reported as no longer needing daily dressing changes at 45 days of follow-up.

Moreover, the effect was sustained, with similar percentages of patients no longer requiring daily dressing changes at 60 days (34% vs. 13%, respectively) and 90 days (36% vs. 11%) of follow-up.

The mean reduction in daily dressing changes was 1.36 for Oleogel-S10 and 0.41 for the control gel (P = .005).

“Patients who, in the beginning, had daily dressing changes had almost three fewer dressing changes every 2 weeks if they were treated with Oleogel-S10,” Dimitra Kiritsi, MD, PhD, of the department of dermatology at the University of Freiburg (Germany), reported at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology. By comparison, patients in the control group had just one fewer daily dressing change in 2 weeks.

“You might say okay, but what does this mean in terms of time?” added Dr. Kiritsi. Using historical data on the time required for whole body care (Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2020 Jan 3. doi: 10.1186/s13023-019-1279-y), it was estimated that treatment with Oleogel-S10 was associated with an overall time-saving per week of 11 hours (6.6 hours for the patient and 4.4 hours for the caregiver) and use of the control gel was associated with an overall time-saving of 4 hours (2.4 hours for the patient and 1.6 hours for the caregiver).

“This is, for our patients, important,” said Dr. Kiritsi, as “it is time that they can spend doing something nice with the family” instead, avoiding the pain and distress associated with frequent dressing changes.

Approved in Europe, not in the United States

Oleogel-S10, classified as an herbal product, contains triterpenes derived from birch bark extract, which have been formulated with sunflower oil to form a gel.

Despite being approved for use in Europe, Oleogel-S10 has not yet been approved to treat EB in the United States. The FDA did not approve Amryt Pharma’s new drug application in February 2022. The application had included data from the EASE trial.

EASE included 223 patients with dystrophic or junctional EB, including 156 children, at 58 sites in 28 countries. As such, this makes it the largest treatment study in this rare genetic disease to date.

The trial had consisted of an initial 90-day, double-blind treatment period, during which time 109 patients had used Oleogel-S10 and 114 had used a control gel. This was followed by a 24-month open-label phase, during which time all remaining patients (n = 205) had used Oleogel-S10 on top of their standard of care.

Dr. Kiritsi summarized the main results of the EASE trial as follows.

• Complete healing of target wounds (primary endpoint) in 41.3% of patients treated with Oleogel-S10 and 28.9% of patients treated with the control gel (P = .013).
• Improved total body wound burden measured by both Epidermolysis Bullosa Disease Activity and Scarring Index and Body Surface Area Percentage scores.
• Reduced frequency of dressing changes (1 less per 2 weeks for Oleogel-S10 versus 0 less per 2 weeks for control gel).
• Improved pain among participants aged 4 years and older while their dressings were being changed.
• Reduced rates of wound infection (0.9% Oleogel-S10 vs. 4.4% control gel).
• Similar rates of treatment-emergent adverse events (24.8% vs. 22.8%, respectively), which were mostly deemed to be mild or moderate.

The EASE study – an important trial for EB

EASE is an important trial for EB, the study’s principal investigator Dédée Murrell, MD, DSc, University of New South Wales, Sydney, has pointed out previously.

“This was the first EB study to meet its primary endpoint and demonstrated a statistically significant acceleration of target wound healing by day 45,” Dr. Murrell said in a press release issued by Amryt Pharma to coincide with the online publication of the trial results.

“In addition, the favorable trends we see with key secondary endpoints such as reduced wound burden, pain, and frequency of dressing changes are considered as being very meaningful for patients,” Dr. Murrell said.

The EASE study was funded by Amryt Research Limited. Dr. Kiritsi reported receiving honoraria or consultation fees from Amryt, RHEACELL GmbH, and Fibrx Derm. She also acknowledged grant or research support from DEBRA International, EB Research Partnership, Fritz-Thyssen Foundation, German Research Foundation, and RHEACELL. Dr. Murrell has ties to Amryt and Amicus and is a co-owner of the patent for topical sirolimus for EB simplex.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab-auub (Wezlana) as a biosimilar to ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of multiple inflammatory conditions. This is the first approval for a ustekinumab biosimilar in the United States.

Ustekinumab-auub was also granted an interchangeability designation, meaning that, depending on state law, a pharmacist may substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without consulting the prescribing provider.

“Today’s approval exemplifies the FDA’s longstanding commitment to support a competitive marketplace for biological products,” Sarah Yim, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement. “This approval can empower patients by helping to increase access to safe, effective, and high-quality medications at potentially lower cost.”

Ustekinumab, manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, targets interleukin-12 and IL-23 and was first approved in 2009. Ustekinumab-auub was developed by Amgen.

Ustekinumab-auub is approved for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy, active psoriatic arthritis, moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease, and moderate to severely active ulcerative colitis. It is also approved for pediatric patients aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy and active psoriatic arthritis.

The approval was based on “comprehensive review of scientific evidence,” including “comparisons of the products on an analytical level using an extensive battery of chemical and biological tests and biological assays that confirmed similarity in the structural and functional features of Wezlana and Stelara (including those known to impact safety and efficacy), and comparative human pharmacokinetic data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data,” the FDA said.

Some common side effects of ustekinumab-auub include nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, fatigue, and nausea. The most severe side effect of the biosimilar, as with the reference drug ustekinumab, is infection.

The product launch of ustekinumab-auub will be delayed as a part of a settlement of Johnson & Johnson’s lawsuit against Amgen, according to Reuters. The details of the settlement are confidential, but it was stated that the biosimilar would be available by Jan. 1, 2025.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab-auub (Wezlana) as a biosimilar to ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of multiple inflammatory conditions. This is the first approval for a ustekinumab biosimilar in the United States.

Ustekinumab-auub was also granted an interchangeability designation, meaning that, depending on state law, a pharmacist may substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without consulting the prescribing provider.

“Today’s approval exemplifies the FDA’s longstanding commitment to support a competitive marketplace for biological products,” Sarah Yim, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement. “This approval can empower patients by helping to increase access to safe, effective, and high-quality medications at potentially lower cost.”

Ustekinumab, manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, targets interleukin-12 and IL-23 and was first approved in 2009. Ustekinumab-auub was developed by Amgen.

Ustekinumab-auub is approved for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy, active psoriatic arthritis, moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease, and moderate to severely active ulcerative colitis. It is also approved for pediatric patients aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy and active psoriatic arthritis.

The approval was based on “comprehensive review of scientific evidence,” including “comparisons of the products on an analytical level using an extensive battery of chemical and biological tests and biological assays that confirmed similarity in the structural and functional features of Wezlana and Stelara (including those known to impact safety and efficacy), and comparative human pharmacokinetic data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data,” the FDA said.

Some common side effects of ustekinumab-auub include nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, fatigue, and nausea. The most severe side effect of the biosimilar, as with the reference drug ustekinumab, is infection.

The product launch of ustekinumab-auub will be delayed as a part of a settlement of Johnson & Johnson’s lawsuit against Amgen, according to Reuters. The details of the settlement are confidential, but it was stated that the biosimilar would be available by Jan. 1, 2025.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved ustekinumab-auub (Wezlana) as a biosimilar to ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of multiple inflammatory conditions. This is the first approval for a ustekinumab biosimilar in the United States.

Ustekinumab-auub was also granted an interchangeability designation, meaning that, depending on state law, a pharmacist may substitute the biosimilar for the reference product without consulting the prescribing provider.

“Today’s approval exemplifies the FDA’s longstanding commitment to support a competitive marketplace for biological products,” Sarah Yim, MD, director of the Office of Therapeutic Biologics and Biosimilars in the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, said in a statement. “This approval can empower patients by helping to increase access to safe, effective, and high-quality medications at potentially lower cost.”

Ustekinumab, manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, targets interleukin-12 and IL-23 and was first approved in 2009. Ustekinumab-auub was developed by Amgen.

Ustekinumab-auub is approved for the treatment of adult patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy, active psoriatic arthritis, moderate to severely active Crohn’s disease, and moderate to severely active ulcerative colitis. It is also approved for pediatric patients aged 6 years and older with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis who are candidates for phototherapy or systemic therapy and active psoriatic arthritis.

The approval was based on “comprehensive review of scientific evidence,” including “comparisons of the products on an analytical level using an extensive battery of chemical and biological tests and biological assays that confirmed similarity in the structural and functional features of Wezlana and Stelara (including those known to impact safety and efficacy), and comparative human pharmacokinetic data, clinical immunogenicity data, and other clinical safety and effectiveness data,” the FDA said.

Some common side effects of ustekinumab-auub include nasopharyngitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, fatigue, and nausea. The most severe side effect of the biosimilar, as with the reference drug ustekinumab, is infection.

The product launch of ustekinumab-auub will be delayed as a part of a settlement of Johnson & Johnson’s lawsuit against Amgen, according to Reuters. The details of the settlement are confidential, but it was stated that the biosimilar would be available by Jan. 1, 2025.

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

Prescriptions for semaglutide jumped 150% in the past year, with an 80% increase in prescriptions written per provider, new data suggest.

Among more than 350,000 prescribers in the nationwide DrFirst network between December 2022 and June 2023, prescriptions for the weight loss formulation Wegovy rose sixfold while those for Ozempic, the lower-dose version for treating type 2 diabetes, increased by 65%.

Before December 2022, prescribing for both semaglutide drug formulations had been relatively flat. Ozempic was approved in the United States for treating type 2 diabetes in 2017, and Wegovy for weight loss in 2021. Prescribing of oral type 2 diabetes drugs also rose during the study period but to a lesser degree.

General and family practice providers were the most frequent semaglutide providers, accounting for 30% of the total, followed by internists at 15%, endocrinologists at 4%, ob.gyns. at 2%, and pediatricians at 1%. Other specialists writing less than 1% of the prescriptions included cardiologists, emergency medicine physicians, hospitalists, psychiatrists, and surgeons.

“What I think is interesting is that in a relatively short period of time, primary care providers got comfortable with writing [prescriptions] for a drug that’s relatively new ... That isn’t always the case ... To me, it’s actually pretty telling that within a year or year and a half, the primary care field got very comfortable writing [prescriptions] for these [glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists],” DrFirst chief medical officer Colin Banas, MD, said in an interview.

Asked to comment, S. Sethu K. Reddy, MD, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, noted, “It is to be expected when there is an agent that not only lowers blood sugar levels but also may result in weight loss. These medications are packaged conveniently for a primary care physician to prescribe. There is enough awareness amongst the public in that the patients themselves often ask their physician about the medication.”

Moreover, Dr. Reddy noted, “there is clinical evidence that these medications not only improve diabetes control but also reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. The lack of cardiovascular safety data was a missing piece of the puzzle in the past. So, currently, if someone has type 2 diabetes and is at greater risk of cardiovascular disease, there is little controversy for the patient to receive GLP-1 analogs.”
 

Are patients actually getting the prescribed medications?

However, Sharon W. Lahiri, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine and Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, pointed out that prescription data don’t equate to actual drug use. “It depends what type of insurance a person has. ... We write prescriptions on a daily basis for semaglutide. At least five or more come into our inbox every day saying it’s denied.”

Earlier this year, Dr. Lahiri co-authored results from a survey of 125 health care providers between February 9 and March 14, 2022, seeking to identify factors influencing medication choices and barriers to prescribing both GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. High cost and the need for prior authorizations were reported as the main barriers to prescribing drugs in these two classes, along with a lack of experience among some specialists.

Dr. Lahiri told this news organization that many insurers don’t cover Wegovy at all, or they mandate stepped-care paradigms in which the patient must enroll in behavior modification programs for a period of time or first try older, less expensive weight loss drugs such as phentermine, topiramate, or orlistat before they authorize coverage for Wegovy or even for the older weight-loss GLP-1 agonist drug Saxenda. “And then, they require you to document why the prior drugs didn’t work or couldn’t be tolerated.”

Moreover, Wegovy coverage is often time-limited, varying anywhere from 3 months to 2 years, and some insurers require a visit where the patient must have lost at least 5% of their body weight for coverage to continue.

Dr. Lahiri said recently she’s also encountered such “step” requirements when she’s tried to prescribe the “twincretin” Mounjaro for treating type 2 diabetes, where insurers will require trials of other GLP-1 agonists first. “So, it’s very complicated. I would say the barriers are definitely worse now. I don’t think the number of written prescriptions reflects that at all.”

Indeed, Dr. Banas noted, “more patients are going to pay out of pocket for Wegovy than for Ozempic if they have a diabetes indication.” And he added, “In my clinical observation, insurance coverage for obesity medication appears to be holding steady. I haven’t seen a massive increase in these drugs being covered for obesity per se, but I definitely see more coverage for diabetes use cases.”

The study was funded by DrFirst. Dr. Banas is an employee of DrFirst. Dr. Reddy and Dr. Lahiri have no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prescriptions for semaglutide jumped 150% in the past year, with an 80% increase in prescriptions written per provider, new data suggest.

Among more than 350,000 prescribers in the nationwide DrFirst network between December 2022 and June 2023, prescriptions for the weight loss formulation Wegovy rose sixfold while those for Ozempic, the lower-dose version for treating type 2 diabetes, increased by 65%.

Before December 2022, prescribing for both semaglutide drug formulations had been relatively flat. Ozempic was approved in the United States for treating type 2 diabetes in 2017, and Wegovy for weight loss in 2021. Prescribing of oral type 2 diabetes drugs also rose during the study period but to a lesser degree.

General and family practice providers were the most frequent semaglutide providers, accounting for 30% of the total, followed by internists at 15%, endocrinologists at 4%, ob.gyns. at 2%, and pediatricians at 1%. Other specialists writing less than 1% of the prescriptions included cardiologists, emergency medicine physicians, hospitalists, psychiatrists, and surgeons.

“What I think is interesting is that in a relatively short period of time, primary care providers got comfortable with writing [prescriptions] for a drug that’s relatively new ... That isn’t always the case ... To me, it’s actually pretty telling that within a year or year and a half, the primary care field got very comfortable writing [prescriptions] for these [glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists],” DrFirst chief medical officer Colin Banas, MD, said in an interview.

Asked to comment, S. Sethu K. Reddy, MD, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, noted, “It is to be expected when there is an agent that not only lowers blood sugar levels but also may result in weight loss. These medications are packaged conveniently for a primary care physician to prescribe. There is enough awareness amongst the public in that the patients themselves often ask their physician about the medication.”

Moreover, Dr. Reddy noted, “there is clinical evidence that these medications not only improve diabetes control but also reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. The lack of cardiovascular safety data was a missing piece of the puzzle in the past. So, currently, if someone has type 2 diabetes and is at greater risk of cardiovascular disease, there is little controversy for the patient to receive GLP-1 analogs.”
 

Are patients actually getting the prescribed medications?

However, Sharon W. Lahiri, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine and Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, pointed out that prescription data don’t equate to actual drug use. “It depends what type of insurance a person has. ... We write prescriptions on a daily basis for semaglutide. At least five or more come into our inbox every day saying it’s denied.”

Earlier this year, Dr. Lahiri co-authored results from a survey of 125 health care providers between February 9 and March 14, 2022, seeking to identify factors influencing medication choices and barriers to prescribing both GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. High cost and the need for prior authorizations were reported as the main barriers to prescribing drugs in these two classes, along with a lack of experience among some specialists.

Dr. Lahiri told this news organization that many insurers don’t cover Wegovy at all, or they mandate stepped-care paradigms in which the patient must enroll in behavior modification programs for a period of time or first try older, less expensive weight loss drugs such as phentermine, topiramate, or orlistat before they authorize coverage for Wegovy or even for the older weight-loss GLP-1 agonist drug Saxenda. “And then, they require you to document why the prior drugs didn’t work or couldn’t be tolerated.”

Moreover, Wegovy coverage is often time-limited, varying anywhere from 3 months to 2 years, and some insurers require a visit where the patient must have lost at least 5% of their body weight for coverage to continue.

Dr. Lahiri said recently she’s also encountered such “step” requirements when she’s tried to prescribe the “twincretin” Mounjaro for treating type 2 diabetes, where insurers will require trials of other GLP-1 agonists first. “So, it’s very complicated. I would say the barriers are definitely worse now. I don’t think the number of written prescriptions reflects that at all.”

Indeed, Dr. Banas noted, “more patients are going to pay out of pocket for Wegovy than for Ozempic if they have a diabetes indication.” And he added, “In my clinical observation, insurance coverage for obesity medication appears to be holding steady. I haven’t seen a massive increase in these drugs being covered for obesity per se, but I definitely see more coverage for diabetes use cases.”

The study was funded by DrFirst. Dr. Banas is an employee of DrFirst. Dr. Reddy and Dr. Lahiri have no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Prescriptions for semaglutide jumped 150% in the past year, with an 80% increase in prescriptions written per provider, new data suggest.

Among more than 350,000 prescribers in the nationwide DrFirst network between December 2022 and June 2023, prescriptions for the weight loss formulation Wegovy rose sixfold while those for Ozempic, the lower-dose version for treating type 2 diabetes, increased by 65%.

Before December 2022, prescribing for both semaglutide drug formulations had been relatively flat. Ozempic was approved in the United States for treating type 2 diabetes in 2017, and Wegovy for weight loss in 2021. Prescribing of oral type 2 diabetes drugs also rose during the study period but to a lesser degree.

General and family practice providers were the most frequent semaglutide providers, accounting for 30% of the total, followed by internists at 15%, endocrinologists at 4%, ob.gyns. at 2%, and pediatricians at 1%. Other specialists writing less than 1% of the prescriptions included cardiologists, emergency medicine physicians, hospitalists, psychiatrists, and surgeons.

“What I think is interesting is that in a relatively short period of time, primary care providers got comfortable with writing [prescriptions] for a drug that’s relatively new ... That isn’t always the case ... To me, it’s actually pretty telling that within a year or year and a half, the primary care field got very comfortable writing [prescriptions] for these [glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists],” DrFirst chief medical officer Colin Banas, MD, said in an interview.

Asked to comment, S. Sethu K. Reddy, MD, president of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, noted, “It is to be expected when there is an agent that not only lowers blood sugar levels but also may result in weight loss. These medications are packaged conveniently for a primary care physician to prescribe. There is enough awareness amongst the public in that the patients themselves often ask their physician about the medication.”

Moreover, Dr. Reddy noted, “there is clinical evidence that these medications not only improve diabetes control but also reduce the risk of cardiovascular events. The lack of cardiovascular safety data was a missing piece of the puzzle in the past. So, currently, if someone has type 2 diabetes and is at greater risk of cardiovascular disease, there is little controversy for the patient to receive GLP-1 analogs.”
 

Are patients actually getting the prescribed medications?

However, Sharon W. Lahiri, MD, of Wayne State University School of Medicine and Henry Ford Hospital, Detroit, pointed out that prescription data don’t equate to actual drug use. “It depends what type of insurance a person has. ... We write prescriptions on a daily basis for semaglutide. At least five or more come into our inbox every day saying it’s denied.”

Earlier this year, Dr. Lahiri co-authored results from a survey of 125 health care providers between February 9 and March 14, 2022, seeking to identify factors influencing medication choices and barriers to prescribing both GLP-1 agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. High cost and the need for prior authorizations were reported as the main barriers to prescribing drugs in these two classes, along with a lack of experience among some specialists.

Dr. Lahiri told this news organization that many insurers don’t cover Wegovy at all, or they mandate stepped-care paradigms in which the patient must enroll in behavior modification programs for a period of time or first try older, less expensive weight loss drugs such as phentermine, topiramate, or orlistat before they authorize coverage for Wegovy or even for the older weight-loss GLP-1 agonist drug Saxenda. “And then, they require you to document why the prior drugs didn’t work or couldn’t be tolerated.”

Moreover, Wegovy coverage is often time-limited, varying anywhere from 3 months to 2 years, and some insurers require a visit where the patient must have lost at least 5% of their body weight for coverage to continue.

Dr. Lahiri said recently she’s also encountered such “step” requirements when she’s tried to prescribe the “twincretin” Mounjaro for treating type 2 diabetes, where insurers will require trials of other GLP-1 agonists first. “So, it’s very complicated. I would say the barriers are definitely worse now. I don’t think the number of written prescriptions reflects that at all.”

Indeed, Dr. Banas noted, “more patients are going to pay out of pocket for Wegovy than for Ozempic if they have a diabetes indication.” And he added, “In my clinical observation, insurance coverage for obesity medication appears to be holding steady. I haven’t seen a massive increase in these drugs being covered for obesity per se, but I definitely see more coverage for diabetes use cases.”

The study was funded by DrFirst. Dr. Banas is an employee of DrFirst. Dr. Reddy and Dr. Lahiri have no disclosures.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Should older physicians be forced to undergo cognitive tests to stay on the job? One 84-year-old ophthalmologist is suing her Michigan employer to stop the practice.

Lylas G. Mogk, MD, recently sued Henry Ford Health and Henry Ford Medical Group in federal court, alleging that the mandatory cognitive test violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and two Michigan laws.

Dr. Mogk’s lawsuit follows a widely watched 2020 case in which the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Yale New Haven Hospital, the teaching hospital of Yale University, for age discrimination. According to the lawsuit, the hospital illegally required neuropsychological and eye examinations of physicians aged 70 or older who sought to gain or renew staff privileges.

According to the lawsuit, Dr. Mogk is a member of Henry Ford Medical Group, which in 2017 required all members aged 70 and older to undergo cognitive screening tests. The tests would be repeated every 5 years thereafter, the lawsuit said, and anyone who refused would have to resign or be fired.

Dr. Mogk completed the screening, although no information about the results or outcome was mentioned in the lawsuit. It’s not clear whether Henry Ford’s cognitive test mandate remains in place; a spokesperson for Henry Ford Health and attorneys for Dr. Mogk declined to comment.

The number of practicing physicians in their 70s and beyond is rising. A 2021 report found that 12% of U.S. licensed physicians in 2020 were least 70 years old, up from 9% in 2010 and an increase from 75,627 to 120,510. The percentage of doctors aged 60-69 grew to 19% from 16% in 2010.

The number of health systems requiring testing of older physicians isn’t known, although various reports suggest at least a dozen have had mandates.

The University of California, San Diego, offers a physical and mental screening program that health organizations can use to evaluate “late-career physicians,” and a 2021 report noted that “Nebraska’s Children’s Hospital requires physicians aged 70 years and older to undergo an assessment by several peers, a complete physical, and unspecified cognitive screening.” Another system, Hartford HealthCare, mandated an annual reappointment process for clinicians aged 70 or older, requiring them to undergo various exams.

There’s evidence that physician performance declines with age. However, age-based cognitive testing can run afoul of federal and state laws against age discrimination, said Sharona Hoffman, JD, professor of law and bioethics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, in an interview.

Federal law prohibits age-related restrictions on employment but allows exceptions in areas like public safety, said Ms. Hoffman, who’s written about age discrimination and testing requirements. Pilots, law enforcement officers, firefighters, and air controllers, for example, can be forced to retire at specific ages.

It’s not clear how many physicians took the cognitive tests required by Henry Ford Medical Group.

However, details are available about the policy at Yale New Haven Hospital: According to the EEOC lawsuit, from 2016 to 2019, 145 physicians aged 70 or older took the mandatory test. Of those, seven individuals failed either or both of the exams, 14 were listed as “borderline deficient,” and one was listed as “deficient.” Another five refused testing and either resigned or changed their status. The EEOC case against the hospital is still pending.

“You can make an argument that health care is like a public safety job because people put their lives in the hands of doctors,” Ms. Hoffman said.

In defending mandatory cognitive tests, she said, health care systems could say, “it’s not really discrimination; we’re not forcing them to retire, we’re not limiting their work in any way. We’re just doing testing to make sure they perform competently, and the ADA allows us to conduct testing that is job-related.”

Indeed, a Yale New Haven Hospital spokesman made an argument along these lines in a statement regarding the 2020 lawsuit: The “policy is designed to protect our patients from potential harm while including safeguards to ensure that our physicians are treated fairly. The policy is modeled on similar standards in other industries, and we are confident that no discrimination has occurred and will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”

However, Ms. Hoffman herself doesn’t buy these arguments. Requiring tests only for older physicians does appear to be discrimination based on age, she said. As an alternative, “employers can do close supervision of people. As soon as there are performance problems or patient complaints, you need to see a doctor or get testing done.”

Another option is to mandate tests at specific ages via licensing boards. “I don’t think that would be legally problematic,” Ms. Hoffman said.

What else can be done to protect patients from clinicians whose skills have significantly declined as they’ve aged? The 2021 report in Neurology Clinical Practice notes that there are disadvantages to several strategies.

One common approach, waiting to evaluate a clinician until an error occurs, can lead to patient harm, the report’s authors wrote. Relying on reporting by peers is problematic because “physicians have been very resistant to reporting colleagues who are impaired” and the “medical apprenticeship model discourages physicians from reporting on senior colleagues.”

Physician self-assessment is yet another option, but “loss of insight may be a component of an individual’s impairment,” the authors wrote.

So what’s the best solution? The authors recommended “a relatively brief cognitive screening followed by more extensive testing for the most impaired individuals.” This approach “appears most reliable in confidentially identifying truly impaired physicians while minimizing the chance of a falsely flagging unimpaired individuals. This strategy allows aging physicians to continue working while safeguarding both their reputations and their patients’ health.”

Ms. Hoffman has no disclosures.

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

Should older physicians be forced to undergo cognitive tests to stay on the job? One 84-year-old ophthalmologist is suing her Michigan employer to stop the practice.

Lylas G. Mogk, MD, recently sued Henry Ford Health and Henry Ford Medical Group in federal court, alleging that the mandatory cognitive test violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and two Michigan laws.

Dr. Mogk’s lawsuit follows a widely watched 2020 case in which the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Yale New Haven Hospital, the teaching hospital of Yale University, for age discrimination. According to the lawsuit, the hospital illegally required neuropsychological and eye examinations of physicians aged 70 or older who sought to gain or renew staff privileges.

According to the lawsuit, Dr. Mogk is a member of Henry Ford Medical Group, which in 2017 required all members aged 70 and older to undergo cognitive screening tests. The tests would be repeated every 5 years thereafter, the lawsuit said, and anyone who refused would have to resign or be fired.

Dr. Mogk completed the screening, although no information about the results or outcome was mentioned in the lawsuit. It’s not clear whether Henry Ford’s cognitive test mandate remains in place; a spokesperson for Henry Ford Health and attorneys for Dr. Mogk declined to comment.

The number of practicing physicians in their 70s and beyond is rising. A 2021 report found that 12% of U.S. licensed physicians in 2020 were least 70 years old, up from 9% in 2010 and an increase from 75,627 to 120,510. The percentage of doctors aged 60-69 grew to 19% from 16% in 2010.

The number of health systems requiring testing of older physicians isn’t known, although various reports suggest at least a dozen have had mandates.

The University of California, San Diego, offers a physical and mental screening program that health organizations can use to evaluate “late-career physicians,” and a 2021 report noted that “Nebraska’s Children’s Hospital requires physicians aged 70 years and older to undergo an assessment by several peers, a complete physical, and unspecified cognitive screening.” Another system, Hartford HealthCare, mandated an annual reappointment process for clinicians aged 70 or older, requiring them to undergo various exams.

There’s evidence that physician performance declines with age. However, age-based cognitive testing can run afoul of federal and state laws against age discrimination, said Sharona Hoffman, JD, professor of law and bioethics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, in an interview.

Federal law prohibits age-related restrictions on employment but allows exceptions in areas like public safety, said Ms. Hoffman, who’s written about age discrimination and testing requirements. Pilots, law enforcement officers, firefighters, and air controllers, for example, can be forced to retire at specific ages.

It’s not clear how many physicians took the cognitive tests required by Henry Ford Medical Group.

However, details are available about the policy at Yale New Haven Hospital: According to the EEOC lawsuit, from 2016 to 2019, 145 physicians aged 70 or older took the mandatory test. Of those, seven individuals failed either or both of the exams, 14 were listed as “borderline deficient,” and one was listed as “deficient.” Another five refused testing and either resigned or changed their status. The EEOC case against the hospital is still pending.

“You can make an argument that health care is like a public safety job because people put their lives in the hands of doctors,” Ms. Hoffman said.

In defending mandatory cognitive tests, she said, health care systems could say, “it’s not really discrimination; we’re not forcing them to retire, we’re not limiting their work in any way. We’re just doing testing to make sure they perform competently, and the ADA allows us to conduct testing that is job-related.”

Indeed, a Yale New Haven Hospital spokesman made an argument along these lines in a statement regarding the 2020 lawsuit: The “policy is designed to protect our patients from potential harm while including safeguards to ensure that our physicians are treated fairly. The policy is modeled on similar standards in other industries, and we are confident that no discrimination has occurred and will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”

However, Ms. Hoffman herself doesn’t buy these arguments. Requiring tests only for older physicians does appear to be discrimination based on age, she said. As an alternative, “employers can do close supervision of people. As soon as there are performance problems or patient complaints, you need to see a doctor or get testing done.”

Another option is to mandate tests at specific ages via licensing boards. “I don’t think that would be legally problematic,” Ms. Hoffman said.

What else can be done to protect patients from clinicians whose skills have significantly declined as they’ve aged? The 2021 report in Neurology Clinical Practice notes that there are disadvantages to several strategies.

One common approach, waiting to evaluate a clinician until an error occurs, can lead to patient harm, the report’s authors wrote. Relying on reporting by peers is problematic because “physicians have been very resistant to reporting colleagues who are impaired” and the “medical apprenticeship model discourages physicians from reporting on senior colleagues.”

Physician self-assessment is yet another option, but “loss of insight may be a component of an individual’s impairment,” the authors wrote.

So what’s the best solution? The authors recommended “a relatively brief cognitive screening followed by more extensive testing for the most impaired individuals.” This approach “appears most reliable in confidentially identifying truly impaired physicians while minimizing the chance of a falsely flagging unimpaired individuals. This strategy allows aging physicians to continue working while safeguarding both their reputations and their patients’ health.”

Ms. Hoffman has no disclosures.

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

Should older physicians be forced to undergo cognitive tests to stay on the job? One 84-year-old ophthalmologist is suing her Michigan employer to stop the practice.

Lylas G. Mogk, MD, recently sued Henry Ford Health and Henry Ford Medical Group in federal court, alleging that the mandatory cognitive test violates the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, and two Michigan laws.

Dr. Mogk’s lawsuit follows a widely watched 2020 case in which the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued Yale New Haven Hospital, the teaching hospital of Yale University, for age discrimination. According to the lawsuit, the hospital illegally required neuropsychological and eye examinations of physicians aged 70 or older who sought to gain or renew staff privileges.

According to the lawsuit, Dr. Mogk is a member of Henry Ford Medical Group, which in 2017 required all members aged 70 and older to undergo cognitive screening tests. The tests would be repeated every 5 years thereafter, the lawsuit said, and anyone who refused would have to resign or be fired.

Dr. Mogk completed the screening, although no information about the results or outcome was mentioned in the lawsuit. It’s not clear whether Henry Ford’s cognitive test mandate remains in place; a spokesperson for Henry Ford Health and attorneys for Dr. Mogk declined to comment.

The number of practicing physicians in their 70s and beyond is rising. A 2021 report found that 12% of U.S. licensed physicians in 2020 were least 70 years old, up from 9% in 2010 and an increase from 75,627 to 120,510. The percentage of doctors aged 60-69 grew to 19% from 16% in 2010.

The number of health systems requiring testing of older physicians isn’t known, although various reports suggest at least a dozen have had mandates.

The University of California, San Diego, offers a physical and mental screening program that health organizations can use to evaluate “late-career physicians,” and a 2021 report noted that “Nebraska’s Children’s Hospital requires physicians aged 70 years and older to undergo an assessment by several peers, a complete physical, and unspecified cognitive screening.” Another system, Hartford HealthCare, mandated an annual reappointment process for clinicians aged 70 or older, requiring them to undergo various exams.

There’s evidence that physician performance declines with age. However, age-based cognitive testing can run afoul of federal and state laws against age discrimination, said Sharona Hoffman, JD, professor of law and bioethics at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, in an interview.

Federal law prohibits age-related restrictions on employment but allows exceptions in areas like public safety, said Ms. Hoffman, who’s written about age discrimination and testing requirements. Pilots, law enforcement officers, firefighters, and air controllers, for example, can be forced to retire at specific ages.

It’s not clear how many physicians took the cognitive tests required by Henry Ford Medical Group.

However, details are available about the policy at Yale New Haven Hospital: According to the EEOC lawsuit, from 2016 to 2019, 145 physicians aged 70 or older took the mandatory test. Of those, seven individuals failed either or both of the exams, 14 were listed as “borderline deficient,” and one was listed as “deficient.” Another five refused testing and either resigned or changed their status. The EEOC case against the hospital is still pending.

“You can make an argument that health care is like a public safety job because people put their lives in the hands of doctors,” Ms. Hoffman said.

In defending mandatory cognitive tests, she said, health care systems could say, “it’s not really discrimination; we’re not forcing them to retire, we’re not limiting their work in any way. We’re just doing testing to make sure they perform competently, and the ADA allows us to conduct testing that is job-related.”

Indeed, a Yale New Haven Hospital spokesman made an argument along these lines in a statement regarding the 2020 lawsuit: The “policy is designed to protect our patients from potential harm while including safeguards to ensure that our physicians are treated fairly. The policy is modeled on similar standards in other industries, and we are confident that no discrimination has occurred and will vigorously defend ourselves in this matter.”

However, Ms. Hoffman herself doesn’t buy these arguments. Requiring tests only for older physicians does appear to be discrimination based on age, she said. As an alternative, “employers can do close supervision of people. As soon as there are performance problems or patient complaints, you need to see a doctor or get testing done.”

Another option is to mandate tests at specific ages via licensing boards. “I don’t think that would be legally problematic,” Ms. Hoffman said.

What else can be done to protect patients from clinicians whose skills have significantly declined as they’ve aged? The 2021 report in Neurology Clinical Practice notes that there are disadvantages to several strategies.

One common approach, waiting to evaluate a clinician until an error occurs, can lead to patient harm, the report’s authors wrote. Relying on reporting by peers is problematic because “physicians have been very resistant to reporting colleagues who are impaired” and the “medical apprenticeship model discourages physicians from reporting on senior colleagues.”

Physician self-assessment is yet another option, but “loss of insight may be a component of an individual’s impairment,” the authors wrote.

So what’s the best solution? The authors recommended “a relatively brief cognitive screening followed by more extensive testing for the most impaired individuals.” This approach “appears most reliable in confidentially identifying truly impaired physicians while minimizing the chance of a falsely flagging unimpaired individuals. This strategy allows aging physicians to continue working while safeguarding both their reputations and their patients’ health.”

Ms. Hoffman has no disclosures.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved secukinumab for adults with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

The development, which was announced Oct. 31, makes secukinumab the first and only interleukin (IL)–17A inhibitor approved by the FDA for HS, which affects an estimated 1% of the worldwide population. It joins the tumor necrosis factor blocker adalimumab as the only FDA-approved treatment options for HS.

Secukinumab (Cosentyx) was previously approved by the FDA for treatment of  moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in adults, and several other indications including psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.

Approval for HS was based on the pivotal phase 3 SUNSHINE and SUNRISE trials, which had a combined enrollment of more than 1,000 patients with HS in 40 countries. The studies evaluated efficacy, safety, and tolerability of two dose regimens of the drug in adults with moderate to severe HS at 16 weeks and up to 52 weeks.

According to a press release from Novartis announcing the approval, results at week 16 showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) when treated with secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks, compared with placebo: 44.5% vs. 29.4%, respectively, in the SUNSHINE trial and 38.3.% vs. 26.1% in the SUNRISE trial (P < .05 for both associations).

Similarly, results at week 16 showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved an HiSCR when treated with secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks, compared with placebo: 41.3% vs. 29.4% in the SUNSHINE trial and 42.5% vs. 26.1% in the SUNRISE trial (P < .05 for both associations).

In addition, in an exploratory analysis out to 52 weeks, HiSCR values observed at week 16 following either dose regimen of secukinumab were improved over time up to week 52. In SUNSHINE, the values improved by 56.4% in patients treated with secukinumab every 3 weeks and by 56.3% in those treated with secukinumab every 4 weeks. In SUNRISE, the values improved by 65% in patients who were treated with secukinumab every 2 weeks and by 62.2% in those who were treated with the drug every 4 weeks.

In an interview, Haley Naik, MD, a dermatologist who directs the hidradenitis suppurativa program at the University of California, San Francisco, characterized the approval as a win for HS patients. “Patients now not only have a second option for approved therapy for HS, but also an option that raises the bar for what we can expect from therapeutic response,” she told this news organization. “I am excited to see a novel therapy that improves HS and quality of life for patients make it through the regulatory pipeline.”

Dr. Naik disclosed that she has received grant support from AbbVie; consulting fees from 23andme, AbbVie, Aristea Therapeutics, Nimbus Therapeutics, Medscape, Sonoma Biotherapeutics, DAVA Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Union Chimique Belge, and Novartis; investigator fees from Pfizer; and holds shares in Radera. She is also an associate editor for JAMA Dermatology and a board member of the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved secukinumab for adults with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

The development, which was announced Oct. 31, makes secukinumab the first and only interleukin (IL)–17A inhibitor approved by the FDA for HS, which affects an estimated 1% of the worldwide population. It joins the tumor necrosis factor blocker adalimumab as the only FDA-approved treatment options for HS.

Secukinumab (Cosentyx) was previously approved by the FDA for treatment of  moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in adults, and several other indications including psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.

Approval for HS was based on the pivotal phase 3 SUNSHINE and SUNRISE trials, which had a combined enrollment of more than 1,000 patients with HS in 40 countries. The studies evaluated efficacy, safety, and tolerability of two dose regimens of the drug in adults with moderate to severe HS at 16 weeks and up to 52 weeks.

According to a press release from Novartis announcing the approval, results at week 16 showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) when treated with secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks, compared with placebo: 44.5% vs. 29.4%, respectively, in the SUNSHINE trial and 38.3.% vs. 26.1% in the SUNRISE trial (P < .05 for both associations).

Similarly, results at week 16 showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved an HiSCR when treated with secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks, compared with placebo: 41.3% vs. 29.4% in the SUNSHINE trial and 42.5% vs. 26.1% in the SUNRISE trial (P < .05 for both associations).

In addition, in an exploratory analysis out to 52 weeks, HiSCR values observed at week 16 following either dose regimen of secukinumab were improved over time up to week 52. In SUNSHINE, the values improved by 56.4% in patients treated with secukinumab every 3 weeks and by 56.3% in those treated with secukinumab every 4 weeks. In SUNRISE, the values improved by 65% in patients who were treated with secukinumab every 2 weeks and by 62.2% in those who were treated with the drug every 4 weeks.

In an interview, Haley Naik, MD, a dermatologist who directs the hidradenitis suppurativa program at the University of California, San Francisco, characterized the approval as a win for HS patients. “Patients now not only have a second option for approved therapy for HS, but also an option that raises the bar for what we can expect from therapeutic response,” she told this news organization. “I am excited to see a novel therapy that improves HS and quality of life for patients make it through the regulatory pipeline.”

Dr. Naik disclosed that she has received grant support from AbbVie; consulting fees from 23andme, AbbVie, Aristea Therapeutics, Nimbus Therapeutics, Medscape, Sonoma Biotherapeutics, DAVA Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Union Chimique Belge, and Novartis; investigator fees from Pfizer; and holds shares in Radera. She is also an associate editor for JAMA Dermatology and a board member of the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation.

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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved secukinumab for adults with moderate to severe hidradenitis suppurativa (HS).

The development, which was announced Oct. 31, makes secukinumab the first and only interleukin (IL)–17A inhibitor approved by the FDA for HS, which affects an estimated 1% of the worldwide population. It joins the tumor necrosis factor blocker adalimumab as the only FDA-approved treatment options for HS.

Secukinumab (Cosentyx) was previously approved by the FDA for treatment of  moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in adults, and several other indications including psoriatic arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis.

Approval for HS was based on the pivotal phase 3 SUNSHINE and SUNRISE trials, which had a combined enrollment of more than 1,000 patients with HS in 40 countries. The studies evaluated efficacy, safety, and tolerability of two dose regimens of the drug in adults with moderate to severe HS at 16 weeks and up to 52 weeks.

According to a press release from Novartis announcing the approval, results at week 16 showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved a Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) when treated with secukinumab 300 mg every 2 weeks, compared with placebo: 44.5% vs. 29.4%, respectively, in the SUNSHINE trial and 38.3.% vs. 26.1% in the SUNRISE trial (P < .05 for both associations).

Similarly, results at week 16 showed that a significantly higher proportion of patients achieved an HiSCR when treated with secukinumab 300 mg every 4 weeks, compared with placebo: 41.3% vs. 29.4% in the SUNSHINE trial and 42.5% vs. 26.1% in the SUNRISE trial (P < .05 for both associations).

In addition, in an exploratory analysis out to 52 weeks, HiSCR values observed at week 16 following either dose regimen of secukinumab were improved over time up to week 52. In SUNSHINE, the values improved by 56.4% in patients treated with secukinumab every 3 weeks and by 56.3% in those treated with secukinumab every 4 weeks. In SUNRISE, the values improved by 65% in patients who were treated with secukinumab every 2 weeks and by 62.2% in those who were treated with the drug every 4 weeks.

In an interview, Haley Naik, MD, a dermatologist who directs the hidradenitis suppurativa program at the University of California, San Francisco, characterized the approval as a win for HS patients. “Patients now not only have a second option for approved therapy for HS, but also an option that raises the bar for what we can expect from therapeutic response,” she told this news organization. “I am excited to see a novel therapy that improves HS and quality of life for patients make it through the regulatory pipeline.”

Dr. Naik disclosed that she has received grant support from AbbVie; consulting fees from 23andme, AbbVie, Aristea Therapeutics, Nimbus Therapeutics, Medscape, Sonoma Biotherapeutics, DAVA Oncology, Boehringer Ingelheim, Union Chimique Belge, and Novartis; investigator fees from Pfizer; and holds shares in Radera. She is also an associate editor for JAMA Dermatology and a board member of the Hidradenitis Suppurativa Foundation.

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

Short-term use of JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication appears to not be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and venous thromboembolic events (VTE), results from a systematic literature review, and meta-analysis showed.

“There remains a knowledge gap regarding the risk of JAK inhibitor use and VTE and/or MACE in the dermatologic population,” researchers led by Michael S. Garshick, MD, a cardiologist at New York University Langone Health, wrote in their study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology . “Pooled safety studies suggest that the risk of MACE and VTE may be lower in patients treated with JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication than the risk observed in the ORAL Surveillance study, which may be related to the younger age and better health status of those enrolled in trials for dermatologic indications.” The results of that study, which included patients with rheumatoid arthritis only, resulted in the addition of a boxed warning in the labels for topical and oral JAK inhibitors regarding the increased risk of MACE, VTE, serious infections, malignancies, and death .

For the review – thought to be the first to specifically evaluate these risks for dermatologic indications – the researchers searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through April 1, 2023, for phase 3 dermatology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the risk of MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality with JAK inhibitors, compared with placebo or an active comparator in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory skin diseases. They followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and used a random-effects model and the DerSimonian-Laird method to calculate adverse events with odds ratios.

The database search yielded 35 RCTs with a total of 20,651 patients. Their mean age was 38.5 years, 54% were male, and the mean follow-up time was 4.9 months. Of the 35 trials, most (21) involved patients with atopic dermatitis, followed by psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (9 trials), alopecia areata (3 trials) and vitiligo (2 trials).

The researchers found no significant difference between JAK inhibitors and placebo/active comparator in composite MACE and all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.57) or in VTE (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.26-1.04).

In a secondary analysis, which included additional psoriatic arthritis RCTs, no significant differences between the treatment and placebo/active comparator groups were observed. Similarly, subgroup analyses of oral versus topical JAK inhibitors and a sensitivity analysis that excluded pediatric trials showed no significant differences between patients exposed to JAK inhibitors and those not exposed.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the review, including the lack of access to patient-level data, the fact that most trials only included short-term follow-up, and that the findings have limited generalizability to an older patient population. “It remains unclear if the cardiovascular risks of JAK inhibitors are primarily due to patient level cardiovascular risk factors or are drug mediated,” they concluded. “Dermatologists should carefully select patients and assess baseline cardiovascular risk factors when considering JAK therapy. Cardiovascular risk assessment should continue for the duration of treatment.”

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the center for eczema and itch at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study results, characterized the findings as reassuring to dermatologists who may be reluctant to initiate therapy with JAK inhibitors based on concerns about safety signals for MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality.

“These data systematically show that across medications and across conditions, there doesn’t appear to be an increased signal for these events during the short-term, placebo-controlled period which generally spans a few months in most studies,” he told this news organization. The findings, he added, “align well with our clinical experience to date for JAK inhibitor use in inflammatory skin disease. Short-term safety, particularly in relation to boxed warning events such MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality, have generally been favorable with real-world use. It’s good to have a rigorous statistical analysis to refer to when setting patient expectations.”

However, he noted that these data only examined short-term safety during the placebo or active comparator-controlled periods. “Considering that events like MACE or VTE may take many months or years to manifest, continued long-term data generation is needed to fully answer the question of risk,” he said.

Dr. Garshick disclosed that he received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Several other coauthors reported having advisory board roles and/or having received funding or support from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, investigator, and/or a member of the advisory board for several pharmaceutical companies, including those that develop JAK inhibitors.

Short-term use of JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication appears to not be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and venous thromboembolic events (VTE), results from a systematic literature review, and meta-analysis showed.

“There remains a knowledge gap regarding the risk of JAK inhibitor use and VTE and/or MACE in the dermatologic population,” researchers led by Michael S. Garshick, MD, a cardiologist at New York University Langone Health, wrote in their study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology . “Pooled safety studies suggest that the risk of MACE and VTE may be lower in patients treated with JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication than the risk observed in the ORAL Surveillance study, which may be related to the younger age and better health status of those enrolled in trials for dermatologic indications.” The results of that study, which included patients with rheumatoid arthritis only, resulted in the addition of a boxed warning in the labels for topical and oral JAK inhibitors regarding the increased risk of MACE, VTE, serious infections, malignancies, and death .

For the review – thought to be the first to specifically evaluate these risks for dermatologic indications – the researchers searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through April 1, 2023, for phase 3 dermatology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the risk of MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality with JAK inhibitors, compared with placebo or an active comparator in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory skin diseases. They followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and used a random-effects model and the DerSimonian-Laird method to calculate adverse events with odds ratios.

The database search yielded 35 RCTs with a total of 20,651 patients. Their mean age was 38.5 years, 54% were male, and the mean follow-up time was 4.9 months. Of the 35 trials, most (21) involved patients with atopic dermatitis, followed by psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (9 trials), alopecia areata (3 trials) and vitiligo (2 trials).

The researchers found no significant difference between JAK inhibitors and placebo/active comparator in composite MACE and all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.57) or in VTE (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.26-1.04).

In a secondary analysis, which included additional psoriatic arthritis RCTs, no significant differences between the treatment and placebo/active comparator groups were observed. Similarly, subgroup analyses of oral versus topical JAK inhibitors and a sensitivity analysis that excluded pediatric trials showed no significant differences between patients exposed to JAK inhibitors and those not exposed.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the review, including the lack of access to patient-level data, the fact that most trials only included short-term follow-up, and that the findings have limited generalizability to an older patient population. “It remains unclear if the cardiovascular risks of JAK inhibitors are primarily due to patient level cardiovascular risk factors or are drug mediated,” they concluded. “Dermatologists should carefully select patients and assess baseline cardiovascular risk factors when considering JAK therapy. Cardiovascular risk assessment should continue for the duration of treatment.”

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the center for eczema and itch at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study results, characterized the findings as reassuring to dermatologists who may be reluctant to initiate therapy with JAK inhibitors based on concerns about safety signals for MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality.

“These data systematically show that across medications and across conditions, there doesn’t appear to be an increased signal for these events during the short-term, placebo-controlled period which generally spans a few months in most studies,” he told this news organization. The findings, he added, “align well with our clinical experience to date for JAK inhibitor use in inflammatory skin disease. Short-term safety, particularly in relation to boxed warning events such MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality, have generally been favorable with real-world use. It’s good to have a rigorous statistical analysis to refer to when setting patient expectations.”

However, he noted that these data only examined short-term safety during the placebo or active comparator-controlled periods. “Considering that events like MACE or VTE may take many months or years to manifest, continued long-term data generation is needed to fully answer the question of risk,” he said.

Dr. Garshick disclosed that he received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Several other coauthors reported having advisory board roles and/or having received funding or support from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, investigator, and/or a member of the advisory board for several pharmaceutical companies, including those that develop JAK inhibitors.

Short-term use of JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication appears to not be associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and venous thromboembolic events (VTE), results from a systematic literature review, and meta-analysis showed.

“There remains a knowledge gap regarding the risk of JAK inhibitor use and VTE and/or MACE in the dermatologic population,” researchers led by Michael S. Garshick, MD, a cardiologist at New York University Langone Health, wrote in their study, which was published online in JAMA Dermatology . “Pooled safety studies suggest that the risk of MACE and VTE may be lower in patients treated with JAK inhibitors for a dermatologic indication than the risk observed in the ORAL Surveillance study, which may be related to the younger age and better health status of those enrolled in trials for dermatologic indications.” The results of that study, which included patients with rheumatoid arthritis only, resulted in the addition of a boxed warning in the labels for topical and oral JAK inhibitors regarding the increased risk of MACE, VTE, serious infections, malignancies, and death .

For the review – thought to be the first to specifically evaluate these risks for dermatologic indications – the researchers searched PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception through April 1, 2023, for phase 3 dermatology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) to evaluate the risk of MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality with JAK inhibitors, compared with placebo or an active comparator in the treatment of immune-mediated inflammatory skin diseases. They followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and used a random-effects model and the DerSimonian-Laird method to calculate adverse events with odds ratios.

The database search yielded 35 RCTs with a total of 20,651 patients. Their mean age was 38.5 years, 54% were male, and the mean follow-up time was 4.9 months. Of the 35 trials, most (21) involved patients with atopic dermatitis, followed by psoriasis/psoriatic arthritis (9 trials), alopecia areata (3 trials) and vitiligo (2 trials).

The researchers found no significant difference between JAK inhibitors and placebo/active comparator in composite MACE and all-cause mortality (odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-1.57) or in VTE (OR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.26-1.04).

In a secondary analysis, which included additional psoriatic arthritis RCTs, no significant differences between the treatment and placebo/active comparator groups were observed. Similarly, subgroup analyses of oral versus topical JAK inhibitors and a sensitivity analysis that excluded pediatric trials showed no significant differences between patients exposed to JAK inhibitors and those not exposed.

The researchers acknowledged certain limitations of the review, including the lack of access to patient-level data, the fact that most trials only included short-term follow-up, and that the findings have limited generalizability to an older patient population. “It remains unclear if the cardiovascular risks of JAK inhibitors are primarily due to patient level cardiovascular risk factors or are drug mediated,” they concluded. “Dermatologists should carefully select patients and assess baseline cardiovascular risk factors when considering JAK therapy. Cardiovascular risk assessment should continue for the duration of treatment.”

Raj Chovatiya, MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology and director of the center for eczema and itch at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study results, characterized the findings as reassuring to dermatologists who may be reluctant to initiate therapy with JAK inhibitors based on concerns about safety signals for MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality.

“These data systematically show that across medications and across conditions, there doesn’t appear to be an increased signal for these events during the short-term, placebo-controlled period which generally spans a few months in most studies,” he told this news organization. The findings, he added, “align well with our clinical experience to date for JAK inhibitor use in inflammatory skin disease. Short-term safety, particularly in relation to boxed warning events such MACE, VTE, and all-cause mortality, have generally been favorable with real-world use. It’s good to have a rigorous statistical analysis to refer to when setting patient expectations.”

However, he noted that these data only examined short-term safety during the placebo or active comparator-controlled periods. “Considering that events like MACE or VTE may take many months or years to manifest, continued long-term data generation is needed to fully answer the question of risk,” he said.

Dr. Garshick disclosed that he received grants from Pfizer and personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb during the conduct of the study and personal fees from Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Several other coauthors reported having advisory board roles and/or having received funding or support from several pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, investigator, and/or a member of the advisory board for several pharmaceutical companies, including those that develop JAK inhibitors.

BERLIN – Based on a phase 3 trial, treatment with the topical Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor ruxolitinib appears to be as safe and effective for the control of atopic dermatitis (AD) in children aged 2-11 years as previously shown in adolescents and adults for whom it already has an approved indication.

In this study – TRUE-AD3 – systemic exposure to ruxolitinib, which is selective for JAK1 and 2, was followed closely, and the low mean plasma concentrations “suggest systemic JAK inhibition is highly unlikely,” Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

For example, at a plasma concentration no greater than 27 nM in both younger and older patients at 4 weeks and again at 8 weeks, the systemic exposure was about a tenth of that (281 nM) previously associated with myelosuppression, he reported.

Given the boxed warning for oral JAK inhibitors, which was based largely on a 2022 study in adults with rheumatoid arthritis that associated tofacitinib, a nonspecific JAK inhibitor, with an increased risk of thrombotic events in adults already at risk for these events, safety was a focus of this phase 3 trial. The boxed warning is also in the labeling for topical ruxolitinib, 1.5% (Opzelura), approved for treating to mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in patients 12 years of age and older.

Dr. Eichenfield said there were no significant safety signals in the younger pediatric population. “There were no treatment-emergent adverse events suggestive of systemic JAK inhibition,” he said. This not only included the absence of serious infections, cardiac events, thromboses, or malignancies, but there was no signal of hematologic abnormalities, such as change in hemoglobin or neutrophil count.
 

Application site reactions

Rather, in the study of children ages 2-11, the only adverse events associated with topical ruxolitinib not observed in the control arm, which received the vehicle alone, were application site reactions, such as pain, erythema, and irritation. None of these occurred in more than 3% of those randomized to ruxolitinib regardless of dose.

Overall, in the trial, which randomized 329 patients ages from 2 to under 12 years with mild to moderate AD to ruxolitinib 1.5% cream, ruxolitinib 0.75% cream, or vehicle in a 2:2:1 fashion, there were just two (0.8%) discontinuations in the ruxolitinib groups (one in each dosing arm). There were none in the vehicle arm.

The safety supports an expansion of the AD indication for topical ruxolitinib in young children, because the rates of response were very similar to that seen in adolescents and adults in the previously published TRUE AD-1 and TRUE AD-2 trials, he said.

For the primary endpoint of Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) with at least a 2 grade improvement in IGA score from baseline, the response rates were 56.5%, 36.6%, and 10.8% for ruxolitinib 1.5%, ruxolitinib 0.75%, and vehicle respectively, at 8 weeks (P < .0001 for both doses relative to vehicle).

For the secondary efficacy endpoint of 75% or greater clearance on the Eczema Area and Severity Index, the rates were 67.2%, 51.5%, and 15.4%, for ruxolitinib 1.5%, ruxolitinib 0.75%, and vehicle respectively. Again, the advantage of both doses of ruxolitinib relative to vehicle was highly statistically significant (P < .0001).

Control of itch, evaluated with the Numerical Rating Scale was only evaluated in children 6-2 because of concern of the reliability of reporting in younger children. Control was defined as at least a 4-point improvement from baseline. It was achieved by 43.4%, 37.5%, and 29.7% by week 8 in the arms receiving the higher dose of ruxolitinib, the lower dose, and vehicle, respectively. The median time to achieving itch control was 11 days, 13 days, and 23 days, respectively. For all of these endpoints, the separation of the curves was readily apparent within the first 2 weeks.

The efficacy and tolerability of ruxolitinib appeared to be similar in younger children (ages 2-6) relative to older children.
 

Extension study in children near completion

Most of the patients who participated in TRUE AD-3 have been rolled over to the open-label extension trial, which is nearing completion. Those originally randomized to vehicle have been rerandomized to the lower or higher dose of ruxolitinib.

While this trial was focused on ruxolitinib as monotherapy, Thrasyvoulos Tzellos, MD, head of the department of dermatology, Nordland Hospital Trust, Bødo, Norway, questioned whether this is will be how it will be used in clinical practice. With the increasing array of therapies for AD, the “concept of combination therapy becomes more and more relevant,” he said after Dr. Eichenfield’s presentation.

Questioning whether an effective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent like ruxolitinib should be considered a first-line treatment in mild disease or an adjunctive treatment for AD of any severity, he suggested that it might be best considered within a combination.

Dr. Eichenfield agreed. “Once we get the drug approved in a controlled trial, I think we then figure out how to use it in clinical practice.” Based on his own use of ruxolitinib in adults, he noted that he has not seen this drug replace other therapies so much as provide another option for control.

“We have an increasing armamentarium of drugs to use for involvement in different areas of the body in order to get more long-term control of disease,” he said. As an effective topical nonsteroidal drug, he believes its addition to clinical care in younger children, if approved, will be meaningful.

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed financial relationships with more multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte, the manufacturer of ruxolitinib cream that provided funding for the True-AD trials. Dr. Tzellos reported financial relationships with AbbVie and UCB.

BERLIN – Based on a phase 3 trial, treatment with the topical Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor ruxolitinib appears to be as safe and effective for the control of atopic dermatitis (AD) in children aged 2-11 years as previously shown in adolescents and adults for whom it already has an approved indication.

In this study – TRUE-AD3 – systemic exposure to ruxolitinib, which is selective for JAK1 and 2, was followed closely, and the low mean plasma concentrations “suggest systemic JAK inhibition is highly unlikely,” Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

For example, at a plasma concentration no greater than 27 nM in both younger and older patients at 4 weeks and again at 8 weeks, the systemic exposure was about a tenth of that (281 nM) previously associated with myelosuppression, he reported.

Given the boxed warning for oral JAK inhibitors, which was based largely on a 2022 study in adults with rheumatoid arthritis that associated tofacitinib, a nonspecific JAK inhibitor, with an increased risk of thrombotic events in adults already at risk for these events, safety was a focus of this phase 3 trial. The boxed warning is also in the labeling for topical ruxolitinib, 1.5% (Opzelura), approved for treating to mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in patients 12 years of age and older.

Dr. Eichenfield said there were no significant safety signals in the younger pediatric population. “There were no treatment-emergent adverse events suggestive of systemic JAK inhibition,” he said. This not only included the absence of serious infections, cardiac events, thromboses, or malignancies, but there was no signal of hematologic abnormalities, such as change in hemoglobin or neutrophil count.
 

Application site reactions

Rather, in the study of children ages 2-11, the only adverse events associated with topical ruxolitinib not observed in the control arm, which received the vehicle alone, were application site reactions, such as pain, erythema, and irritation. None of these occurred in more than 3% of those randomized to ruxolitinib regardless of dose.

Overall, in the trial, which randomized 329 patients ages from 2 to under 12 years with mild to moderate AD to ruxolitinib 1.5% cream, ruxolitinib 0.75% cream, or vehicle in a 2:2:1 fashion, there were just two (0.8%) discontinuations in the ruxolitinib groups (one in each dosing arm). There were none in the vehicle arm.

The safety supports an expansion of the AD indication for topical ruxolitinib in young children, because the rates of response were very similar to that seen in adolescents and adults in the previously published TRUE AD-1 and TRUE AD-2 trials, he said.

For the primary endpoint of Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) with at least a 2 grade improvement in IGA score from baseline, the response rates were 56.5%, 36.6%, and 10.8% for ruxolitinib 1.5%, ruxolitinib 0.75%, and vehicle respectively, at 8 weeks (P < .0001 for both doses relative to vehicle).

For the secondary efficacy endpoint of 75% or greater clearance on the Eczema Area and Severity Index, the rates were 67.2%, 51.5%, and 15.4%, for ruxolitinib 1.5%, ruxolitinib 0.75%, and vehicle respectively. Again, the advantage of both doses of ruxolitinib relative to vehicle was highly statistically significant (P < .0001).

Control of itch, evaluated with the Numerical Rating Scale was only evaluated in children 6-2 because of concern of the reliability of reporting in younger children. Control was defined as at least a 4-point improvement from baseline. It was achieved by 43.4%, 37.5%, and 29.7% by week 8 in the arms receiving the higher dose of ruxolitinib, the lower dose, and vehicle, respectively. The median time to achieving itch control was 11 days, 13 days, and 23 days, respectively. For all of these endpoints, the separation of the curves was readily apparent within the first 2 weeks.

The efficacy and tolerability of ruxolitinib appeared to be similar in younger children (ages 2-6) relative to older children.
 

Extension study in children near completion

Most of the patients who participated in TRUE AD-3 have been rolled over to the open-label extension trial, which is nearing completion. Those originally randomized to vehicle have been rerandomized to the lower or higher dose of ruxolitinib.

While this trial was focused on ruxolitinib as monotherapy, Thrasyvoulos Tzellos, MD, head of the department of dermatology, Nordland Hospital Trust, Bødo, Norway, questioned whether this is will be how it will be used in clinical practice. With the increasing array of therapies for AD, the “concept of combination therapy becomes more and more relevant,” he said after Dr. Eichenfield’s presentation.

Questioning whether an effective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent like ruxolitinib should be considered a first-line treatment in mild disease or an adjunctive treatment for AD of any severity, he suggested that it might be best considered within a combination.

Dr. Eichenfield agreed. “Once we get the drug approved in a controlled trial, I think we then figure out how to use it in clinical practice.” Based on his own use of ruxolitinib in adults, he noted that he has not seen this drug replace other therapies so much as provide another option for control.

“We have an increasing armamentarium of drugs to use for involvement in different areas of the body in order to get more long-term control of disease,” he said. As an effective topical nonsteroidal drug, he believes its addition to clinical care in younger children, if approved, will be meaningful.

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed financial relationships with more multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte, the manufacturer of ruxolitinib cream that provided funding for the True-AD trials. Dr. Tzellos reported financial relationships with AbbVie and UCB.

BERLIN – Based on a phase 3 trial, treatment with the topical Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor ruxolitinib appears to be as safe and effective for the control of atopic dermatitis (AD) in children aged 2-11 years as previously shown in adolescents and adults for whom it already has an approved indication.

In this study – TRUE-AD3 – systemic exposure to ruxolitinib, which is selective for JAK1 and 2, was followed closely, and the low mean plasma concentrations “suggest systemic JAK inhibition is highly unlikely,” Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, said at the annual congress of the European Academy of Dermatology and Venereology.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

For example, at a plasma concentration no greater than 27 nM in both younger and older patients at 4 weeks and again at 8 weeks, the systemic exposure was about a tenth of that (281 nM) previously associated with myelosuppression, he reported.

Given the boxed warning for oral JAK inhibitors, which was based largely on a 2022 study in adults with rheumatoid arthritis that associated tofacitinib, a nonspecific JAK inhibitor, with an increased risk of thrombotic events in adults already at risk for these events, safety was a focus of this phase 3 trial. The boxed warning is also in the labeling for topical ruxolitinib, 1.5% (Opzelura), approved for treating to mild to moderate atopic dermatitis in patients 12 years of age and older.

Dr. Eichenfield said there were no significant safety signals in the younger pediatric population. “There were no treatment-emergent adverse events suggestive of systemic JAK inhibition,” he said. This not only included the absence of serious infections, cardiac events, thromboses, or malignancies, but there was no signal of hematologic abnormalities, such as change in hemoglobin or neutrophil count.
 

Application site reactions

Rather, in the study of children ages 2-11, the only adverse events associated with topical ruxolitinib not observed in the control arm, which received the vehicle alone, were application site reactions, such as pain, erythema, and irritation. None of these occurred in more than 3% of those randomized to ruxolitinib regardless of dose.

Overall, in the trial, which randomized 329 patients ages from 2 to under 12 years with mild to moderate AD to ruxolitinib 1.5% cream, ruxolitinib 0.75% cream, or vehicle in a 2:2:1 fashion, there were just two (0.8%) discontinuations in the ruxolitinib groups (one in each dosing arm). There were none in the vehicle arm.

The safety supports an expansion of the AD indication for topical ruxolitinib in young children, because the rates of response were very similar to that seen in adolescents and adults in the previously published TRUE AD-1 and TRUE AD-2 trials, he said.

For the primary endpoint of Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA) score of 0 (clear) or 1 (almost clear) with at least a 2 grade improvement in IGA score from baseline, the response rates were 56.5%, 36.6%, and 10.8% for ruxolitinib 1.5%, ruxolitinib 0.75%, and vehicle respectively, at 8 weeks (P < .0001 for both doses relative to vehicle).

For the secondary efficacy endpoint of 75% or greater clearance on the Eczema Area and Severity Index, the rates were 67.2%, 51.5%, and 15.4%, for ruxolitinib 1.5%, ruxolitinib 0.75%, and vehicle respectively. Again, the advantage of both doses of ruxolitinib relative to vehicle was highly statistically significant (P < .0001).

Control of itch, evaluated with the Numerical Rating Scale was only evaluated in children 6-2 because of concern of the reliability of reporting in younger children. Control was defined as at least a 4-point improvement from baseline. It was achieved by 43.4%, 37.5%, and 29.7% by week 8 in the arms receiving the higher dose of ruxolitinib, the lower dose, and vehicle, respectively. The median time to achieving itch control was 11 days, 13 days, and 23 days, respectively. For all of these endpoints, the separation of the curves was readily apparent within the first 2 weeks.

The efficacy and tolerability of ruxolitinib appeared to be similar in younger children (ages 2-6) relative to older children.
 

Extension study in children near completion

Most of the patients who participated in TRUE AD-3 have been rolled over to the open-label extension trial, which is nearing completion. Those originally randomized to vehicle have been rerandomized to the lower or higher dose of ruxolitinib.

While this trial was focused on ruxolitinib as monotherapy, Thrasyvoulos Tzellos, MD, head of the department of dermatology, Nordland Hospital Trust, Bødo, Norway, questioned whether this is will be how it will be used in clinical practice. With the increasing array of therapies for AD, the “concept of combination therapy becomes more and more relevant,” he said after Dr. Eichenfield’s presentation.

Questioning whether an effective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agent like ruxolitinib should be considered a first-line treatment in mild disease or an adjunctive treatment for AD of any severity, he suggested that it might be best considered within a combination.

Dr. Eichenfield agreed. “Once we get the drug approved in a controlled trial, I think we then figure out how to use it in clinical practice.” Based on his own use of ruxolitinib in adults, he noted that he has not seen this drug replace other therapies so much as provide another option for control.

“We have an increasing armamentarium of drugs to use for involvement in different areas of the body in order to get more long-term control of disease,” he said. As an effective topical nonsteroidal drug, he believes its addition to clinical care in younger children, if approved, will be meaningful.

Dr. Eichenfield disclosed financial relationships with more multiple pharmaceutical companies, including Incyte, the manufacturer of ruxolitinib cream that provided funding for the True-AD trials. Dr. Tzellos reported financial relationships with AbbVie and UCB.

CARLSBAD, CALIF. – For the estimated 10 million wounds that clinicians treat in the United States each year resulting from surgical procedures, trauma, burns, and other causes, the best outcome is a scar, a fibrotic dermis with a flattened epidermis that contains no sweat glands, no pilosebaceous units, and impaired nerve function.

But what if the outcome was skin regeneration instead of scar formation? At the annual symposium of the California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery, Philip O. Scumpia, MD, PhD, described the development of a biomaterial known as microporous annealed particle (MAP) hydrogel, which in preclinical studies has been shown to trigger the immune system leading to improved tissue repair and healthier, stronger skin.

“We’re preprogrammed to undergo scarring,” said Dr. Scumpia, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Tissue fibrosis is an evolutionary process” where a fibrotic matrix is deposited “as quickly as possible to close the gap caused by an injury,” he noted. “All of the cues in the normal wound healing process result in fibrosis, but we want to move from scarring to tissue regeneration. The goal is to make something that can shift from this evolutionary process, and it’s proven to be inherently difficult.”

Dr. Scumpia

Common approaches to wound treatment include simple and advanced dressings, negative pressure, and hyperbaric oxygen. For wounds that persist beyond 30 days, advanced treatment options include decellularized grafts such as placental membranes, amniotic membranes, and acellular dermal matrices. “There are also cellularized grafts such as dressings that contain neonatal dermal fibroblasts,” which are expensive, said Dr. Scumpia, director of dermatopathology at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center. “There are also semi-synthetic grafts such as single or double layer dermal replacement templates and synthetic dermal substitutes in the form of sheets or foam. All of these can help with wound coverage and help chronic wounds close on their own.”

Meanwhile, tissue regeneration – or efforts to restore tissue to its original functionality – include growth factors, stem cells, or replacement extracellular matrix (skin substitutes), or a combination. “Bioengineered dressings and bioengineered skin substitutes have shown modest improvement in wound healing but not tissue regeneration,” Dr. Scumpia said. “At best, we can accelerate scar formation and close the wound quicker, but nothing has been shown to regenerate tissue.”

Approaches to skin regeneration

Studies from the embryology literature have helped researchers develop better approaches to skin regeneration. For example, fetal skin heals without scarring when injured. “Hairs form from placodes, then sebaceous glands form, and fibroblasts that are part of the papillary mesenchymal body expressing special factors such as engrailed or CRABP1 drive hair follicle formation,” he said. “Many studies have shown that sonic hedgehog signaling, and Wnt/beta-catenin signaling can play a role in the development of new hair follicles. Also, fibroblasts in the dermis can drive hair follicle formation.”

Researchers are also learning about tissue regeneration from mouse models. For example, African spiny mice have been shown to heal regeneratively. “If you make wounds large enough on lab mice, the center heals regeneratively,” Dr. Scumpia said. “What’s interesting is that these same signals are present in embryonic hair follicle development. Why is this important? Who wants a hairy scar? It’s an organized structure that develops in the wound. That can help us understand what we need to put in so that our body regenerates on its own. In mouse models, the immune system has been shown to play a role in regeneration.”

Expanding on initial work conducted at UCLA, Dr. Scumpia and his colleagues founded San Diego-based Tempo Therapeutics, which is commercializing the MAP hydrogel to mimic the natural porosity and stiffness of skin. They sought to develop a new biomaterial, he said, noting that “the skin is porous on a microscale level, allowing cells to infiltrate different areas.” And the problem with existing biomaterials “is that they don’t incorporate into the skin very well,” he explained. “They’re usually stiff and rubbery and can cause a foreign body reaction, which can result in fibrous encapsulation and inflammation.”

The MAP hydrogel is composed of randomly packed “microsphere building blocks,” including an amino acid that promotes an immune response. When injected into a wound, the hydrogel forms a porous matrix in the tissue. Surface annealing locks in porosity and tissue grows into porous spaces, which avoids scar formation pathways and enables critical organs to regain function.

During in vivo tests, researchers observed decreases in inflammation compared with traditional hydrogels in the first 48 hours. “In mouse models, we found that if you inject in a hydrogel that has no porosity, the body tries to spit it out, and you have an immune reaction,” Dr. Scumpia said. “But when we used the MAP hydrogel, we found that cells can migrate through it, which allows wounds to heal quicker. When we added an antigen in the hydrogel trying to allow the hydrogel to degrade slower, it actually degraded more rapidly, but we found that new hair follicles formed in the center of these wounds, a hallmark of skin regeneration. My lab has been studying why this occurs and trying to use this to our advantage in other models.”

In an unpublished mouse burn wound model study, he and his colleagues excised a wound, but it never healed with regeneration in the center. “We don’t understand why,” he said. But when the researchers used the MAP gel in wounds of hairless mice, they observed the formation of sebaceous glands and hair follicles over the wound beds. “It’s an exciting finding to see hair follicles develop in the center of a wound,” Dr. Scumpia said. He noted that to date, use of the MAP hydrogel has demonstrated tissue regeneration in some of the 27 veterinary cases that have been performed, including for wounds following traumatic injuries or following tumor resections on paws that allowed the pets to avoid amputation.

Clinical trials planned

The first clinical trials of the MAP hydrogel are planned for treating complex diabetic wounds in early 2024 but will likely expand to other difficult-to-treat wounds, including venous stasis ulcers, decubitus ulcers, and use following large surgical resections. Dr. Scumpia and colleagues will also examine the regenerative biomaterial for tissue aesthetics, including dermal and deep tissue filler applications. The next steps in his laboratory, he said, are to combine biomaterials with stem cells, immune factors, or small molecular activators/inhibitors to improve sweat gland, nerve, or hair follicle regeneration.

Dr. Scumpia disclosed that he is a cofounder and shareholder in Tempo Therapeutics. He has also received grant support from the National Institutes of Health, Department of Veteran Affairs, and the LEO Foundation.

CARLSBAD, CALIF. – For the estimated 10 million wounds that clinicians treat in the United States each year resulting from surgical procedures, trauma, burns, and other causes, the best outcome is a scar, a fibrotic dermis with a flattened epidermis that contains no sweat glands, no pilosebaceous units, and impaired nerve function.

But what if the outcome was skin regeneration instead of scar formation? At the annual symposium of the California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery, Philip O. Scumpia, MD, PhD, described the development of a biomaterial known as microporous annealed particle (MAP) hydrogel, which in preclinical studies has been shown to trigger the immune system leading to improved tissue repair and healthier, stronger skin.

“We’re preprogrammed to undergo scarring,” said Dr. Scumpia, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Tissue fibrosis is an evolutionary process” where a fibrotic matrix is deposited “as quickly as possible to close the gap caused by an injury,” he noted. “All of the cues in the normal wound healing process result in fibrosis, but we want to move from scarring to tissue regeneration. The goal is to make something that can shift from this evolutionary process, and it’s proven to be inherently difficult.”

Dr. Scumpia

Common approaches to wound treatment include simple and advanced dressings, negative pressure, and hyperbaric oxygen. For wounds that persist beyond 30 days, advanced treatment options include decellularized grafts such as placental membranes, amniotic membranes, and acellular dermal matrices. “There are also cellularized grafts such as dressings that contain neonatal dermal fibroblasts,” which are expensive, said Dr. Scumpia, director of dermatopathology at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center. “There are also semi-synthetic grafts such as single or double layer dermal replacement templates and synthetic dermal substitutes in the form of sheets or foam. All of these can help with wound coverage and help chronic wounds close on their own.”

Meanwhile, tissue regeneration – or efforts to restore tissue to its original functionality – include growth factors, stem cells, or replacement extracellular matrix (skin substitutes), or a combination. “Bioengineered dressings and bioengineered skin substitutes have shown modest improvement in wound healing but not tissue regeneration,” Dr. Scumpia said. “At best, we can accelerate scar formation and close the wound quicker, but nothing has been shown to regenerate tissue.”

Approaches to skin regeneration

Studies from the embryology literature have helped researchers develop better approaches to skin regeneration. For example, fetal skin heals without scarring when injured. “Hairs form from placodes, then sebaceous glands form, and fibroblasts that are part of the papillary mesenchymal body expressing special factors such as engrailed or CRABP1 drive hair follicle formation,” he said. “Many studies have shown that sonic hedgehog signaling, and Wnt/beta-catenin signaling can play a role in the development of new hair follicles. Also, fibroblasts in the dermis can drive hair follicle formation.”

Researchers are also learning about tissue regeneration from mouse models. For example, African spiny mice have been shown to heal regeneratively. “If you make wounds large enough on lab mice, the center heals regeneratively,” Dr. Scumpia said. “What’s interesting is that these same signals are present in embryonic hair follicle development. Why is this important? Who wants a hairy scar? It’s an organized structure that develops in the wound. That can help us understand what we need to put in so that our body regenerates on its own. In mouse models, the immune system has been shown to play a role in regeneration.”

Expanding on initial work conducted at UCLA, Dr. Scumpia and his colleagues founded San Diego-based Tempo Therapeutics, which is commercializing the MAP hydrogel to mimic the natural porosity and stiffness of skin. They sought to develop a new biomaterial, he said, noting that “the skin is porous on a microscale level, allowing cells to infiltrate different areas.” And the problem with existing biomaterials “is that they don’t incorporate into the skin very well,” he explained. “They’re usually stiff and rubbery and can cause a foreign body reaction, which can result in fibrous encapsulation and inflammation.”

The MAP hydrogel is composed of randomly packed “microsphere building blocks,” including an amino acid that promotes an immune response. When injected into a wound, the hydrogel forms a porous matrix in the tissue. Surface annealing locks in porosity and tissue grows into porous spaces, which avoids scar formation pathways and enables critical organs to regain function.

During in vivo tests, researchers observed decreases in inflammation compared with traditional hydrogels in the first 48 hours. “In mouse models, we found that if you inject in a hydrogel that has no porosity, the body tries to spit it out, and you have an immune reaction,” Dr. Scumpia said. “But when we used the MAP hydrogel, we found that cells can migrate through it, which allows wounds to heal quicker. When we added an antigen in the hydrogel trying to allow the hydrogel to degrade slower, it actually degraded more rapidly, but we found that new hair follicles formed in the center of these wounds, a hallmark of skin regeneration. My lab has been studying why this occurs and trying to use this to our advantage in other models.”

In an unpublished mouse burn wound model study, he and his colleagues excised a wound, but it never healed with regeneration in the center. “We don’t understand why,” he said. But when the researchers used the MAP gel in wounds of hairless mice, they observed the formation of sebaceous glands and hair follicles over the wound beds. “It’s an exciting finding to see hair follicles develop in the center of a wound,” Dr. Scumpia said. He noted that to date, use of the MAP hydrogel has demonstrated tissue regeneration in some of the 27 veterinary cases that have been performed, including for wounds following traumatic injuries or following tumor resections on paws that allowed the pets to avoid amputation.

Clinical trials planned

The first clinical trials of the MAP hydrogel are planned for treating complex diabetic wounds in early 2024 but will likely expand to other difficult-to-treat wounds, including venous stasis ulcers, decubitus ulcers, and use following large surgical resections. Dr. Scumpia and colleagues will also examine the regenerative biomaterial for tissue aesthetics, including dermal and deep tissue filler applications. The next steps in his laboratory, he said, are to combine biomaterials with stem cells, immune factors, or small molecular activators/inhibitors to improve sweat gland, nerve, or hair follicle regeneration.

Dr. Scumpia disclosed that he is a cofounder and shareholder in Tempo Therapeutics. He has also received grant support from the National Institutes of Health, Department of Veteran Affairs, and the LEO Foundation.

CARLSBAD, CALIF. – For the estimated 10 million wounds that clinicians treat in the United States each year resulting from surgical procedures, trauma, burns, and other causes, the best outcome is a scar, a fibrotic dermis with a flattened epidermis that contains no sweat glands, no pilosebaceous units, and impaired nerve function.

But what if the outcome was skin regeneration instead of scar formation? At the annual symposium of the California Society of Dermatology & Dermatologic Surgery, Philip O. Scumpia, MD, PhD, described the development of a biomaterial known as microporous annealed particle (MAP) hydrogel, which in preclinical studies has been shown to trigger the immune system leading to improved tissue repair and healthier, stronger skin.

“We’re preprogrammed to undergo scarring,” said Dr. Scumpia, associate professor of dermatology at the University of California, Los Angeles. “Tissue fibrosis is an evolutionary process” where a fibrotic matrix is deposited “as quickly as possible to close the gap caused by an injury,” he noted. “All of the cues in the normal wound healing process result in fibrosis, but we want to move from scarring to tissue regeneration. The goal is to make something that can shift from this evolutionary process, and it’s proven to be inherently difficult.”

Dr. Scumpia

Common approaches to wound treatment include simple and advanced dressings, negative pressure, and hyperbaric oxygen. For wounds that persist beyond 30 days, advanced treatment options include decellularized grafts such as placental membranes, amniotic membranes, and acellular dermal matrices. “There are also cellularized grafts such as dressings that contain neonatal dermal fibroblasts,” which are expensive, said Dr. Scumpia, director of dermatopathology at the West Los Angeles VA Medical Center. “There are also semi-synthetic grafts such as single or double layer dermal replacement templates and synthetic dermal substitutes in the form of sheets or foam. All of these can help with wound coverage and help chronic wounds close on their own.”

Meanwhile, tissue regeneration – or efforts to restore tissue to its original functionality – include growth factors, stem cells, or replacement extracellular matrix (skin substitutes), or a combination. “Bioengineered dressings and bioengineered skin substitutes have shown modest improvement in wound healing but not tissue regeneration,” Dr. Scumpia said. “At best, we can accelerate scar formation and close the wound quicker, but nothing has been shown to regenerate tissue.”

Approaches to skin regeneration

Studies from the embryology literature have helped researchers develop better approaches to skin regeneration. For example, fetal skin heals without scarring when injured. “Hairs form from placodes, then sebaceous glands form, and fibroblasts that are part of the papillary mesenchymal body expressing special factors such as engrailed or CRABP1 drive hair follicle formation,” he said. “Many studies have shown that sonic hedgehog signaling, and Wnt/beta-catenin signaling can play a role in the development of new hair follicles. Also, fibroblasts in the dermis can drive hair follicle formation.”

Researchers are also learning about tissue regeneration from mouse models. For example, African spiny mice have been shown to heal regeneratively. “If you make wounds large enough on lab mice, the center heals regeneratively,” Dr. Scumpia said. “What’s interesting is that these same signals are present in embryonic hair follicle development. Why is this important? Who wants a hairy scar? It’s an organized structure that develops in the wound. That can help us understand what we need to put in so that our body regenerates on its own. In mouse models, the immune system has been shown to play a role in regeneration.”

Expanding on initial work conducted at UCLA, Dr. Scumpia and his colleagues founded San Diego-based Tempo Therapeutics, which is commercializing the MAP hydrogel to mimic the natural porosity and stiffness of skin. They sought to develop a new biomaterial, he said, noting that “the skin is porous on a microscale level, allowing cells to infiltrate different areas.” And the problem with existing biomaterials “is that they don’t incorporate into the skin very well,” he explained. “They’re usually stiff and rubbery and can cause a foreign body reaction, which can result in fibrous encapsulation and inflammation.”

The MAP hydrogel is composed of randomly packed “microsphere building blocks,” including an amino acid that promotes an immune response. When injected into a wound, the hydrogel forms a porous matrix in the tissue. Surface annealing locks in porosity and tissue grows into porous spaces, which avoids scar formation pathways and enables critical organs to regain function.

During in vivo tests, researchers observed decreases in inflammation compared with traditional hydrogels in the first 48 hours. “In mouse models, we found that if you inject in a hydrogel that has no porosity, the body tries to spit it out, and you have an immune reaction,” Dr. Scumpia said. “But when we used the MAP hydrogel, we found that cells can migrate through it, which allows wounds to heal quicker. When we added an antigen in the hydrogel trying to allow the hydrogel to degrade slower, it actually degraded more rapidly, but we found that new hair follicles formed in the center of these wounds, a hallmark of skin regeneration. My lab has been studying why this occurs and trying to use this to our advantage in other models.”

In an unpublished mouse burn wound model study, he and his colleagues excised a wound, but it never healed with regeneration in the center. “We don’t understand why,” he said. But when the researchers used the MAP gel in wounds of hairless mice, they observed the formation of sebaceous glands and hair follicles over the wound beds. “It’s an exciting finding to see hair follicles develop in the center of a wound,” Dr. Scumpia said. He noted that to date, use of the MAP hydrogel has demonstrated tissue regeneration in some of the 27 veterinary cases that have been performed, including for wounds following traumatic injuries or following tumor resections on paws that allowed the pets to avoid amputation.

Clinical trials planned

The first clinical trials of the MAP hydrogel are planned for treating complex diabetic wounds in early 2024 but will likely expand to other difficult-to-treat wounds, including venous stasis ulcers, decubitus ulcers, and use following large surgical resections. Dr. Scumpia and colleagues will also examine the regenerative biomaterial for tissue aesthetics, including dermal and deep tissue filler applications. The next steps in his laboratory, he said, are to combine biomaterials with stem cells, immune factors, or small molecular activators/inhibitors to improve sweat gland, nerve, or hair follicle regeneration.

Dr. Scumpia disclosed that he is a cofounder and shareholder in Tempo Therapeutics. He has also received grant support from the National Institutes of Health, Department of Veteran Affairs, and the LEO Foundation.

WASHINGTON – Half of youth broadcasting live streams on the online platform Twitch revealed their real-world location, and nearly half provided their name to viewers, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. It took researchers less than 5 minutes – and sometimes as little as 12 seconds – to find minors in different video game categories, suggesting the environment offers opportunities to predators to gain sensitive information about minors, reported Fiona Dubrosa, BS, BA, a visiting scholar at Cohen Children’s Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

A ‘clandestine, threatening digital environment’

“Twitch represents a clandestine, threatening digital environment where minors are interacting with adult strangers without parental supervision,” the authors concluded. “The nature of live streaming makes it particularly dangerous, as there is no way to take back information that has been revealed or regulate content or viewers. Parents and pediatricians should be aware of the dangers presented by Twitch and other live-streaming platforms and counsel children on best practices for Internet safety.”

Twitch is an online streaming platform where people can watch creator’s live content, such as music performances or narrating real-time video game playing. The platform requires live streamers to be 13 years old with a valid email address or phone number to create an account, but no age restrictions or identification requirements exist for viewers, “potentially putting minors in danger of being watched, followed, and groomed by predators,” the researchers noted. They added that people following different streamers receive notifications when those streamers are live. Further, “viewers can donate money to streamers, which can make it easier for predators to manipulate, track, and encourage risky behaviors from minors.”

To better understand the risks the platform might pose to minors, the researchers searched for and analyzed popular video game live streams that appeared to be streamed by minors who had their cameras on and their faces visible. Then the researchers noted the name of the video game, the topics discussed by the streamers, the time it took to find minors under each game, and each streamer’s age, name, follower count, location, streaming schedule, and social media links for money donations.

The researchers analyzed 100 Twitch streamers who were minors, who had a combined 1,755,452 million followers. Nearly half the streamers (47%) provided their presumably real names, and half (50%) gave out their location. Nearly two-thirds (64%) linked other social media accounts they had and encouraged viewers to follow them. Detailed schedules of when they would be live were available for 38% of the streamers, and 37% of the minor streamers were accepting money donations.

Only 11% of the discussion on the streams revealed personal details, most often related to trying on different outfits for viewers and talking about real-world locations they liked to visit. The researchers needed anywhere from 12 seconds to 5 minutes to find a minor in each game category.

”Young users clearly feel a false sense of safety on the platform; a significant proportion were willing to reveal personal information despite having no knowledge of who might be listening,” the researchers said. “The donation system provides a menacing avenue for manipulation and continued exploitation of minors. Our findings reveal the need for stricter age limitations for streamers and more stringent identity verification of audience members on Twitch.”
 

Open-minded parental guidance is warranted

Jenny Radesky, MD, a developmental behavioral pediatrician and media researcher at University of Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, was not surprised that many teens live stream on Twitch since it’s a popular platform for video gaming, but she was surprised at how many revealed their locations and other personal details.

courtesy University of Michigan Medicine

“I suspect that they do this to build closeness with their viewers, by seeming more authentic,” said Dr. Radesky, who was not involved in the study. “It is this type of parasocial relationship with influencers and gamers that keeps an audience engaged, and encourages future viewing and purchases.”

Their willingness to share personal details suggests it’s important to conduct qualitative research to find out how teen live streamers think about privacy risks, what privacy settings they can use and choose to use, and how they handle inappropriate contact from adults, Dr. Radesky said.

Meanwhile, parents should talk with their kids in an open-minded way about what platforms they use and what they like and dislike about them. She recommended parents read the Common Sense Media guide about different social platforms ”to understand what attracts kids to content on specific sites, what their pitfalls are, and what types of privacy and safety settings are available.”

“A child or teen is much more likely to be honest about negative experiences online if they think their parent will hear them out – not judge them or take away their tech. No teen wants to talk with a panicky parent,” Dr. Radesky said.

David Hill, MD, a hospitalist pediatrician for Goldsboro Pediatrics in Wayne County, North Carolina, who also specializes in media communication, said that Twitch is just one example of a social media platform where children can encounter a variety of dangers, including sometimes adult predators.

courtesy Goldsboro Pediatrics

“This just highlights the importance of parents having an ongoing conversation with their children about how they use their social media platforms and ensuring, just as we do with learning to ride a bicycle or learning to drive a car, that they apply some basic rules of safety,” Dr. Hill said. Then it’s important to keep coming back to that conversation “again and again as they grow and change and as those platforms change to ensure that those kids are continuing to apply those rules consistently.

“The best way for parents to keep up is ask your kids,” he said. “They love to share. They love to teach. They love to be in a position to show you something, especially if it’s something that interests them.”

An example of a rule would be setting personal accounts to private, not public, by default, Dr. Radesky said. “When interviewed, teens often say that they feel intruded upon by older people ‘stalking’ them or trying to connect with them on social platforms,” so making an account private can reduce those opportunities.

For teens who specifically want to create content on social platforms, parent oversight is needed, she said, but she acknowledged it can be a lot of work. “This might take the form of talking about what a teen plans to post before they do, expectations for positive behaviors or language, plans for privacy settings (such as public vs. private accounts), and what to do with trolls or hateful comment,” she said. “Parents may want to follow their child’s account to check in on it.”
 

Useful advice

Dr. Radesky also provided a handful of talking points that pediatricians can use in talking with patients who use these platforms:

• Keep your account private to just your friends and people you want to interact with. There are a lot of people on the Internet that you don’t want intruding upon your social life.
• Maintain your feed and the accounts you follow to keep it positive, entertaining, and not a source of stress or self-doubt. Content creators are always trying to grab your attention in new ways, some of which are rude or dehumanizing, so don’t waste your time on things that bring you down.
• Talk about why you want to post or live stream. Is it to get reactions or feel validated? If so, can you find other ways to feel validated that don’t require performing for other people? Is it to share a special skill? If so, how do you keep your posts creative and community building rather than attention grabbing? And how can you keep your parents involved so that they can help you navigate challenges?”

Ms. Dubrosa and Dr. Hill had no disclosures. Dr. Radesky is a consultant for Melissa & Doug. No information on external funding was provided.

WASHINGTON – Half of youth broadcasting live streams on the online platform Twitch revealed their real-world location, and nearly half provided their name to viewers, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. It took researchers less than 5 minutes – and sometimes as little as 12 seconds – to find minors in different video game categories, suggesting the environment offers opportunities to predators to gain sensitive information about minors, reported Fiona Dubrosa, BS, BA, a visiting scholar at Cohen Children’s Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

A ‘clandestine, threatening digital environment’

“Twitch represents a clandestine, threatening digital environment where minors are interacting with adult strangers without parental supervision,” the authors concluded. “The nature of live streaming makes it particularly dangerous, as there is no way to take back information that has been revealed or regulate content or viewers. Parents and pediatricians should be aware of the dangers presented by Twitch and other live-streaming platforms and counsel children on best practices for Internet safety.”

Twitch is an online streaming platform where people can watch creator’s live content, such as music performances or narrating real-time video game playing. The platform requires live streamers to be 13 years old with a valid email address or phone number to create an account, but no age restrictions or identification requirements exist for viewers, “potentially putting minors in danger of being watched, followed, and groomed by predators,” the researchers noted. They added that people following different streamers receive notifications when those streamers are live. Further, “viewers can donate money to streamers, which can make it easier for predators to manipulate, track, and encourage risky behaviors from minors.”

To better understand the risks the platform might pose to minors, the researchers searched for and analyzed popular video game live streams that appeared to be streamed by minors who had their cameras on and their faces visible. Then the researchers noted the name of the video game, the topics discussed by the streamers, the time it took to find minors under each game, and each streamer’s age, name, follower count, location, streaming schedule, and social media links for money donations.

The researchers analyzed 100 Twitch streamers who were minors, who had a combined 1,755,452 million followers. Nearly half the streamers (47%) provided their presumably real names, and half (50%) gave out their location. Nearly two-thirds (64%) linked other social media accounts they had and encouraged viewers to follow them. Detailed schedules of when they would be live were available for 38% of the streamers, and 37% of the minor streamers were accepting money donations.

Only 11% of the discussion on the streams revealed personal details, most often related to trying on different outfits for viewers and talking about real-world locations they liked to visit. The researchers needed anywhere from 12 seconds to 5 minutes to find a minor in each game category.

”Young users clearly feel a false sense of safety on the platform; a significant proportion were willing to reveal personal information despite having no knowledge of who might be listening,” the researchers said. “The donation system provides a menacing avenue for manipulation and continued exploitation of minors. Our findings reveal the need for stricter age limitations for streamers and more stringent identity verification of audience members on Twitch.”
 

Open-minded parental guidance is warranted

Jenny Radesky, MD, a developmental behavioral pediatrician and media researcher at University of Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, was not surprised that many teens live stream on Twitch since it’s a popular platform for video gaming, but she was surprised at how many revealed their locations and other personal details.

courtesy University of Michigan Medicine

“I suspect that they do this to build closeness with their viewers, by seeming more authentic,” said Dr. Radesky, who was not involved in the study. “It is this type of parasocial relationship with influencers and gamers that keeps an audience engaged, and encourages future viewing and purchases.”

Their willingness to share personal details suggests it’s important to conduct qualitative research to find out how teen live streamers think about privacy risks, what privacy settings they can use and choose to use, and how they handle inappropriate contact from adults, Dr. Radesky said.

Meanwhile, parents should talk with their kids in an open-minded way about what platforms they use and what they like and dislike about them. She recommended parents read the Common Sense Media guide about different social platforms ”to understand what attracts kids to content on specific sites, what their pitfalls are, and what types of privacy and safety settings are available.”

“A child or teen is much more likely to be honest about negative experiences online if they think their parent will hear them out – not judge them or take away their tech. No teen wants to talk with a panicky parent,” Dr. Radesky said.

David Hill, MD, a hospitalist pediatrician for Goldsboro Pediatrics in Wayne County, North Carolina, who also specializes in media communication, said that Twitch is just one example of a social media platform where children can encounter a variety of dangers, including sometimes adult predators.

courtesy Goldsboro Pediatrics

“This just highlights the importance of parents having an ongoing conversation with their children about how they use their social media platforms and ensuring, just as we do with learning to ride a bicycle or learning to drive a car, that they apply some basic rules of safety,” Dr. Hill said. Then it’s important to keep coming back to that conversation “again and again as they grow and change and as those platforms change to ensure that those kids are continuing to apply those rules consistently.

“The best way for parents to keep up is ask your kids,” he said. “They love to share. They love to teach. They love to be in a position to show you something, especially if it’s something that interests them.”

An example of a rule would be setting personal accounts to private, not public, by default, Dr. Radesky said. “When interviewed, teens often say that they feel intruded upon by older people ‘stalking’ them or trying to connect with them on social platforms,” so making an account private can reduce those opportunities.

For teens who specifically want to create content on social platforms, parent oversight is needed, she said, but she acknowledged it can be a lot of work. “This might take the form of talking about what a teen plans to post before they do, expectations for positive behaviors or language, plans for privacy settings (such as public vs. private accounts), and what to do with trolls or hateful comment,” she said. “Parents may want to follow their child’s account to check in on it.”
 

Useful advice

Dr. Radesky also provided a handful of talking points that pediatricians can use in talking with patients who use these platforms:

• Keep your account private to just your friends and people you want to interact with. There are a lot of people on the Internet that you don’t want intruding upon your social life.
• Maintain your feed and the accounts you follow to keep it positive, entertaining, and not a source of stress or self-doubt. Content creators are always trying to grab your attention in new ways, some of which are rude or dehumanizing, so don’t waste your time on things that bring you down.
• Talk about why you want to post or live stream. Is it to get reactions or feel validated? If so, can you find other ways to feel validated that don’t require performing for other people? Is it to share a special skill? If so, how do you keep your posts creative and community building rather than attention grabbing? And how can you keep your parents involved so that they can help you navigate challenges?”

Ms. Dubrosa and Dr. Hill had no disclosures. Dr. Radesky is a consultant for Melissa & Doug. No information on external funding was provided.

WASHINGTON – Half of youth broadcasting live streams on the online platform Twitch revealed their real-world location, and nearly half provided their name to viewers, according to research presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Pediatrics. It took researchers less than 5 minutes – and sometimes as little as 12 seconds – to find minors in different video game categories, suggesting the environment offers opportunities to predators to gain sensitive information about minors, reported Fiona Dubrosa, BS, BA, a visiting scholar at Cohen Children’s Medical Center, New York, and colleagues.

A ‘clandestine, threatening digital environment’

“Twitch represents a clandestine, threatening digital environment where minors are interacting with adult strangers without parental supervision,” the authors concluded. “The nature of live streaming makes it particularly dangerous, as there is no way to take back information that has been revealed or regulate content or viewers. Parents and pediatricians should be aware of the dangers presented by Twitch and other live-streaming platforms and counsel children on best practices for Internet safety.”

Twitch is an online streaming platform where people can watch creator’s live content, such as music performances or narrating real-time video game playing. The platform requires live streamers to be 13 years old with a valid email address or phone number to create an account, but no age restrictions or identification requirements exist for viewers, “potentially putting minors in danger of being watched, followed, and groomed by predators,” the researchers noted. They added that people following different streamers receive notifications when those streamers are live. Further, “viewers can donate money to streamers, which can make it easier for predators to manipulate, track, and encourage risky behaviors from minors.”

To better understand the risks the platform might pose to minors, the researchers searched for and analyzed popular video game live streams that appeared to be streamed by minors who had their cameras on and their faces visible. Then the researchers noted the name of the video game, the topics discussed by the streamers, the time it took to find minors under each game, and each streamer’s age, name, follower count, location, streaming schedule, and social media links for money donations.

The researchers analyzed 100 Twitch streamers who were minors, who had a combined 1,755,452 million followers. Nearly half the streamers (47%) provided their presumably real names, and half (50%) gave out their location. Nearly two-thirds (64%) linked other social media accounts they had and encouraged viewers to follow them. Detailed schedules of when they would be live were available for 38% of the streamers, and 37% of the minor streamers were accepting money donations.

Only 11% of the discussion on the streams revealed personal details, most often related to trying on different outfits for viewers and talking about real-world locations they liked to visit. The researchers needed anywhere from 12 seconds to 5 minutes to find a minor in each game category.

”Young users clearly feel a false sense of safety on the platform; a significant proportion were willing to reveal personal information despite having no knowledge of who might be listening,” the researchers said. “The donation system provides a menacing avenue for manipulation and continued exploitation of minors. Our findings reveal the need for stricter age limitations for streamers and more stringent identity verification of audience members on Twitch.”
 

Open-minded parental guidance is warranted

Jenny Radesky, MD, a developmental behavioral pediatrician and media researcher at University of Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, was not surprised that many teens live stream on Twitch since it’s a popular platform for video gaming, but she was surprised at how many revealed their locations and other personal details.

courtesy University of Michigan Medicine

“I suspect that they do this to build closeness with their viewers, by seeming more authentic,” said Dr. Radesky, who was not involved in the study. “It is this type of parasocial relationship with influencers and gamers that keeps an audience engaged, and encourages future viewing and purchases.”

Their willingness to share personal details suggests it’s important to conduct qualitative research to find out how teen live streamers think about privacy risks, what privacy settings they can use and choose to use, and how they handle inappropriate contact from adults, Dr. Radesky said.

Meanwhile, parents should talk with their kids in an open-minded way about what platforms they use and what they like and dislike about them. She recommended parents read the Common Sense Media guide about different social platforms ”to understand what attracts kids to content on specific sites, what their pitfalls are, and what types of privacy and safety settings are available.”

“A child or teen is much more likely to be honest about negative experiences online if they think their parent will hear them out – not judge them or take away their tech. No teen wants to talk with a panicky parent,” Dr. Radesky said.

David Hill, MD, a hospitalist pediatrician for Goldsboro Pediatrics in Wayne County, North Carolina, who also specializes in media communication, said that Twitch is just one example of a social media platform where children can encounter a variety of dangers, including sometimes adult predators.

courtesy Goldsboro Pediatrics

“This just highlights the importance of parents having an ongoing conversation with their children about how they use their social media platforms and ensuring, just as we do with learning to ride a bicycle or learning to drive a car, that they apply some basic rules of safety,” Dr. Hill said. Then it’s important to keep coming back to that conversation “again and again as they grow and change and as those platforms change to ensure that those kids are continuing to apply those rules consistently.

“The best way for parents to keep up is ask your kids,” he said. “They love to share. They love to teach. They love to be in a position to show you something, especially if it’s something that interests them.”

An example of a rule would be setting personal accounts to private, not public, by default, Dr. Radesky said. “When interviewed, teens often say that they feel intruded upon by older people ‘stalking’ them or trying to connect with them on social platforms,” so making an account private can reduce those opportunities.

For teens who specifically want to create content on social platforms, parent oversight is needed, she said, but she acknowledged it can be a lot of work. “This might take the form of talking about what a teen plans to post before they do, expectations for positive behaviors or language, plans for privacy settings (such as public vs. private accounts), and what to do with trolls or hateful comment,” she said. “Parents may want to follow their child’s account to check in on it.”
 

Useful advice

Dr. Radesky also provided a handful of talking points that pediatricians can use in talking with patients who use these platforms:

• Keep your account private to just your friends and people you want to interact with. There are a lot of people on the Internet that you don’t want intruding upon your social life.
• Maintain your feed and the accounts you follow to keep it positive, entertaining, and not a source of stress or self-doubt. Content creators are always trying to grab your attention in new ways, some of which are rude or dehumanizing, so don’t waste your time on things that bring you down.
• Talk about why you want to post or live stream. Is it to get reactions or feel validated? If so, can you find other ways to feel validated that don’t require performing for other people? Is it to share a special skill? If so, how do you keep your posts creative and community building rather than attention grabbing? And how can you keep your parents involved so that they can help you navigate challenges?”

Ms. Dubrosa and Dr. Hill had no disclosures. Dr. Radesky is a consultant for Melissa & Doug. No information on external funding was provided.