Video

SAN DIEGO – The results of a gene expression test, along with tumor thickness and patient age, can guide the need for sentinel lymph node biopsy, based on results from more than1,400 consecutively tested patients from 26 U.S. surgical oncology, medical oncology and dermatologic practices.

The findings, presented by John Vetto, MD, at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, indicate the DecisionDx test correctly identified patients aged 65 and older with T1-T2 tumors whose risk of sentinel node metastasis was lower than 5%. The most recent melanoma guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommend that clinicians “discuss and offer” sentinel node biopsy if a patient has a greater than 10% likelihood of a positive node. If the likelihood is 5%-10%, the recommendation is to “discuss and consider” the procedure. But if the likelihood of a positive node is less than 5%, the guidelines recommend against a biopsy.

“Sentinel node biopsy (has) risks, especially in medically compromised older patients,” Dr. Vetto, professor of surgery at the Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, said in an interview, in which he discussed clinical use of the test. “This test offers us a good way to assess the risk/benefit ratio so we can better care for patients, and follow the newest guidelines about sentinel node biopsy.”

The DecisionDx Melanoma, developed by Castle Biosciences, tests for the expression of 28 genes know to play a role in melanoma metastasis, and three control genes. Tumors are stratified either as Class 1, with a 3% chance of spreading within 5 years, or Class 2, with a 69% risk of metastasis. There are two subclasses: 1A, which has an extremely low risk of progression, and 2b, which has an extremely high risk of progression.

For patients with T1-T2 tumors who had a Class 1A test result (lowest risk of recurrence), SLN positivity was 4.6% for all ages, 2.8% in patients 55 years and older, and 1.6% in patients 65 years and older. For patients with T1-T2 tumors who had a Class 2B test result (highest risk of recurrence), SLN positivity was 18.8% for all ages, 16.4% in patients 55 years and older and 11.9% in patients 65 years and older.

Dr. Vetto is a paid speaker for Castle Biosciences.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Vetto et al. AAD 2018 late-breaking research, Abstract 6805

SAN DIEGO – The results of a gene expression test, along with tumor thickness and patient age, can guide the need for sentinel lymph node biopsy, based on results from more than1,400 consecutively tested patients from 26 U.S. surgical oncology, medical oncology and dermatologic practices.

The findings, presented by John Vetto, MD, at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, indicate the DecisionDx test correctly identified patients aged 65 and older with T1-T2 tumors whose risk of sentinel node metastasis was lower than 5%. The most recent melanoma guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommend that clinicians “discuss and offer” sentinel node biopsy if a patient has a greater than 10% likelihood of a positive node. If the likelihood is 5%-10%, the recommendation is to “discuss and consider” the procedure. But if the likelihood of a positive node is less than 5%, the guidelines recommend against a biopsy.

“Sentinel node biopsy (has) risks, especially in medically compromised older patients,” Dr. Vetto, professor of surgery at the Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, said in an interview, in which he discussed clinical use of the test. “This test offers us a good way to assess the risk/benefit ratio so we can better care for patients, and follow the newest guidelines about sentinel node biopsy.”

The DecisionDx Melanoma, developed by Castle Biosciences, tests for the expression of 28 genes know to play a role in melanoma metastasis, and three control genes. Tumors are stratified either as Class 1, with a 3% chance of spreading within 5 years, or Class 2, with a 69% risk of metastasis. There are two subclasses: 1A, which has an extremely low risk of progression, and 2b, which has an extremely high risk of progression.

For patients with T1-T2 tumors who had a Class 1A test result (lowest risk of recurrence), SLN positivity was 4.6% for all ages, 2.8% in patients 55 years and older, and 1.6% in patients 65 years and older. For patients with T1-T2 tumors who had a Class 2B test result (highest risk of recurrence), SLN positivity was 18.8% for all ages, 16.4% in patients 55 years and older and 11.9% in patients 65 years and older.

Dr. Vetto is a paid speaker for Castle Biosciences.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Vetto et al. AAD 2018 late-breaking research, Abstract 6805

SAN DIEGO – The results of a gene expression test, along with tumor thickness and patient age, can guide the need for sentinel lymph node biopsy, based on results from more than1,400 consecutively tested patients from 26 U.S. surgical oncology, medical oncology and dermatologic practices.

The findings, presented by John Vetto, MD, at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology, indicate the DecisionDx test correctly identified patients aged 65 and older with T1-T2 tumors whose risk of sentinel node metastasis was lower than 5%. The most recent melanoma guidelines from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommend that clinicians “discuss and offer” sentinel node biopsy if a patient has a greater than 10% likelihood of a positive node. If the likelihood is 5%-10%, the recommendation is to “discuss and consider” the procedure. But if the likelihood of a positive node is less than 5%, the guidelines recommend against a biopsy.

“Sentinel node biopsy (has) risks, especially in medically compromised older patients,” Dr. Vetto, professor of surgery at the Oregon Health and Sciences University, Portland, said in an interview, in which he discussed clinical use of the test. “This test offers us a good way to assess the risk/benefit ratio so we can better care for patients, and follow the newest guidelines about sentinel node biopsy.”

The DecisionDx Melanoma, developed by Castle Biosciences, tests for the expression of 28 genes know to play a role in melanoma metastasis, and three control genes. Tumors are stratified either as Class 1, with a 3% chance of spreading within 5 years, or Class 2, with a 69% risk of metastasis. There are two subclasses: 1A, which has an extremely low risk of progression, and 2b, which has an extremely high risk of progression.

For patients with T1-T2 tumors who had a Class 1A test result (lowest risk of recurrence), SLN positivity was 4.6% for all ages, 2.8% in patients 55 years and older, and 1.6% in patients 65 years and older. For patients with T1-T2 tumors who had a Class 2B test result (highest risk of recurrence), SLN positivity was 18.8% for all ages, 16.4% in patients 55 years and older and 11.9% in patients 65 years and older.

Dr. Vetto is a paid speaker for Castle Biosciences.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Vetto et al. AAD 2018 late-breaking research, Abstract 6805

SAN DIEGO – With propylene glycol already declared 2018 Allergen of the Year in a published journal article, the news at the Allergen of the Year session of the American Contact Dermatitis Society was announcement of the 2019 pick, parabens.

From a skin perspective, parabens are “perhaps the safest” preservative, but despite that they have a bad public reputation Donald V. Belsito, MD, said in his Allergen of the Year talk during the Society’s annual meeting held the day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

There is an unfounded public perception that parabens cause endocrine disruption. Naming parabens the “nonallergen” of the year for 2019 is an effort to dispel this myth, Dr. Belsito said in a video interview.

The public prejudice against parabens, exacerbated by many products that tout being paraben free, has helped cause a crisis because preservative systems in general have been under attack and facing restrictions. Dr. Belsito cited European limitations on the preservative methylisothiazolinone (Allergen of the Year in 2013) and withdrawal of formaldehyde (2015 Allergen of the Year) from many products.

Dr. Belsito also highlighted why propylene glycol received the nod as 2018’s Allergen of the Year (Dermatitis. 2018 Jan/Feb;29[1]:3-5). Propylene glycol is a very ubiquitous emulsifier found in cosmetics, foods, and both topical and oral medications. Caution is needed when running a patch test on the agent to distinguish an irritation reaction from an allergic reaction. Interpreting the test result correctly is very important, said Dr. Belsito, professor of dermatology at Columbia University in New York.

Parabens is the 20th Allergen of the Year named by the Society, an annual event since 2000.

Dr. Belsito has participated in the program since its start.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – With propylene glycol already declared 2018 Allergen of the Year in a published journal article, the news at the Allergen of the Year session of the American Contact Dermatitis Society was announcement of the 2019 pick, parabens.

From a skin perspective, parabens are “perhaps the safest” preservative, but despite that they have a bad public reputation Donald V. Belsito, MD, said in his Allergen of the Year talk during the Society’s annual meeting held the day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

There is an unfounded public perception that parabens cause endocrine disruption. Naming parabens the “nonallergen” of the year for 2019 is an effort to dispel this myth, Dr. Belsito said in a video interview.

The public prejudice against parabens, exacerbated by many products that tout being paraben free, has helped cause a crisis because preservative systems in general have been under attack and facing restrictions. Dr. Belsito cited European limitations on the preservative methylisothiazolinone (Allergen of the Year in 2013) and withdrawal of formaldehyde (2015 Allergen of the Year) from many products.

Dr. Belsito also highlighted why propylene glycol received the nod as 2018’s Allergen of the Year (Dermatitis. 2018 Jan/Feb;29[1]:3-5). Propylene glycol is a very ubiquitous emulsifier found in cosmetics, foods, and both topical and oral medications. Caution is needed when running a patch test on the agent to distinguish an irritation reaction from an allergic reaction. Interpreting the test result correctly is very important, said Dr. Belsito, professor of dermatology at Columbia University in New York.

Parabens is the 20th Allergen of the Year named by the Society, an annual event since 2000.

Dr. Belsito has participated in the program since its start.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – With propylene glycol already declared 2018 Allergen of the Year in a published journal article, the news at the Allergen of the Year session of the American Contact Dermatitis Society was announcement of the 2019 pick, parabens.

From a skin perspective, parabens are “perhaps the safest” preservative, but despite that they have a bad public reputation Donald V. Belsito, MD, said in his Allergen of the Year talk during the Society’s annual meeting held the day before the annual meeting of the American Academy of Dermatology.

There is an unfounded public perception that parabens cause endocrine disruption. Naming parabens the “nonallergen” of the year for 2019 is an effort to dispel this myth, Dr. Belsito said in a video interview.

The public prejudice against parabens, exacerbated by many products that tout being paraben free, has helped cause a crisis because preservative systems in general have been under attack and facing restrictions. Dr. Belsito cited European limitations on the preservative methylisothiazolinone (Allergen of the Year in 2013) and withdrawal of formaldehyde (2015 Allergen of the Year) from many products.

Dr. Belsito also highlighted why propylene glycol received the nod as 2018’s Allergen of the Year (Dermatitis. 2018 Jan/Feb;29[1]:3-5). Propylene glycol is a very ubiquitous emulsifier found in cosmetics, foods, and both topical and oral medications. Caution is needed when running a patch test on the agent to distinguish an irritation reaction from an allergic reaction. Interpreting the test result correctly is very important, said Dr. Belsito, professor of dermatology at Columbia University in New York.

Parabens is the 20th Allergen of the Year named by the Society, an annual event since 2000.

Dr. Belsito has participated in the program since its start.

[email protected]

LOS ANGELES – The benefits seen early after placement of stem cells near the damaged brain site of chronic stroke patients continued during 2 years of follow-up, Gary K. Steinberg, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Seeing sustained benefit out to 2 years was “quite surprising. We thought we’d lose the benefit,” Dr. Steinberg said in a video interview.

The findings “change our notion of what happens after a stroke. The damaged circuits can be resurrected,” said Dr. Steinberg, professor and chair of neurosurgery at Stanford (Calif.) University.

He reported long-term follow-up data for 18 chronic stroke patients who had received transplantation of allogeneic bone marrow–derived stem cells. The study’s primary efficacy endpoint, at 6 months after treatment, showed clinically meaningful improvements in several measures of stroke disability and function in 13 of the 18 patients (72%), including a rise of at least 10 points in the Fugl-Meyer total motor function score.

His new report on 2-year follow-up showed that these 6-month improvements continued. The average increase in Fugl-Meyer score over baseline was about 18 points at 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up.

Based on the promise shown in this pilot study, Dr. Steinberg and his associates are running a randomized study with 156 patients. Enrollment recently completed, and the results should be available during the second half of 2019, Dr. Steinberg said.

SanBio funded the study. Dr. Steinberg has been a consultant or advisor to Qool Therapeutics, Peter Lazic US, and NeuroSave.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Steinberg K et al. International Stroke Conference 2018, Abstract LB14.

LOS ANGELES – The benefits seen early after placement of stem cells near the damaged brain site of chronic stroke patients continued during 2 years of follow-up, Gary K. Steinberg, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Seeing sustained benefit out to 2 years was “quite surprising. We thought we’d lose the benefit,” Dr. Steinberg said in a video interview.

The findings “change our notion of what happens after a stroke. The damaged circuits can be resurrected,” said Dr. Steinberg, professor and chair of neurosurgery at Stanford (Calif.) University.

He reported long-term follow-up data for 18 chronic stroke patients who had received transplantation of allogeneic bone marrow–derived stem cells. The study’s primary efficacy endpoint, at 6 months after treatment, showed clinically meaningful improvements in several measures of stroke disability and function in 13 of the 18 patients (72%), including a rise of at least 10 points in the Fugl-Meyer total motor function score.

His new report on 2-year follow-up showed that these 6-month improvements continued. The average increase in Fugl-Meyer score over baseline was about 18 points at 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up.

Based on the promise shown in this pilot study, Dr. Steinberg and his associates are running a randomized study with 156 patients. Enrollment recently completed, and the results should be available during the second half of 2019, Dr. Steinberg said.

SanBio funded the study. Dr. Steinberg has been a consultant or advisor to Qool Therapeutics, Peter Lazic US, and NeuroSave.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Steinberg K et al. International Stroke Conference 2018, Abstract LB14.

LOS ANGELES – The benefits seen early after placement of stem cells near the damaged brain site of chronic stroke patients continued during 2 years of follow-up, Gary K. Steinberg, MD, said at the International Stroke Conference, sponsored by the American Heart Association.

Seeing sustained benefit out to 2 years was “quite surprising. We thought we’d lose the benefit,” Dr. Steinberg said in a video interview.

The findings “change our notion of what happens after a stroke. The damaged circuits can be resurrected,” said Dr. Steinberg, professor and chair of neurosurgery at Stanford (Calif.) University.

He reported long-term follow-up data for 18 chronic stroke patients who had received transplantation of allogeneic bone marrow–derived stem cells. The study’s primary efficacy endpoint, at 6 months after treatment, showed clinically meaningful improvements in several measures of stroke disability and function in 13 of the 18 patients (72%), including a rise of at least 10 points in the Fugl-Meyer total motor function score.

His new report on 2-year follow-up showed that these 6-month improvements continued. The average increase in Fugl-Meyer score over baseline was about 18 points at 6, 12, and 24 months of follow-up.

Based on the promise shown in this pilot study, Dr. Steinberg and his associates are running a randomized study with 156 patients. Enrollment recently completed, and the results should be available during the second half of 2019, Dr. Steinberg said.

SanBio funded the study. Dr. Steinberg has been a consultant or advisor to Qool Therapeutics, Peter Lazic US, and NeuroSave.

[email protected]

SOURCE: Steinberg K et al. International Stroke Conference 2018, Abstract LB14.

KAUAI, HAWAII – When it comes to diagnosing tinea capitis, you really can’t rely on a Wood’s lamp, according to pediatric dermatologist Robert Silverman, MD.

The Wood’s lamp generally misses the most common cause of tinea capitis in urban and suburban environments today, Trichophyton tonsurans, said Dr. Silverman, a pediatric dermatologist and clinical associate professor in the department of pediatrics at Georgetown University, Washington.

The dermatoscope, which “will allow you to see what is called the black dots of tinea capitis very, very closely,” is far better, he said in an interview at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by the Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation

He explained the limitations of the Wood’s lamp in this setting, and what to look for with a dermatoscope. He had other tips to share, too, from years of experience treating the condition, including how to differentiate tinea capitis on exam from its most common mimics, why it’s best to include a counter stain when using potassium hydroxide, and how to motivate parents to wash their child’s hair more frequently to reduce spores on the hair and scalp.

Dr. Silverman disclosed relationships with Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, and Regeneron.

SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

KAUAI, HAWAII – When it comes to diagnosing tinea capitis, you really can’t rely on a Wood’s lamp, according to pediatric dermatologist Robert Silverman, MD.

The Wood’s lamp generally misses the most common cause of tinea capitis in urban and suburban environments today, Trichophyton tonsurans, said Dr. Silverman, a pediatric dermatologist and clinical associate professor in the department of pediatrics at Georgetown University, Washington.

The dermatoscope, which “will allow you to see what is called the black dots of tinea capitis very, very closely,” is far better, he said in an interview at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by the Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation

He explained the limitations of the Wood’s lamp in this setting, and what to look for with a dermatoscope. He had other tips to share, too, from years of experience treating the condition, including how to differentiate tinea capitis on exam from its most common mimics, why it’s best to include a counter stain when using potassium hydroxide, and how to motivate parents to wash their child’s hair more frequently to reduce spores on the hair and scalp.

Dr. Silverman disclosed relationships with Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, and Regeneron.

SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

KAUAI, HAWAII – When it comes to diagnosing tinea capitis, you really can’t rely on a Wood’s lamp, according to pediatric dermatologist Robert Silverman, MD.

The Wood’s lamp generally misses the most common cause of tinea capitis in urban and suburban environments today, Trichophyton tonsurans, said Dr. Silverman, a pediatric dermatologist and clinical associate professor in the department of pediatrics at Georgetown University, Washington.

The dermatoscope, which “will allow you to see what is called the black dots of tinea capitis very, very closely,” is far better, he said in an interview at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by the Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation

He explained the limitations of the Wood’s lamp in this setting, and what to look for with a dermatoscope. He had other tips to share, too, from years of experience treating the condition, including how to differentiate tinea capitis on exam from its most common mimics, why it’s best to include a counter stain when using potassium hydroxide, and how to motivate parents to wash their child’s hair more frequently to reduce spores on the hair and scalp.

Dr. Silverman disclosed relationships with Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, and Regeneron.

SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

SAN DIEGO – New industry-funded research finds that patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) who took teriflunomide fared similarly to those who took dimethyl fumarate.

“The fundamental conclusion is that there’s little to separate them. If you look at efficacy, safety, and MRI scanning, there were no differences between the two medications that matter. ... Both drugs can be used with equal confidence,” said Stanley Cohan, MD, PhD, medical director of Providence MS Center in Portland, Ore.

Dr. Cohan spoke in a video interview at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

The researchers analyzed retrospective data collected in the phase 4 Teri-RADAR study, which tracked two groups of 50 patients each at MS centers in the United States as they took 14 mg of teriflunomide (Aubagio) daily or 240 mg of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera) twice daily.

In both groups, participants had an average age of about 49 years, about three-quarters were women, and about 93% were white. Twenty-two percent of those in the teriflunomide group had relapses in the 18 months before the index date, compared with 10% of the dimethyl fumarate group.

The study – funded by Sanofi, maker of teriflunomide – followed up with patients at a mean of 15-16 months.

Mean annualized percentage of brain volume change (PBVC) was lower in teriflunomide-treated patients, compared with those treated with dimethyl fumarate (–0.2% vs. –0.5%; P = .02). Also, fewer teriflunomide-treated patients showed signs of annualized PBVC above a mean annualized brain volume loss rate threshold of 0.4% (25.9% vs. 58.6%; P = .01).

As for adverse effects, rashes affected none of the teriflunomide group but 28% of the dimethyl fumarate group. The teriflunomide group experienced skin reactions (12%) and diarrhea (16%), while these adverse events were not reported in the dimethyl fumarate group.

The study authors reported a variety of disclosures, and several are employees of Sanofi. Dr. Cohan reported a variety of disclosures, including multiple relationships with Sanofi.

SAN DIEGO – New industry-funded research finds that patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) who took teriflunomide fared similarly to those who took dimethyl fumarate.

“The fundamental conclusion is that there’s little to separate them. If you look at efficacy, safety, and MRI scanning, there were no differences between the two medications that matter. ... Both drugs can be used with equal confidence,” said Stanley Cohan, MD, PhD, medical director of Providence MS Center in Portland, Ore.

Dr. Cohan spoke in a video interview at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

The researchers analyzed retrospective data collected in the phase 4 Teri-RADAR study, which tracked two groups of 50 patients each at MS centers in the United States as they took 14 mg of teriflunomide (Aubagio) daily or 240 mg of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera) twice daily.

In both groups, participants had an average age of about 49 years, about three-quarters were women, and about 93% were white. Twenty-two percent of those in the teriflunomide group had relapses in the 18 months before the index date, compared with 10% of the dimethyl fumarate group.

The study – funded by Sanofi, maker of teriflunomide – followed up with patients at a mean of 15-16 months.

Mean annualized percentage of brain volume change (PBVC) was lower in teriflunomide-treated patients, compared with those treated with dimethyl fumarate (–0.2% vs. –0.5%; P = .02). Also, fewer teriflunomide-treated patients showed signs of annualized PBVC above a mean annualized brain volume loss rate threshold of 0.4% (25.9% vs. 58.6%; P = .01).

As for adverse effects, rashes affected none of the teriflunomide group but 28% of the dimethyl fumarate group. The teriflunomide group experienced skin reactions (12%) and diarrhea (16%), while these adverse events were not reported in the dimethyl fumarate group.

The study authors reported a variety of disclosures, and several are employees of Sanofi. Dr. Cohan reported a variety of disclosures, including multiple relationships with Sanofi.

SAN DIEGO – New industry-funded research finds that patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (MS) who took teriflunomide fared similarly to those who took dimethyl fumarate.

“The fundamental conclusion is that there’s little to separate them. If you look at efficacy, safety, and MRI scanning, there were no differences between the two medications that matter. ... Both drugs can be used with equal confidence,” said Stanley Cohan, MD, PhD, medical director of Providence MS Center in Portland, Ore.

Dr. Cohan spoke in a video interview at the meeting held by the Americas Committee for Treatment and Research in Multiple Sclerosis.

The researchers analyzed retrospective data collected in the phase 4 Teri-RADAR study, which tracked two groups of 50 patients each at MS centers in the United States as they took 14 mg of teriflunomide (Aubagio) daily or 240 mg of delayed-release dimethyl fumarate (Tecfidera) twice daily.

In both groups, participants had an average age of about 49 years, about three-quarters were women, and about 93% were white. Twenty-two percent of those in the teriflunomide group had relapses in the 18 months before the index date, compared with 10% of the dimethyl fumarate group.

The study – funded by Sanofi, maker of teriflunomide – followed up with patients at a mean of 15-16 months.

Mean annualized percentage of brain volume change (PBVC) was lower in teriflunomide-treated patients, compared with those treated with dimethyl fumarate (–0.2% vs. –0.5%; P = .02). Also, fewer teriflunomide-treated patients showed signs of annualized PBVC above a mean annualized brain volume loss rate threshold of 0.4% (25.9% vs. 58.6%; P = .01).

As for adverse effects, rashes affected none of the teriflunomide group but 28% of the dimethyl fumarate group. The teriflunomide group experienced skin reactions (12%) and diarrhea (16%), while these adverse events were not reported in the dimethyl fumarate group.

The study authors reported a variety of disclosures, and several are employees of Sanofi. Dr. Cohan reported a variety of disclosures, including multiple relationships with Sanofi.

KAUAI, HAWAII – Pediatric dermatologists aren’t waiting for Food and Drug Administration approval to try dupilumab (Dupixent) for their patients with severe atopic dermatitis.

It’s not approved in children, but the possibility of good control without the side effects of cyclosporine and other alternatives is too much to resist. A phase 2, company-sponsored study reported Eczema Area and Severity Index score improvements of up to 76% in pediatric patients treated with dupilumab, an interleukin-4 and IL-13 signaling blocker approved in 2017 for moderate to severe AD in adults.

Large pediatric trials are pending, but with results like that, “many of us just feel if it was our own kid, and we could get dupilumab, we would like to do that first,” said Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego.

It’s not just dupilumab that’s causing excitement. With almost 20 biologics in the pipeline, eczema seems poised to undergo a revolution in treatment much like psoriasis has in recent years.

Dr. Eichenfield explained how the field is evolving and discussed the pediatric experience with dupilumab to date, in addition to how he is using crisaborole (Eucrisa), a topical nonsteroidal phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor approved for mild to moderate AD for children and adults ages two and older in December 2016, which doesn’t seem to have the duration limits of steroids, he said in an interview at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by the Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

Treatment of pediatric AD is “going to be a very different picture over the next few years,” he said.

Dr. Eichenfield is a consultant or investigator for many companies, including Regeneron/Sanofi, Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, and Allergan.

SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

KAUAI, HAWAII – Pediatric dermatologists aren’t waiting for Food and Drug Administration approval to try dupilumab (Dupixent) for their patients with severe atopic dermatitis.

It’s not approved in children, but the possibility of good control without the side effects of cyclosporine and other alternatives is too much to resist. A phase 2, company-sponsored study reported Eczema Area and Severity Index score improvements of up to 76% in pediatric patients treated with dupilumab, an interleukin-4 and IL-13 signaling blocker approved in 2017 for moderate to severe AD in adults.

Large pediatric trials are pending, but with results like that, “many of us just feel if it was our own kid, and we could get dupilumab, we would like to do that first,” said Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego.

It’s not just dupilumab that’s causing excitement. With almost 20 biologics in the pipeline, eczema seems poised to undergo a revolution in treatment much like psoriasis has in recent years.

Dr. Eichenfield explained how the field is evolving and discussed the pediatric experience with dupilumab to date, in addition to how he is using crisaborole (Eucrisa), a topical nonsteroidal phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor approved for mild to moderate AD for children and adults ages two and older in December 2016, which doesn’t seem to have the duration limits of steroids, he said in an interview at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by the Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

Treatment of pediatric AD is “going to be a very different picture over the next few years,” he said.

Dr. Eichenfield is a consultant or investigator for many companies, including Regeneron/Sanofi, Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, and Allergan.

SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]

KAUAI, HAWAII – Pediatric dermatologists aren’t waiting for Food and Drug Administration approval to try dupilumab (Dupixent) for their patients with severe atopic dermatitis.

It’s not approved in children, but the possibility of good control without the side effects of cyclosporine and other alternatives is too much to resist. A phase 2, company-sponsored study reported Eczema Area and Severity Index score improvements of up to 76% in pediatric patients treated with dupilumab, an interleukin-4 and IL-13 signaling blocker approved in 2017 for moderate to severe AD in adults.

Large pediatric trials are pending, but with results like that, “many of us just feel if it was our own kid, and we could get dupilumab, we would like to do that first,” said Lawrence Eichenfield, MD, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego.

It’s not just dupilumab that’s causing excitement. With almost 20 biologics in the pipeline, eczema seems poised to undergo a revolution in treatment much like psoriasis has in recent years.

Dr. Eichenfield explained how the field is evolving and discussed the pediatric experience with dupilumab to date, in addition to how he is using crisaborole (Eucrisa), a topical nonsteroidal phosphodiesterase-4 inhibitor approved for mild to moderate AD for children and adults ages two and older in December 2016, which doesn’t seem to have the duration limits of steroids, he said in an interview at the Hawaii Dermatology Seminar provided by the Global Academy for Medical Education/Skin Disease Education Foundation.

Treatment of pediatric AD is “going to be a very different picture over the next few years,” he said.

Dr. Eichenfield is a consultant or investigator for many companies, including Regeneron/Sanofi, Genentech, Novartis, Pfizer, Lilly, and Allergan.

SDEF/Global Academy for Medical Education and this news organization are owned by the same parent company.

[email protected]