Dermatology

New devices that use artificial intelligence (AI) to diagnose skin cancer – such as smartphone apps – have been popping up over the past few years, but there is some concern over the accuracy of these tools.

So far, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared two devices. Both are computer-aided skin lesion classification devices meant to help clinicians assess cases of suspected melanoma.

Both were given a class III designation. That classification is intended for products that are considered to have a high risk of harm because of flawed design or implementation. Many such devices are under development, and there has been a proposal to include these devices in class II, which is less restrictive.

The FDA turned to one of its expert panels for advice. At a meeting held on Aug. 29, experts on the panel offered differing views and expressed concerns about the accuracy of these devices.

This was the second day of meetings of the general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee. On the previous day, the panel held a wide-ranging discussion about expanding use of skin lesion analyzer devices.

The FDA sought the expert panel’s advice concerning a field that appears to be heating up quickly after relatively quiet times.

Two devices have been approved by the FDA so far, but only one is still being promoted – SciBase AB’s Nevisense. The Swedish company announced in May 2020 that it had received FDA approval for Nevisense 3.0, the third generation of their Nevisense system for early melanoma detection, an AI-based point-of-care system for the noninvasive evaluation of irregular moles.

The other device, known as MelaFind, was acquired by Strata Skin Sciences, but the company said in 2017 that it discontinued research and development, sales, and support activity related to the device, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But there’s been a swell in recent years in the number of publications related to the use of AI and machine learning, which could give rise to new tools for aiding in the diagnosis of skin conditions, including cancer. Google is among the companies that are involved in these efforts.

So, the FDA asked the expert panel to discuss a series of questions related to how the agency should weigh the risks of computer-aided devices for melanoma diagnosis. The agency also asked the panel to provide feedback about how well risks associated with such devices and tools might be managed and to offer suggestions.

The discussion at the July 29 meeting spun beyond narrow questions about reclassification of the current class III devices to topics involving emerging technology, such as efforts to apply AI to dermatology.

“Innovation continues. Medical device developers are anxious to plan how they might be able to develop the level of evidence that would meet your expectations” for future products, Binita Ashar, MD, a senior official in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, told the panel.


 

Company CEO backs tougher regulation

Simon Grant, the chief executive of SciBase, which markets Nevisense, the first and only skin cancer–detecting device currently on the U.S. market, sought to make a case for sticking with the tougher class III regulations.

Speaking during the public comment session, Mr. Grant said switching to class II designations would weaken the standards used in clearing products that analyze skin lesions so as to put patients at risk.

Under the FDA’s rules, the agency designates as class III devices that present potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Only about 10% of devices fall into this category. Such devices include implantable pacemakers and breast implants, as well as SciBase’s Nevisense.

About 43% of medical devices fall into the class II category, which includes powered wheelchairs and some pregnancy test kits, the FDA website says.

Class I medical devices pose minimal potential for harm and tend to be simpler in design. These include enema kits and elastic bandages, the FDA says.

Mr. Grant told the meeting that in his career he has worked on two class III products and about 20 class II products. (He had previously worked at medical startups Synectics Medical and Neoventa, as well as established multinationals such as Medtronic.)

“I can tell you that – practically – the FDA has many fewer sticks and much less control when it comes to class II devices,” he said. He offered an example of a manufacturer of a class II device having more latitude in making small changes to products without notifying the FDA.

In his hypothetical example, such a change could have unintended consequences, and “with AI systems, small changes can result in large and nonlinear or even random effects,” Mr. Grant said. “But it’s too late if the product is on the market and the harm has already occurred,” he said.

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association also protested the reclassifying of approved computer-aided melanoma detection class III devices.

In a statement posted on the FDA website as part of the materials for the meeting, the ASDSA raised a series of concerns about the prospects of expanded U.S. use of tools for assisting in diagnosing melanoma, including ones that would be marketed to consumers.

“To the extent that algorithms and devices for patient self-diagnosis of skin lesions are already widely available, they should be required to include detailed disclaimers that include that they are for entertainment and educational purposes and not a diagnostic device, that they are not approved by dermatologists or a recognized medical regulatory authority for self-diagnosis,” the ASDSA said.

Devices and algorithms in screening tools “are not highly regulated and remain unproven. They may result in wrong diagnoses, missed diagnoses, or over- or underdiagnosis,” the ASDSA added. “Both patients at low risk and those at high risk are better served by scheduling an in-person examination with a board-certified dermatologist, who can also help them determine the appropriate future skin screening schedule that is most appropriate for them.”

 

‘Stepping stone’

However, there is strong consumer demand for better information about skin conditions, and many patients face hurdles in going to dermatologists.

Google research has shown that consumers are seeking “a stepping stone” between the information they can easily find online and what they could get from a medical professional, said Lily Peng, MD, PhD, a director of product management for the health AI team at Google. Dr. Peng was a scheduled presenter at the July 29 meeting.

Consumers often are looking for more information on common conditions such as acne and poison ivy, and they sometimes face challenges in getting access to clinicians, she said.

“There are many unmet needs for consumers experiencing skin issues, many of which are lower-acuity conditions. There’s a big opportunity to increase accessibility and relevance of health journeys for consumers,” Dr. Peng said. “We have heard from consumers that they would like to have a self-help tool for nonserious conditions so they can decide when to seek medical attention.”

Dr. Peng’s presentation was not directly related to the question of class II or class III designation for existing products. Instead, her talk served as a glimpse into the work already underway in creating apps and tools for consumers.

Google researchers have published a number of studies in recent years about the use of AI to improve dermatology diagnosis.

A 2020 article reported on Google’s test of a form of AI known as deep learning system (DLS) to provide a differential diagnosis of skin conditions. On 963 validation cases, where a rotating panel of three board-certified dermatologists defined the reference standard, the DLS was noninferior to six other dermatologists and was superior to six primary care physicians (PCPs) and six nurse practitioners (NPs), according to a summary of the article.

A 2021 report published in JAMA Network Open said that use of an AI tool was associated with a higher agreement rate with dermatologists’ reference diagnoses for both PCPs and NPs.

In a 2021 blog post, Google scientists wrote that their AI model that powers a tool for checking skin conditions had earned European clearance, known as a CE mark, as a class I medical device.

SkinVision has an app that the company says “is available worldwide (with the exception of the USA and Canada).” The firm’s website includes a link where people in the United States and Canada can sign up for notifications about when SkinVision will be available in these nations. 


 

‘Not ready for prime time’

The FDA panel did not cast formal votes at the July 29 meeting. Rather, the members engaged in broad discussions about risks and potential benefits of new tools for aiding in the detection of skin cancer.

Among the key issues discussed was a question of whether the FDA could impose requirements and restrictions, known as special controls, to provide “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness” for computer-aided devices that provide adjunctive diagnostic information to dermatologists about lesions suspicious for melanoma.

Among the potential special controls would be clinical performance testing in regards to rates of the sensitivity (true-positive rate) and specificity (true-negative rate).

The FDA could also look at requirements on software validation and verification and cybersecurity testing, as well as directions on labeling so as to mitigate risk.

Dermatologists serving on the panel called for caution in proceeding with steps that would make it easier for companies to market tools for aiding in melanoma diagnosis than it would be within the class III framework used for MelaFind and Nevisense.

Many expressed concerns about the need to design studies that would answer questions about how well new tools could accurately identify concerning lesions.

The phrase “not ready for prime time” was used at least three times during the discussion.

FDA panelist Maral Skelsey, MD, a skin cancer specialist from Chevy Chase, Maryland, said that over the years, she had used both Nevisense and MelaFind.

She said she had found MelaFind “unusable,” owing in large part to the high number of false positives it generated. The device also was limited as to where on patients’ bodies it could be used.

However, she spoke with enthusiasm about the prospects for better devices to aid in diagnosis of skin lesions. “It’s an area where we’re on the verge, and we really need these devices. There’s a need for patients to be able to examine themselves, for nondermatologists to be able to assess lesions,” Dr. Skelsey said.

But this field is “just not ready for prime time” yet, even with special controls, Dr. Skelsey said. To loosen approval standards too quickly could be a “detriment to what’s coming down the pipeline,” she said.

“It’s harmful to things that are likely to be around the corner,” she said.

FDA panelist Renata Block, PA-C, who works in a Chicago dermatology practice, pressed for maintaining a class III designation. “We are not ready for prime time yet, though the data that is coming down the pipeline on what we have is quite exciting,” Ms. Block said.

FDA panelist Karla V. Ballman, PhD, a statistician from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said there would need to be a clear standard for clinical performance before proceeding toward reclassification of devices for aid in detecting melanoma. “I just don’t think it’s ready for prime time at this point and should remain in class III,” she said.

But there was support from some panelists for the idea of a lower bar for clearance, combined with special controls to ensure patient safety.

In expressing her view, FDA panelist Katalin Roth, MD, JD, professor of medicine, George Washington University, Washington, said she was an outlier in her support for the agency’s view that these risks could be managed and that future tools could allow more patients to take a step on the pathway toward critical diagnoses.

“I deal with a lot of people with cancer as a palliative care physician,” Dr. Roth said. “I think what we’re missing here is the issue of time. Melanoma is a terrible disease, and missing the diagnosis is a terrible thing, but I think special controls would be sufficient to counter the concerns of my colleagues on the committee.”

The FDA’s Dr. Ashar ended the meeting with questions posed to one panelist, Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Rotemberg has for years been working in the field of research on developing AI and other computer-based tools for detecting and diagnosing melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.

She has been publicly skeptical of the performance of commercial apps that scan moles and other lesions and that claim to identify which are cancerous. A May blog post on the Memorial Sloan Kettering website highlighted a recent British Journal of Dermatology article in which Dr. Rotemberg and coauthors reported on their evaluations of commercial apps. They judged them to be on average only 59% accurate, the blog post said.

However, during an earlier discussion at the meeting, she had spoken more positively about the prospects for using special controls in the near term to mitigate risk, although she said she would have a “very long list” of these requirements.

In the closing exchange with Dr. Ashar, Dr. Rotemberg outlined steps that could potentially ensure the safe use of tools to aid in melanoma screening. These included a need for postmarketing surveillance, which would require evaluation over time of algorithms used in tools meant to detect skin cancer.

“We need to have a mechanism for sampling,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “Most of our data is electronic now anyway, so comparing an algorithm and performance with biopsy results should not be that challenging.”

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

New devices that use artificial intelligence (AI) to diagnose skin cancer – such as smartphone apps – have been popping up over the past few years, but there is some concern over the accuracy of these tools.

So far, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared two devices. Both are computer-aided skin lesion classification devices meant to help clinicians assess cases of suspected melanoma.

Both were given a class III designation. That classification is intended for products that are considered to have a high risk of harm because of flawed design or implementation. Many such devices are under development, and there has been a proposal to include these devices in class II, which is less restrictive.

The FDA turned to one of its expert panels for advice. At a meeting held on Aug. 29, experts on the panel offered differing views and expressed concerns about the accuracy of these devices.

This was the second day of meetings of the general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee. On the previous day, the panel held a wide-ranging discussion about expanding use of skin lesion analyzer devices.

The FDA sought the expert panel’s advice concerning a field that appears to be heating up quickly after relatively quiet times.

Two devices have been approved by the FDA so far, but only one is still being promoted – SciBase AB’s Nevisense. The Swedish company announced in May 2020 that it had received FDA approval for Nevisense 3.0, the third generation of their Nevisense system for early melanoma detection, an AI-based point-of-care system for the noninvasive evaluation of irregular moles.

The other device, known as MelaFind, was acquired by Strata Skin Sciences, but the company said in 2017 that it discontinued research and development, sales, and support activity related to the device, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But there’s been a swell in recent years in the number of publications related to the use of AI and machine learning, which could give rise to new tools for aiding in the diagnosis of skin conditions, including cancer. Google is among the companies that are involved in these efforts.

So, the FDA asked the expert panel to discuss a series of questions related to how the agency should weigh the risks of computer-aided devices for melanoma diagnosis. The agency also asked the panel to provide feedback about how well risks associated with such devices and tools might be managed and to offer suggestions.

The discussion at the July 29 meeting spun beyond narrow questions about reclassification of the current class III devices to topics involving emerging technology, such as efforts to apply AI to dermatology.

“Innovation continues. Medical device developers are anxious to plan how they might be able to develop the level of evidence that would meet your expectations” for future products, Binita Ashar, MD, a senior official in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, told the panel.


 

Company CEO backs tougher regulation

Simon Grant, the chief executive of SciBase, which markets Nevisense, the first and only skin cancer–detecting device currently on the U.S. market, sought to make a case for sticking with the tougher class III regulations.

Speaking during the public comment session, Mr. Grant said switching to class II designations would weaken the standards used in clearing products that analyze skin lesions so as to put patients at risk.

Under the FDA’s rules, the agency designates as class III devices that present potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Only about 10% of devices fall into this category. Such devices include implantable pacemakers and breast implants, as well as SciBase’s Nevisense.

About 43% of medical devices fall into the class II category, which includes powered wheelchairs and some pregnancy test kits, the FDA website says.

Class I medical devices pose minimal potential for harm and tend to be simpler in design. These include enema kits and elastic bandages, the FDA says.

Mr. Grant told the meeting that in his career he has worked on two class III products and about 20 class II products. (He had previously worked at medical startups Synectics Medical and Neoventa, as well as established multinationals such as Medtronic.)

“I can tell you that – practically – the FDA has many fewer sticks and much less control when it comes to class II devices,” he said. He offered an example of a manufacturer of a class II device having more latitude in making small changes to products without notifying the FDA.

In his hypothetical example, such a change could have unintended consequences, and “with AI systems, small changes can result in large and nonlinear or even random effects,” Mr. Grant said. “But it’s too late if the product is on the market and the harm has already occurred,” he said.

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association also protested the reclassifying of approved computer-aided melanoma detection class III devices.

In a statement posted on the FDA website as part of the materials for the meeting, the ASDSA raised a series of concerns about the prospects of expanded U.S. use of tools for assisting in diagnosing melanoma, including ones that would be marketed to consumers.

“To the extent that algorithms and devices for patient self-diagnosis of skin lesions are already widely available, they should be required to include detailed disclaimers that include that they are for entertainment and educational purposes and not a diagnostic device, that they are not approved by dermatologists or a recognized medical regulatory authority for self-diagnosis,” the ASDSA said.

Devices and algorithms in screening tools “are not highly regulated and remain unproven. They may result in wrong diagnoses, missed diagnoses, or over- or underdiagnosis,” the ASDSA added. “Both patients at low risk and those at high risk are better served by scheduling an in-person examination with a board-certified dermatologist, who can also help them determine the appropriate future skin screening schedule that is most appropriate for them.”

 

‘Stepping stone’

However, there is strong consumer demand for better information about skin conditions, and many patients face hurdles in going to dermatologists.

Google research has shown that consumers are seeking “a stepping stone” between the information they can easily find online and what they could get from a medical professional, said Lily Peng, MD, PhD, a director of product management for the health AI team at Google. Dr. Peng was a scheduled presenter at the July 29 meeting.

Consumers often are looking for more information on common conditions such as acne and poison ivy, and they sometimes face challenges in getting access to clinicians, she said.

“There are many unmet needs for consumers experiencing skin issues, many of which are lower-acuity conditions. There’s a big opportunity to increase accessibility and relevance of health journeys for consumers,” Dr. Peng said. “We have heard from consumers that they would like to have a self-help tool for nonserious conditions so they can decide when to seek medical attention.”

Dr. Peng’s presentation was not directly related to the question of class II or class III designation for existing products. Instead, her talk served as a glimpse into the work already underway in creating apps and tools for consumers.

Google researchers have published a number of studies in recent years about the use of AI to improve dermatology diagnosis.

A 2020 article reported on Google’s test of a form of AI known as deep learning system (DLS) to provide a differential diagnosis of skin conditions. On 963 validation cases, where a rotating panel of three board-certified dermatologists defined the reference standard, the DLS was noninferior to six other dermatologists and was superior to six primary care physicians (PCPs) and six nurse practitioners (NPs), according to a summary of the article.

A 2021 report published in JAMA Network Open said that use of an AI tool was associated with a higher agreement rate with dermatologists’ reference diagnoses for both PCPs and NPs.

In a 2021 blog post, Google scientists wrote that their AI model that powers a tool for checking skin conditions had earned European clearance, known as a CE mark, as a class I medical device.

SkinVision has an app that the company says “is available worldwide (with the exception of the USA and Canada).” The firm’s website includes a link where people in the United States and Canada can sign up for notifications about when SkinVision will be available in these nations. 


 

‘Not ready for prime time’

The FDA panel did not cast formal votes at the July 29 meeting. Rather, the members engaged in broad discussions about risks and potential benefits of new tools for aiding in the detection of skin cancer.

Among the key issues discussed was a question of whether the FDA could impose requirements and restrictions, known as special controls, to provide “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness” for computer-aided devices that provide adjunctive diagnostic information to dermatologists about lesions suspicious for melanoma.

Among the potential special controls would be clinical performance testing in regards to rates of the sensitivity (true-positive rate) and specificity (true-negative rate).

The FDA could also look at requirements on software validation and verification and cybersecurity testing, as well as directions on labeling so as to mitigate risk.

Dermatologists serving on the panel called for caution in proceeding with steps that would make it easier for companies to market tools for aiding in melanoma diagnosis than it would be within the class III framework used for MelaFind and Nevisense.

Many expressed concerns about the need to design studies that would answer questions about how well new tools could accurately identify concerning lesions.

The phrase “not ready for prime time” was used at least three times during the discussion.

FDA panelist Maral Skelsey, MD, a skin cancer specialist from Chevy Chase, Maryland, said that over the years, she had used both Nevisense and MelaFind.

She said she had found MelaFind “unusable,” owing in large part to the high number of false positives it generated. The device also was limited as to where on patients’ bodies it could be used.

However, she spoke with enthusiasm about the prospects for better devices to aid in diagnosis of skin lesions. “It’s an area where we’re on the verge, and we really need these devices. There’s a need for patients to be able to examine themselves, for nondermatologists to be able to assess lesions,” Dr. Skelsey said.

But this field is “just not ready for prime time” yet, even with special controls, Dr. Skelsey said. To loosen approval standards too quickly could be a “detriment to what’s coming down the pipeline,” she said.

“It’s harmful to things that are likely to be around the corner,” she said.

FDA panelist Renata Block, PA-C, who works in a Chicago dermatology practice, pressed for maintaining a class III designation. “We are not ready for prime time yet, though the data that is coming down the pipeline on what we have is quite exciting,” Ms. Block said.

FDA panelist Karla V. Ballman, PhD, a statistician from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said there would need to be a clear standard for clinical performance before proceeding toward reclassification of devices for aid in detecting melanoma. “I just don’t think it’s ready for prime time at this point and should remain in class III,” she said.

But there was support from some panelists for the idea of a lower bar for clearance, combined with special controls to ensure patient safety.

In expressing her view, FDA panelist Katalin Roth, MD, JD, professor of medicine, George Washington University, Washington, said she was an outlier in her support for the agency’s view that these risks could be managed and that future tools could allow more patients to take a step on the pathway toward critical diagnoses.

“I deal with a lot of people with cancer as a palliative care physician,” Dr. Roth said. “I think what we’re missing here is the issue of time. Melanoma is a terrible disease, and missing the diagnosis is a terrible thing, but I think special controls would be sufficient to counter the concerns of my colleagues on the committee.”

The FDA’s Dr. Ashar ended the meeting with questions posed to one panelist, Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Rotemberg has for years been working in the field of research on developing AI and other computer-based tools for detecting and diagnosing melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.

She has been publicly skeptical of the performance of commercial apps that scan moles and other lesions and that claim to identify which are cancerous. A May blog post on the Memorial Sloan Kettering website highlighted a recent British Journal of Dermatology article in which Dr. Rotemberg and coauthors reported on their evaluations of commercial apps. They judged them to be on average only 59% accurate, the blog post said.

However, during an earlier discussion at the meeting, she had spoken more positively about the prospects for using special controls in the near term to mitigate risk, although she said she would have a “very long list” of these requirements.

In the closing exchange with Dr. Ashar, Dr. Rotemberg outlined steps that could potentially ensure the safe use of tools to aid in melanoma screening. These included a need for postmarketing surveillance, which would require evaluation over time of algorithms used in tools meant to detect skin cancer.

“We need to have a mechanism for sampling,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “Most of our data is electronic now anyway, so comparing an algorithm and performance with biopsy results should not be that challenging.”

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

New devices that use artificial intelligence (AI) to diagnose skin cancer – such as smartphone apps – have been popping up over the past few years, but there is some concern over the accuracy of these tools.

So far, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has cleared two devices. Both are computer-aided skin lesion classification devices meant to help clinicians assess cases of suspected melanoma.

Both were given a class III designation. That classification is intended for products that are considered to have a high risk of harm because of flawed design or implementation. Many such devices are under development, and there has been a proposal to include these devices in class II, which is less restrictive.

The FDA turned to one of its expert panels for advice. At a meeting held on Aug. 29, experts on the panel offered differing views and expressed concerns about the accuracy of these devices.

This was the second day of meetings of the general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee. On the previous day, the panel held a wide-ranging discussion about expanding use of skin lesion analyzer devices.

The FDA sought the expert panel’s advice concerning a field that appears to be heating up quickly after relatively quiet times.

Two devices have been approved by the FDA so far, but only one is still being promoted – SciBase AB’s Nevisense. The Swedish company announced in May 2020 that it had received FDA approval for Nevisense 3.0, the third generation of their Nevisense system for early melanoma detection, an AI-based point-of-care system for the noninvasive evaluation of irregular moles.

The other device, known as MelaFind, was acquired by Strata Skin Sciences, but the company said in 2017 that it discontinued research and development, sales, and support activity related to the device, according to a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

But there’s been a swell in recent years in the number of publications related to the use of AI and machine learning, which could give rise to new tools for aiding in the diagnosis of skin conditions, including cancer. Google is among the companies that are involved in these efforts.

So, the FDA asked the expert panel to discuss a series of questions related to how the agency should weigh the risks of computer-aided devices for melanoma diagnosis. The agency also asked the panel to provide feedback about how well risks associated with such devices and tools might be managed and to offer suggestions.

The discussion at the July 29 meeting spun beyond narrow questions about reclassification of the current class III devices to topics involving emerging technology, such as efforts to apply AI to dermatology.

“Innovation continues. Medical device developers are anxious to plan how they might be able to develop the level of evidence that would meet your expectations” for future products, Binita Ashar, MD, a senior official in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, told the panel.


 

Company CEO backs tougher regulation

Simon Grant, the chief executive of SciBase, which markets Nevisense, the first and only skin cancer–detecting device currently on the U.S. market, sought to make a case for sticking with the tougher class III regulations.

Speaking during the public comment session, Mr. Grant said switching to class II designations would weaken the standards used in clearing products that analyze skin lesions so as to put patients at risk.

Under the FDA’s rules, the agency designates as class III devices that present potential unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Only about 10% of devices fall into this category. Such devices include implantable pacemakers and breast implants, as well as SciBase’s Nevisense.

About 43% of medical devices fall into the class II category, which includes powered wheelchairs and some pregnancy test kits, the FDA website says.

Class I medical devices pose minimal potential for harm and tend to be simpler in design. These include enema kits and elastic bandages, the FDA says.

Mr. Grant told the meeting that in his career he has worked on two class III products and about 20 class II products. (He had previously worked at medical startups Synectics Medical and Neoventa, as well as established multinationals such as Medtronic.)

“I can tell you that – practically – the FDA has many fewer sticks and much less control when it comes to class II devices,” he said. He offered an example of a manufacturer of a class II device having more latitude in making small changes to products without notifying the FDA.

In his hypothetical example, such a change could have unintended consequences, and “with AI systems, small changes can result in large and nonlinear or even random effects,” Mr. Grant said. “But it’s too late if the product is on the market and the harm has already occurred,” he said.

The American Society for Dermatologic Surgery Association also protested the reclassifying of approved computer-aided melanoma detection class III devices.

In a statement posted on the FDA website as part of the materials for the meeting, the ASDSA raised a series of concerns about the prospects of expanded U.S. use of tools for assisting in diagnosing melanoma, including ones that would be marketed to consumers.

“To the extent that algorithms and devices for patient self-diagnosis of skin lesions are already widely available, they should be required to include detailed disclaimers that include that they are for entertainment and educational purposes and not a diagnostic device, that they are not approved by dermatologists or a recognized medical regulatory authority for self-diagnosis,” the ASDSA said.

Devices and algorithms in screening tools “are not highly regulated and remain unproven. They may result in wrong diagnoses, missed diagnoses, or over- or underdiagnosis,” the ASDSA added. “Both patients at low risk and those at high risk are better served by scheduling an in-person examination with a board-certified dermatologist, who can also help them determine the appropriate future skin screening schedule that is most appropriate for them.”

 

‘Stepping stone’

However, there is strong consumer demand for better information about skin conditions, and many patients face hurdles in going to dermatologists.

Google research has shown that consumers are seeking “a stepping stone” between the information they can easily find online and what they could get from a medical professional, said Lily Peng, MD, PhD, a director of product management for the health AI team at Google. Dr. Peng was a scheduled presenter at the July 29 meeting.

Consumers often are looking for more information on common conditions such as acne and poison ivy, and they sometimes face challenges in getting access to clinicians, she said.

“There are many unmet needs for consumers experiencing skin issues, many of which are lower-acuity conditions. There’s a big opportunity to increase accessibility and relevance of health journeys for consumers,” Dr. Peng said. “We have heard from consumers that they would like to have a self-help tool for nonserious conditions so they can decide when to seek medical attention.”

Dr. Peng’s presentation was not directly related to the question of class II or class III designation for existing products. Instead, her talk served as a glimpse into the work already underway in creating apps and tools for consumers.

Google researchers have published a number of studies in recent years about the use of AI to improve dermatology diagnosis.

A 2020 article reported on Google’s test of a form of AI known as deep learning system (DLS) to provide a differential diagnosis of skin conditions. On 963 validation cases, where a rotating panel of three board-certified dermatologists defined the reference standard, the DLS was noninferior to six other dermatologists and was superior to six primary care physicians (PCPs) and six nurse practitioners (NPs), according to a summary of the article.

A 2021 report published in JAMA Network Open said that use of an AI tool was associated with a higher agreement rate with dermatologists’ reference diagnoses for both PCPs and NPs.

In a 2021 blog post, Google scientists wrote that their AI model that powers a tool for checking skin conditions had earned European clearance, known as a CE mark, as a class I medical device.

SkinVision has an app that the company says “is available worldwide (with the exception of the USA and Canada).” The firm’s website includes a link where people in the United States and Canada can sign up for notifications about when SkinVision will be available in these nations. 


 

‘Not ready for prime time’

The FDA panel did not cast formal votes at the July 29 meeting. Rather, the members engaged in broad discussions about risks and potential benefits of new tools for aiding in the detection of skin cancer.

Among the key issues discussed was a question of whether the FDA could impose requirements and restrictions, known as special controls, to provide “reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness” for computer-aided devices that provide adjunctive diagnostic information to dermatologists about lesions suspicious for melanoma.

Among the potential special controls would be clinical performance testing in regards to rates of the sensitivity (true-positive rate) and specificity (true-negative rate).

The FDA could also look at requirements on software validation and verification and cybersecurity testing, as well as directions on labeling so as to mitigate risk.

Dermatologists serving on the panel called for caution in proceeding with steps that would make it easier for companies to market tools for aiding in melanoma diagnosis than it would be within the class III framework used for MelaFind and Nevisense.

Many expressed concerns about the need to design studies that would answer questions about how well new tools could accurately identify concerning lesions.

The phrase “not ready for prime time” was used at least three times during the discussion.

FDA panelist Maral Skelsey, MD, a skin cancer specialist from Chevy Chase, Maryland, said that over the years, she had used both Nevisense and MelaFind.

She said she had found MelaFind “unusable,” owing in large part to the high number of false positives it generated. The device also was limited as to where on patients’ bodies it could be used.

However, she spoke with enthusiasm about the prospects for better devices to aid in diagnosis of skin lesions. “It’s an area where we’re on the verge, and we really need these devices. There’s a need for patients to be able to examine themselves, for nondermatologists to be able to assess lesions,” Dr. Skelsey said.

But this field is “just not ready for prime time” yet, even with special controls, Dr. Skelsey said. To loosen approval standards too quickly could be a “detriment to what’s coming down the pipeline,” she said.

“It’s harmful to things that are likely to be around the corner,” she said.

FDA panelist Renata Block, PA-C, who works in a Chicago dermatology practice, pressed for maintaining a class III designation. “We are not ready for prime time yet, though the data that is coming down the pipeline on what we have is quite exciting,” Ms. Block said.

FDA panelist Karla V. Ballman, PhD, a statistician from Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, said there would need to be a clear standard for clinical performance before proceeding toward reclassification of devices for aid in detecting melanoma. “I just don’t think it’s ready for prime time at this point and should remain in class III,” she said.

But there was support from some panelists for the idea of a lower bar for clearance, combined with special controls to ensure patient safety.

In expressing her view, FDA panelist Katalin Roth, MD, JD, professor of medicine, George Washington University, Washington, said she was an outlier in her support for the agency’s view that these risks could be managed and that future tools could allow more patients to take a step on the pathway toward critical diagnoses.

“I deal with a lot of people with cancer as a palliative care physician,” Dr. Roth said. “I think what we’re missing here is the issue of time. Melanoma is a terrible disease, and missing the diagnosis is a terrible thing, but I think special controls would be sufficient to counter the concerns of my colleagues on the committee.”

The FDA’s Dr. Ashar ended the meeting with questions posed to one panelist, Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.

Dr. Rotemberg has for years been working in the field of research on developing AI and other computer-based tools for detecting and diagnosing melanoma, the deadliest form of skin cancer.

She has been publicly skeptical of the performance of commercial apps that scan moles and other lesions and that claim to identify which are cancerous. A May blog post on the Memorial Sloan Kettering website highlighted a recent British Journal of Dermatology article in which Dr. Rotemberg and coauthors reported on their evaluations of commercial apps. They judged them to be on average only 59% accurate, the blog post said.

However, during an earlier discussion at the meeting, she had spoken more positively about the prospects for using special controls in the near term to mitigate risk, although she said she would have a “very long list” of these requirements.

In the closing exchange with Dr. Ashar, Dr. Rotemberg outlined steps that could potentially ensure the safe use of tools to aid in melanoma screening. These included a need for postmarketing surveillance, which would require evaluation over time of algorithms used in tools meant to detect skin cancer.

“We need to have a mechanism for sampling,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “Most of our data is electronic now anyway, so comparing an algorithm and performance with biopsy results should not be that challenging.”

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

INDIANAPOLIS – Despite the common prevalence of skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania (hair pulling), no Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments exist for either condition.

And while both body-focused repetitive behavior disorders affect a greater proportion of females than males, “we have no current information that is useful about what hormonal influences may or may not play in terms of picking and pulling behaviors,” Jon E. Grant, MD, JD, MPH, professor of psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience at the University of Chicago, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “On a cognitive level, affected children and adolescents often have impaired inhibitory control but they are often 1-2 standard deviations above average IQ. They have Type A personalities [and are] very driven young kids. They also do not tolerate any down time or boredom. They need to be doing something all the time.”

According to the DSM-5, the diagnostic criteria for skin picking includes recurrent skin picking that results in skin lesions and is not attributable to another medical condition or substance. It also involves repeated attempts to decrease or stop the behavior and causes clinically significant distress or impairment.

“The other medical condition that we are interested in is the misuse of or dependence upon amphetamines or other prescription-based or illicit stimulants,” Dr. Grant said. “I saw a young man who was using about 600 mg of Ritalin a day, and he was picking all over the place. He did not have a primary skin disorder.”

The lifetime prevalence of skin picking disorder ranges between 1.4% and 5.4% of the general population. However, about 63% of people in a community sample endorsed some form of skin picking, and in a study of 105 college students, almost 40% said they picked their skin and had noticeable tissue damage as a result.

“Skin picking is not the same as self-injury,” Dr. Grant said. “It is also not simply an anxiety disorder. Anxiety will make people who pick worse, so people will say that they pick when they’re under stress. I can give them benzodiazepines and they’re still going to pick.”

Animal and human studies demonstrate that skin picking and hair pulling primarily affect females. “You will encounter young boys that pick and pull, but it largely affects females, and it tends to start around puberty,” he said. “Picking can have an onset after the age of 30, which is quite uncommon.”

From a cognitive standpoint, pathological skin pickers demonstrate impaired inhibitory control, impaired stop signal reaction time, increased rates of negative urgency (a tendency to act impulsively in response to negative emotions), and increased rates of positive urgency (a tendency to act impulsively in response to exciting or pleasurable emotions).

Trichotillomania

The lifetime prevalence of trichotillomania ranges between 0.6% and 3.9%. The onset is typically from ages 10-13 years, and the mean duration of illness is 22 years.

The DSM-5 criteria for trichotillomania are similar to that of skin-picking disorder, “although we don’t really worry about the substance use issue with people who pull their hair,” Dr. Grant said. “It doesn’t seem to have a correlation.” In addition, sometimes, children “will worsen pulling or picking when they have co-occurring ADHD and they’ve been started on a stimulant, even at a typical dose. For kids who have those issues, we prefer to try nonstimulant options for their ADHD such as bupropion or atomoxetine.”

Individuals with trichotillomania also tend to have low self-esteem and increased social anxiety, he added, and about one-third report low or very low quality of life. “When you notice alopecia, particularly in young girls who often have longer hair, up to 20% will eat their hair,” Dr. Grant said. “We don’t know why. It’s not related to vitamin deficiencies; it’s not a pica type of iron deficiency. There seems to be a shame piece about eating one’s own hair, but it’s important to assess that. Ask about constipation or overflow incontinence because they can get a bezoar, which can rupture” and can be fatal.

Skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania co-occur in up to 20% of cases. “When they do it tends to be a more difficult problem,” he said. These patients often come for mental health care because of depression, and most, he added, say “I don’t think I would be depressed if I wasn’t covered with excoriations or missing most of my hair.”
 

Treatment for both conditions

According to Dr. Grant, the treatment of choice for skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania is a specific psychotherapy known as “habit reversal therapy,” which involves helping the patient gain better self-control. The drawback is that it’s difficult to find someone trained in habit reversal therapy, “who know anything about skin picking and hair pulling,” he said. “That has been a huge challenge in the field.”

In his experience, the medical treatment of choice for skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania is N-acetylcysteine, an over-the-counter amino acid and antioxidant, which has been shown to be helpful at a dose of 2,400 mg per day. “Patients report to me that some of the excoriations clear up a little quicker as they’re taking it,” Dr. Grant said.

There may also be a role for antipsychotic therapy, he said, “but because of the associated weight gain with most antipsychotics we prefer not to use them.”

The opioid antagonist naltrexone has been shown to be effective in the subset of patients with skin-picking or hair-pulling disorders whose parents have a substance use disorder, Dr. Grant said. “The thought is that there’s something addictive about this behavior in some kids. These kids will look forward to picking and find it rewarding and exciting.”

Dr. Grant reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

INDIANAPOLIS – Despite the common prevalence of skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania (hair pulling), no Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments exist for either condition.

And while both body-focused repetitive behavior disorders affect a greater proportion of females than males, “we have no current information that is useful about what hormonal influences may or may not play in terms of picking and pulling behaviors,” Jon E. Grant, MD, JD, MPH, professor of psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience at the University of Chicago, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “On a cognitive level, affected children and adolescents often have impaired inhibitory control but they are often 1-2 standard deviations above average IQ. They have Type A personalities [and are] very driven young kids. They also do not tolerate any down time or boredom. They need to be doing something all the time.”

According to the DSM-5, the diagnostic criteria for skin picking includes recurrent skin picking that results in skin lesions and is not attributable to another medical condition or substance. It also involves repeated attempts to decrease or stop the behavior and causes clinically significant distress or impairment.

“The other medical condition that we are interested in is the misuse of or dependence upon amphetamines or other prescription-based or illicit stimulants,” Dr. Grant said. “I saw a young man who was using about 600 mg of Ritalin a day, and he was picking all over the place. He did not have a primary skin disorder.”

The lifetime prevalence of skin picking disorder ranges between 1.4% and 5.4% of the general population. However, about 63% of people in a community sample endorsed some form of skin picking, and in a study of 105 college students, almost 40% said they picked their skin and had noticeable tissue damage as a result.

“Skin picking is not the same as self-injury,” Dr. Grant said. “It is also not simply an anxiety disorder. Anxiety will make people who pick worse, so people will say that they pick when they’re under stress. I can give them benzodiazepines and they’re still going to pick.”

Animal and human studies demonstrate that skin picking and hair pulling primarily affect females. “You will encounter young boys that pick and pull, but it largely affects females, and it tends to start around puberty,” he said. “Picking can have an onset after the age of 30, which is quite uncommon.”

From a cognitive standpoint, pathological skin pickers demonstrate impaired inhibitory control, impaired stop signal reaction time, increased rates of negative urgency (a tendency to act impulsively in response to negative emotions), and increased rates of positive urgency (a tendency to act impulsively in response to exciting or pleasurable emotions).

Trichotillomania

The lifetime prevalence of trichotillomania ranges between 0.6% and 3.9%. The onset is typically from ages 10-13 years, and the mean duration of illness is 22 years.

The DSM-5 criteria for trichotillomania are similar to that of skin-picking disorder, “although we don’t really worry about the substance use issue with people who pull their hair,” Dr. Grant said. “It doesn’t seem to have a correlation.” In addition, sometimes, children “will worsen pulling or picking when they have co-occurring ADHD and they’ve been started on a stimulant, even at a typical dose. For kids who have those issues, we prefer to try nonstimulant options for their ADHD such as bupropion or atomoxetine.”

Individuals with trichotillomania also tend to have low self-esteem and increased social anxiety, he added, and about one-third report low or very low quality of life. “When you notice alopecia, particularly in young girls who often have longer hair, up to 20% will eat their hair,” Dr. Grant said. “We don’t know why. It’s not related to vitamin deficiencies; it’s not a pica type of iron deficiency. There seems to be a shame piece about eating one’s own hair, but it’s important to assess that. Ask about constipation or overflow incontinence because they can get a bezoar, which can rupture” and can be fatal.

Skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania co-occur in up to 20% of cases. “When they do it tends to be a more difficult problem,” he said. These patients often come for mental health care because of depression, and most, he added, say “I don’t think I would be depressed if I wasn’t covered with excoriations or missing most of my hair.”
 

Treatment for both conditions

According to Dr. Grant, the treatment of choice for skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania is a specific psychotherapy known as “habit reversal therapy,” which involves helping the patient gain better self-control. The drawback is that it’s difficult to find someone trained in habit reversal therapy, “who know anything about skin picking and hair pulling,” he said. “That has been a huge challenge in the field.”

In his experience, the medical treatment of choice for skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania is N-acetylcysteine, an over-the-counter amino acid and antioxidant, which has been shown to be helpful at a dose of 2,400 mg per day. “Patients report to me that some of the excoriations clear up a little quicker as they’re taking it,” Dr. Grant said.

There may also be a role for antipsychotic therapy, he said, “but because of the associated weight gain with most antipsychotics we prefer not to use them.”

The opioid antagonist naltrexone has been shown to be effective in the subset of patients with skin-picking or hair-pulling disorders whose parents have a substance use disorder, Dr. Grant said. “The thought is that there’s something addictive about this behavior in some kids. These kids will look forward to picking and find it rewarding and exciting.”

Dr. Grant reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

INDIANAPOLIS – Despite the common prevalence of skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania (hair pulling), no Food and Drug Administration–approved treatments exist for either condition.

And while both body-focused repetitive behavior disorders affect a greater proportion of females than males, “we have no current information that is useful about what hormonal influences may or may not play in terms of picking and pulling behaviors,” Jon E. Grant, MD, JD, MPH, professor of psychiatry and behavioral neuroscience at the University of Chicago, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “On a cognitive level, affected children and adolescents often have impaired inhibitory control but they are often 1-2 standard deviations above average IQ. They have Type A personalities [and are] very driven young kids. They also do not tolerate any down time or boredom. They need to be doing something all the time.”

According to the DSM-5, the diagnostic criteria for skin picking includes recurrent skin picking that results in skin lesions and is not attributable to another medical condition or substance. It also involves repeated attempts to decrease or stop the behavior and causes clinically significant distress or impairment.

“The other medical condition that we are interested in is the misuse of or dependence upon amphetamines or other prescription-based or illicit stimulants,” Dr. Grant said. “I saw a young man who was using about 600 mg of Ritalin a day, and he was picking all over the place. He did not have a primary skin disorder.”

The lifetime prevalence of skin picking disorder ranges between 1.4% and 5.4% of the general population. However, about 63% of people in a community sample endorsed some form of skin picking, and in a study of 105 college students, almost 40% said they picked their skin and had noticeable tissue damage as a result.

“Skin picking is not the same as self-injury,” Dr. Grant said. “It is also not simply an anxiety disorder. Anxiety will make people who pick worse, so people will say that they pick when they’re under stress. I can give them benzodiazepines and they’re still going to pick.”

Animal and human studies demonstrate that skin picking and hair pulling primarily affect females. “You will encounter young boys that pick and pull, but it largely affects females, and it tends to start around puberty,” he said. “Picking can have an onset after the age of 30, which is quite uncommon.”

From a cognitive standpoint, pathological skin pickers demonstrate impaired inhibitory control, impaired stop signal reaction time, increased rates of negative urgency (a tendency to act impulsively in response to negative emotions), and increased rates of positive urgency (a tendency to act impulsively in response to exciting or pleasurable emotions).

Trichotillomania

The lifetime prevalence of trichotillomania ranges between 0.6% and 3.9%. The onset is typically from ages 10-13 years, and the mean duration of illness is 22 years.

The DSM-5 criteria for trichotillomania are similar to that of skin-picking disorder, “although we don’t really worry about the substance use issue with people who pull their hair,” Dr. Grant said. “It doesn’t seem to have a correlation.” In addition, sometimes, children “will worsen pulling or picking when they have co-occurring ADHD and they’ve been started on a stimulant, even at a typical dose. For kids who have those issues, we prefer to try nonstimulant options for their ADHD such as bupropion or atomoxetine.”

Individuals with trichotillomania also tend to have low self-esteem and increased social anxiety, he added, and about one-third report low or very low quality of life. “When you notice alopecia, particularly in young girls who often have longer hair, up to 20% will eat their hair,” Dr. Grant said. “We don’t know why. It’s not related to vitamin deficiencies; it’s not a pica type of iron deficiency. There seems to be a shame piece about eating one’s own hair, but it’s important to assess that. Ask about constipation or overflow incontinence because they can get a bezoar, which can rupture” and can be fatal.

Skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania co-occur in up to 20% of cases. “When they do it tends to be a more difficult problem,” he said. These patients often come for mental health care because of depression, and most, he added, say “I don’t think I would be depressed if I wasn’t covered with excoriations or missing most of my hair.”
 

Treatment for both conditions

According to Dr. Grant, the treatment of choice for skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania is a specific psychotherapy known as “habit reversal therapy,” which involves helping the patient gain better self-control. The drawback is that it’s difficult to find someone trained in habit reversal therapy, “who know anything about skin picking and hair pulling,” he said. “That has been a huge challenge in the field.”

In his experience, the medical treatment of choice for skin-picking disorder and trichotillomania is N-acetylcysteine, an over-the-counter amino acid and antioxidant, which has been shown to be helpful at a dose of 2,400 mg per day. “Patients report to me that some of the excoriations clear up a little quicker as they’re taking it,” Dr. Grant said.

There may also be a role for antipsychotic therapy, he said, “but because of the associated weight gain with most antipsychotics we prefer not to use them.”

The opioid antagonist naltrexone has been shown to be effective in the subset of patients with skin-picking or hair-pulling disorders whose parents have a substance use disorder, Dr. Grant said. “The thought is that there’s something addictive about this behavior in some kids. These kids will look forward to picking and find it rewarding and exciting.”

Dr. Grant reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

Edgewell Personal Care Co., the maker of Banana Boat sunscreen, is recalling a scalp spray because it contains trace levels of benzene, a chemical that can cause cancer at high levels.

The company announced a voluntary recall for three batches of the Banana Boat Hair & Scalp Spray SPF 30, which came in 6-ounce bottles and was sold across the U.S. through various retailers and online, according to a recall alert by the Food and Drug Administration.

The three batches have a UPC label of 0-79656-04041-8 and fall under the lot codes 20016AF, 20084BF, and 21139AF, with the expiration dates of December 2022, February 2023, and April 2024, respectively.

“An internal review found that some samples of the product contained trace levels of benzene. While benzene is not an ingredient in any Banana Boat products, the review showed the unexpected levels of benzene came from the propellant that sprays the product out of the can,” according to the recall notice.

“Importantly, no other batches of Hair & Scalp (either before or after these batch codes) and no other Banana Boat products are in the scope of this recall and may continue to be used by consumers safely and as intended,” the company wrote.

Benzene is classified as a human carcinogen, the FDA wrote. Exposure to benzene can occur through the nose, mouth, and skin, and it can result in serious conditions such as leukemia, bone marrow cancer, and blood disorders.

“Benzene is ubiquitous in the environment. Humans around the world have daily exposures to it indoors and outdoors from multiple sources,” the company said. “Daily exposure to benzene in the recalled products would not be expected to cause adverse health consequences according to an independent health assessment using established exposure modeling guidelines.”

Edgewell said it hasn’t received any reports of bad events related to the recall. The company has told retailers to remove the affected batches from shelves.

Banana Boat will reimburse consumers who purchased a product with one of the affected lot codes, which are on the bottom of the can. In the meantime, consumers should stop using the affected product right away and discard it.

The recall comes a little over a year after Johnson & Johnson recalled five sunscreens due to low levels of benzene, according to The Associated Press. That recall included Aveeno and Neutrogena products in spray cans.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Edgewell Personal Care at 888-686-3988 Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET. People can also read more at the Banana Boat FAQ page or file for a refund directly on the Banana Boat Recall page.

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

Edgewell Personal Care Co., the maker of Banana Boat sunscreen, is recalling a scalp spray because it contains trace levels of benzene, a chemical that can cause cancer at high levels.

The company announced a voluntary recall for three batches of the Banana Boat Hair & Scalp Spray SPF 30, which came in 6-ounce bottles and was sold across the U.S. through various retailers and online, according to a recall alert by the Food and Drug Administration.

The three batches have a UPC label of 0-79656-04041-8 and fall under the lot codes 20016AF, 20084BF, and 21139AF, with the expiration dates of December 2022, February 2023, and April 2024, respectively.

“An internal review found that some samples of the product contained trace levels of benzene. While benzene is not an ingredient in any Banana Boat products, the review showed the unexpected levels of benzene came from the propellant that sprays the product out of the can,” according to the recall notice.

“Importantly, no other batches of Hair & Scalp (either before or after these batch codes) and no other Banana Boat products are in the scope of this recall and may continue to be used by consumers safely and as intended,” the company wrote.

Benzene is classified as a human carcinogen, the FDA wrote. Exposure to benzene can occur through the nose, mouth, and skin, and it can result in serious conditions such as leukemia, bone marrow cancer, and blood disorders.

“Benzene is ubiquitous in the environment. Humans around the world have daily exposures to it indoors and outdoors from multiple sources,” the company said. “Daily exposure to benzene in the recalled products would not be expected to cause adverse health consequences according to an independent health assessment using established exposure modeling guidelines.”

Edgewell said it hasn’t received any reports of bad events related to the recall. The company has told retailers to remove the affected batches from shelves.

Banana Boat will reimburse consumers who purchased a product with one of the affected lot codes, which are on the bottom of the can. In the meantime, consumers should stop using the affected product right away and discard it.

The recall comes a little over a year after Johnson & Johnson recalled five sunscreens due to low levels of benzene, according to The Associated Press. That recall included Aveeno and Neutrogena products in spray cans.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Edgewell Personal Care at 888-686-3988 Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET. People can also read more at the Banana Boat FAQ page or file for a refund directly on the Banana Boat Recall page.

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

Edgewell Personal Care Co., the maker of Banana Boat sunscreen, is recalling a scalp spray because it contains trace levels of benzene, a chemical that can cause cancer at high levels.

The company announced a voluntary recall for three batches of the Banana Boat Hair & Scalp Spray SPF 30, which came in 6-ounce bottles and was sold across the U.S. through various retailers and online, according to a recall alert by the Food and Drug Administration.

The three batches have a UPC label of 0-79656-04041-8 and fall under the lot codes 20016AF, 20084BF, and 21139AF, with the expiration dates of December 2022, February 2023, and April 2024, respectively.

“An internal review found that some samples of the product contained trace levels of benzene. While benzene is not an ingredient in any Banana Boat products, the review showed the unexpected levels of benzene came from the propellant that sprays the product out of the can,” according to the recall notice.

“Importantly, no other batches of Hair & Scalp (either before or after these batch codes) and no other Banana Boat products are in the scope of this recall and may continue to be used by consumers safely and as intended,” the company wrote.

Benzene is classified as a human carcinogen, the FDA wrote. Exposure to benzene can occur through the nose, mouth, and skin, and it can result in serious conditions such as leukemia, bone marrow cancer, and blood disorders.

“Benzene is ubiquitous in the environment. Humans around the world have daily exposures to it indoors and outdoors from multiple sources,” the company said. “Daily exposure to benzene in the recalled products would not be expected to cause adverse health consequences according to an independent health assessment using established exposure modeling guidelines.”

Edgewell said it hasn’t received any reports of bad events related to the recall. The company has told retailers to remove the affected batches from shelves.

Banana Boat will reimburse consumers who purchased a product with one of the affected lot codes, which are on the bottom of the can. In the meantime, consumers should stop using the affected product right away and discard it.

The recall comes a little over a year after Johnson & Johnson recalled five sunscreens due to low levels of benzene, according to The Associated Press. That recall included Aveeno and Neutrogena products in spray cans.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Edgewell Personal Care at 888-686-3988 Monday through Friday, 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. ET. People can also read more at the Banana Boat FAQ page or file for a refund directly on the Banana Boat Recall page.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved roflumilast 0.3% cream for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis, “including intertriginous areas,” in patients aged 12 years and older.

Roflumilast is a selective inhibitor of phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4), the first approved for treating psoriasis, according to manufacturer Arcutis Biotherapeutics. The company announced the approval on July 29. Oral roflumilast (Daliresp ) was approved in 2011 for treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).“It’s a breakthrough topical therapy,” says Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, dean of clinical therapeutics and professor of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and principal investigator in trials of topical roflumilast. In an interview, Dr. Lebwohl noted that the treatment significantly reduced psoriasis symptoms in both short- and long-term trials.

In addition, two features of this treatment set it apart from other topical psoriasis treatments, he said. Roflumilast is not a steroid, so does not have the risk for topical steroid-related side effects associated with chronic use, and, in clinical trials, topical roflumilast was effective in treating psoriasis in intertriginous areas, including the buttocks, underarms, and beneath the breasts, which are difficult to treat.

FDA approval is based on data from two phase 3 randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trials, according to Arcutis. The primary endpoint was Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) success, defined as clear or almost clear with at least a two-grade improvement from baseline, and at least a two-grade IGA score improvement from baseline at 8 weeks.

At 8 weeks, 42.4% and 37.5% of the patients treated with topical roflumilast achieved an IGA success rate compared with 6.1% and 6.9% in the control groups, respectively (P < .0001 for both studies).

Treated patients also experienced significant improvements compared with those in the vehicle groups in secondary endpoints in the trials: Those included Intertriginous IGA (I-IGA) Success, Psoriasis Area Severity Index–75 (PASI-75), reductions in itch based on the Worst Itch–Numerical Rating Scale (WI-NRS), and self-reported psoriasis symptoms diary (PSD).

In the studies, 72% and 68% of patients treated with roflumilast met the I-IGA endpoint at 8 weeks versus 14% and 17%, respectively, of those on vehicle (P < .0001 for both studies).  

In addition, by week 2, some participants treated with roflumilast had experienced reduced itchiness in both studies. At 8 weeks, among those with a WI-NRS score of 4 or more at baseline, 67% and 69% of the treated patients had at least a four-point reduction in the WI-NRS versus 26% and 33%, respectively, among those on vehicle (P < .0001 for both studies), according to the company.

In general, the cream was well tolerated. There were reports of diarrhea (3%), headache (2%), insomnia (1%), nausea (1%), application-site pain (1%), upper respiratory tract infections (1%), and urinary tract infections (1%). However, Dr. Lebwohl noted that these events were also observed in the control group.

“The study was unequivocal about the improvement in the intertriginous sites,” Dr. Lebwohl said. He contrasts that to the data from other nonsteroidal topicals, which he said can be associated with a rash or irritation in sensitive areas.

Dr. Lebwohl noted that PDE4 is an enzyme that increases inflammation and decreases anti-inflammatory mediators and that inhibiting PDE4 may interrupt some of the inflammation response responsible for psoriasis symptoms, as it has for other conditions such as atopic dermatitis. Data from the 8-week phase 3 trials and yearlong phase 2b, open-label studies support that hypothesis.

“I’m always excited for new psoriasis treatments to broaden our treatment armamentarium,” said Lauren E. Ploch, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Augusta, Ga., and Aiken, S.C., who was asked to comment on the approval.

Even a symptom that seems benign, like itching, Dr. Ploch added, can lead to reduced sleep and increased irritability. Referring to the data on the treatment in the sensitive, intertriginous areas, she noted that the skin in these areas is often thinner, so treatment with steroids can cause further thinning and damage to the skin. If roflumilast doesn’t cause burning, itching, or thinning, it will be a great option to treat these areas, she said in an interview. She was not involved in the trials.

Roflumilast cream will be marketed under the trade name Zoryve, and is expected to be available by mid-August, according to Arcutis.

Roflumilast cream is also under review in Canada for treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults and adolescents.

The studies were funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Lebwohl reported receiving grant support and consulting fees from Arcutis. Dr. Ploch reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved roflumilast 0.3% cream for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis, “including intertriginous areas,” in patients aged 12 years and older.

Roflumilast is a selective inhibitor of phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4), the first approved for treating psoriasis, according to manufacturer Arcutis Biotherapeutics. The company announced the approval on July 29. Oral roflumilast (Daliresp ) was approved in 2011 for treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).“It’s a breakthrough topical therapy,” says Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, dean of clinical therapeutics and professor of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and principal investigator in trials of topical roflumilast. In an interview, Dr. Lebwohl noted that the treatment significantly reduced psoriasis symptoms in both short- and long-term trials.

In addition, two features of this treatment set it apart from other topical psoriasis treatments, he said. Roflumilast is not a steroid, so does not have the risk for topical steroid-related side effects associated with chronic use, and, in clinical trials, topical roflumilast was effective in treating psoriasis in intertriginous areas, including the buttocks, underarms, and beneath the breasts, which are difficult to treat.

FDA approval is based on data from two phase 3 randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trials, according to Arcutis. The primary endpoint was Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) success, defined as clear or almost clear with at least a two-grade improvement from baseline, and at least a two-grade IGA score improvement from baseline at 8 weeks.

At 8 weeks, 42.4% and 37.5% of the patients treated with topical roflumilast achieved an IGA success rate compared with 6.1% and 6.9% in the control groups, respectively (P < .0001 for both studies).

Treated patients also experienced significant improvements compared with those in the vehicle groups in secondary endpoints in the trials: Those included Intertriginous IGA (I-IGA) Success, Psoriasis Area Severity Index–75 (PASI-75), reductions in itch based on the Worst Itch–Numerical Rating Scale (WI-NRS), and self-reported psoriasis symptoms diary (PSD).

In the studies, 72% and 68% of patients treated with roflumilast met the I-IGA endpoint at 8 weeks versus 14% and 17%, respectively, of those on vehicle (P < .0001 for both studies).  

In addition, by week 2, some participants treated with roflumilast had experienced reduced itchiness in both studies. At 8 weeks, among those with a WI-NRS score of 4 or more at baseline, 67% and 69% of the treated patients had at least a four-point reduction in the WI-NRS versus 26% and 33%, respectively, among those on vehicle (P < .0001 for both studies), according to the company.

In general, the cream was well tolerated. There were reports of diarrhea (3%), headache (2%), insomnia (1%), nausea (1%), application-site pain (1%), upper respiratory tract infections (1%), and urinary tract infections (1%). However, Dr. Lebwohl noted that these events were also observed in the control group.

“The study was unequivocal about the improvement in the intertriginous sites,” Dr. Lebwohl said. He contrasts that to the data from other nonsteroidal topicals, which he said can be associated with a rash or irritation in sensitive areas.

Dr. Lebwohl noted that PDE4 is an enzyme that increases inflammation and decreases anti-inflammatory mediators and that inhibiting PDE4 may interrupt some of the inflammation response responsible for psoriasis symptoms, as it has for other conditions such as atopic dermatitis. Data from the 8-week phase 3 trials and yearlong phase 2b, open-label studies support that hypothesis.

“I’m always excited for new psoriasis treatments to broaden our treatment armamentarium,” said Lauren E. Ploch, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Augusta, Ga., and Aiken, S.C., who was asked to comment on the approval.

Even a symptom that seems benign, like itching, Dr. Ploch added, can lead to reduced sleep and increased irritability. Referring to the data on the treatment in the sensitive, intertriginous areas, she noted that the skin in these areas is often thinner, so treatment with steroids can cause further thinning and damage to the skin. If roflumilast doesn’t cause burning, itching, or thinning, it will be a great option to treat these areas, she said in an interview. She was not involved in the trials.

Roflumilast cream will be marketed under the trade name Zoryve, and is expected to be available by mid-August, according to Arcutis.

Roflumilast cream is also under review in Canada for treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults and adolescents.

The studies were funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Lebwohl reported receiving grant support and consulting fees from Arcutis. Dr. Ploch reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration has approved roflumilast 0.3% cream for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis, “including intertriginous areas,” in patients aged 12 years and older.

Roflumilast is a selective inhibitor of phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4), the first approved for treating psoriasis, according to manufacturer Arcutis Biotherapeutics. The company announced the approval on July 29. Oral roflumilast (Daliresp ) was approved in 2011 for treating chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).“It’s a breakthrough topical therapy,” says Mark G. Lebwohl, MD, dean of clinical therapeutics and professor of dermatology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, and principal investigator in trials of topical roflumilast. In an interview, Dr. Lebwohl noted that the treatment significantly reduced psoriasis symptoms in both short- and long-term trials.

In addition, two features of this treatment set it apart from other topical psoriasis treatments, he said. Roflumilast is not a steroid, so does not have the risk for topical steroid-related side effects associated with chronic use, and, in clinical trials, topical roflumilast was effective in treating psoriasis in intertriginous areas, including the buttocks, underarms, and beneath the breasts, which are difficult to treat.

FDA approval is based on data from two phase 3 randomized, double-blind, vehicle-controlled trials, according to Arcutis. The primary endpoint was Investigator Global Assessment (IGA) success, defined as clear or almost clear with at least a two-grade improvement from baseline, and at least a two-grade IGA score improvement from baseline at 8 weeks.

At 8 weeks, 42.4% and 37.5% of the patients treated with topical roflumilast achieved an IGA success rate compared with 6.1% and 6.9% in the control groups, respectively (P < .0001 for both studies).

Treated patients also experienced significant improvements compared with those in the vehicle groups in secondary endpoints in the trials: Those included Intertriginous IGA (I-IGA) Success, Psoriasis Area Severity Index–75 (PASI-75), reductions in itch based on the Worst Itch–Numerical Rating Scale (WI-NRS), and self-reported psoriasis symptoms diary (PSD).

In the studies, 72% and 68% of patients treated with roflumilast met the I-IGA endpoint at 8 weeks versus 14% and 17%, respectively, of those on vehicle (P < .0001 for both studies).  

In addition, by week 2, some participants treated with roflumilast had experienced reduced itchiness in both studies. At 8 weeks, among those with a WI-NRS score of 4 or more at baseline, 67% and 69% of the treated patients had at least a four-point reduction in the WI-NRS versus 26% and 33%, respectively, among those on vehicle (P < .0001 for both studies), according to the company.

In general, the cream was well tolerated. There were reports of diarrhea (3%), headache (2%), insomnia (1%), nausea (1%), application-site pain (1%), upper respiratory tract infections (1%), and urinary tract infections (1%). However, Dr. Lebwohl noted that these events were also observed in the control group.

“The study was unequivocal about the improvement in the intertriginous sites,” Dr. Lebwohl said. He contrasts that to the data from other nonsteroidal topicals, which he said can be associated with a rash or irritation in sensitive areas.

Dr. Lebwohl noted that PDE4 is an enzyme that increases inflammation and decreases anti-inflammatory mediators and that inhibiting PDE4 may interrupt some of the inflammation response responsible for psoriasis symptoms, as it has for other conditions such as atopic dermatitis. Data from the 8-week phase 3 trials and yearlong phase 2b, open-label studies support that hypothesis.

“I’m always excited for new psoriasis treatments to broaden our treatment armamentarium,” said Lauren E. Ploch, MD, a dermatologist who practices in Augusta, Ga., and Aiken, S.C., who was asked to comment on the approval.

Even a symptom that seems benign, like itching, Dr. Ploch added, can lead to reduced sleep and increased irritability. Referring to the data on the treatment in the sensitive, intertriginous areas, she noted that the skin in these areas is often thinner, so treatment with steroids can cause further thinning and damage to the skin. If roflumilast doesn’t cause burning, itching, or thinning, it will be a great option to treat these areas, she said in an interview. She was not involved in the trials.

Roflumilast cream will be marketed under the trade name Zoryve, and is expected to be available by mid-August, according to Arcutis.

Roflumilast cream is also under review in Canada for treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults and adolescents.

The studies were funded by Arcutis Biotherapeutics. Dr. Lebwohl reported receiving grant support and consulting fees from Arcutis. Dr. Ploch reports no relevant financial relationships.

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

A federal advisory panel stressed the need for further research about potential expanded use of devices in detection of skin cancer, with U.S. regulators readying for challenges in determining how well these tools need to work and how to address longstanding issues of racial equity in this field of medicine.

The Food and Drug Administration has scheduled two meetings to gather expert feedback about managing an expected expansion in the use of skin lesion apps and devices. Outside of the United States, there are apps promoted as being able to help spot skin lesions that should trigger a medical visit.

AGA Institute

The general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee began work on this topic on July 28, with a wide-ranging discussion about potential expanded use of computer-aided, skin lesion analyzer (SLA) devices. On Friday, the panel is considering an FDA proposal to shift the designation for an approved device for aiding dermatologists in skin cancer diagnoses from the most stringent regulatory category, class III, to the less restrictive class II.

The FDA called the meeting amid growing interest in using technology to aid in finding cancers, with some of these products already marketed to consumers outside of the United States. There are presently no legally marketed, FDA-cleared or FDA-approved SLA devices indicated for use by clinicians other than dermatologists or the lay public, the agency said in a briefing memo for the meeting. There are two devices with FDA approval, though, for aiding dermatologists. The FDA approved SciBase’s Nevisense in 2017 and Mela Sciences’ MelaFind, which has fallen out of use, in 2012. Both are class III devices.

But some companies intend to offer products for consumers in the United States. The company SkinVision, for example, has developed an app of the same name, which is intended to detect suspicious-looking skin spots via smartphone photos. SkinVision’s website says the product has been offered to consumers in Australia for remote skin checks since 2015. People in the Netherlands and United Kingdom also can use SkinVision, according to the company’s website. SkinVision says the company is working on providing the app for U.S. customers, “but we are not quite there yet.”

During the meeting, FDA panelists repeatedly emphasized the potential risks of these devices in terms of sensitivity (how often a test correctly generates a positive result) and of specificity (how often a test correctly generates a negative result).

New tools intended to aid in detection of skin cancer might produce too many false positives and thus trigger floods of worried patients seeking care and often facing unnecessary biopsies, the FDA panelists said. But more worrisome would be FDA clearance of tools that delivered too many false negative results, leaving people unaware of their cancers.

The standards would have to be set very high for new products, especially those intended for consumers, said FDA panelist Murad Alam, MD, a dermatologist and vice chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. Current technologies for analyzing skin lesions are not yet up to that task. Dr. Alam likened the situation to the hopes for self-driving cars.

“It sounds great in principle. If you read the predictions from 20 years ago, it should already have happened,” Dr. Alam said. “But we’re still struggling with that because there are serious points of failure.”

FDA panelist Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, also argued for well-designed studies to understand how consumers and clinicians would react to new tools.

“We have to define what prospective information, in the intended use setting, we need to feel comfortable saying that these tools could be in a layperson’s hand or a primary care person’s hand,” Dr. Rotemberg said.

The studies would not need to be large, especially in the case of nonmelanoma skin cancer, which is common, she added.

“There’s too much nuance here for us to be able to say: ‘This is what would happen,’ without testing it,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “I do not think these prospective studies would be very burdensome, but they would help us understand what the burden would be and what the costs would be and what the potential harms would be.”

Because of rules against disclosing corporate information, the FDA cannot tell the public about the kinds of inquiries it already may have fielded from companies interested in selling skin cancer detection tools.

But in response to a question during the FDA meeting, Binita Ashar, MD, a top official in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said there is interest in having these kinds of products sold in the United States as well.

“I can tell you that this a very timely discussion and questions that we’re posing to you are the questions that we’re encountering or that we have been grappling with,” Dr. Ashar said.

FDA panelists noted that many patients cannot get access easily to dermatology visits.

Companies seeking to develop SLA devices likely will market their tools as attempts to fill a gap that now exists in medical care.

But there will be challenges ahead in explaining to patients how to interpret readings from these tools, the FDA panelists said. Consumers should know these tools are meant to assist in diagnosis, and not to make it.

“I’m not sure the layperson will hear that,” said FDA panelist Paula E. Bourelly, MD, a dermatologist from Olney, Md.

As a result, use of SLA tools could create tension between physicians and patients, with consumers demanding biopsies after seeing readings they don’t understand.

“I do have great concerns about the layperson feeling overly confident and reducing the provider to a technician,” she said.

The FDA panelists were not asked to cast formal votes on any issues discussed during the meeting They instead engaged in broad discussions around questions posed by the FDA in three key areas:

• What standards should be used to confirm lesion diagnosis in clinical testing of the accuracy of SLA devices?
• What would be acceptable true false-positive and false-negative results (sensitivity and specificity) for different diagnoses and users?
• How can the FDA address health equity considerations based on variable incidence of skin lesions?

Developing standards

The FDA asked the panel to consider several scenarios for SLA devices and to discuss how standards might vary depending on the user of the device, whether it would be dermatologists, other clinicians, or consumers.

The agency sought comments in particular about using histological diagnosis (core specimen processing with a consensus diagnosis from an expert dermatopathologist panel). In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA argued that this approach provides the greatest certainty in the diagnosis.

“Device developers, however, cite concerns, both practical and ethical, in requiring biopsy of all lesions, particularly those that appear benign,” the FDA said. “They have proposed alternate means of defining ground truth, including consensus opinion of experts (of visual or dermoscopic examination of the lesion[s]), opinion of one expert (visual or dermoscopic examination), or other methods.”

In summarizing the discussion on this question, the FDA panel chairman, Hobart W. Harris, MD, MPH, a surgeon from the University of California, San Francisco, noted that there was broad support for histological data in clinical trials of SLA devices, with some allowance for cases where more hybrid approaches would be used.

There were also suggestions offered about designing trials and the need for biopsies of lesions that are clearly benign, as this would help gather data to help in developing algorithms.

Dr. Alam said care should be taken in explaining to study participants that they might have to undergo biopsies that they didn’t need, as part of the larger effort to gather data. This should be detailed in the consent form, he said.

“But I also think this is a relatively minor risk,” Dr. Alam said, comparing these biopsies to the blood samples that patients in many clinical studies routinely give.

“Are all of those blood draws necessary to track the change in whatever parameters that are being tracked? Probably not,” Dr. Alam said. “I think it would be possible to explain to a reasonable patient what this entails.”

Dr. Alam noted that companies might face extra hurdles in enrolling study participants and keeping them in the trials if the FDA seeks this kind of biopsy data. “But I don’t think inconvenience to the study sponsor is a good argument” for not seeking this kind of data, he added.

Leaving a loophole where certain kinds of clearly benign lesions don’t require a biopsy would eventually erode the quality of the research done on these devices. “That bar will be moved to accommodate the convenience of the sponsor, to make the study feasible,” Dr. Alam said. “And pretty soon, you’ll be missing a lot of patients that really should have biopsies.”
 

Acceptable rates of false positives, false negatives

The FDA panel chair noted that his colleagues had strongly urged review standards that would require that the devices improve on the rates of successful catches of suspicious lesions and lower false positives. But they did not endorse specific targets regarding the sensitivity and specificity rates.

“No one seems to be comfortable with providing or preordaining” these targets, Dr. Harris said.

Panelist Deneen Hesser, MSHSA, RN, urged a deep recognition of the power of a FDA clearance in the view of consumers.

“We need to be cognizant of what the term ‘FDA approved’ means to the lay individual,” said Ms. Hesser, who served as the patient representative on the panel. “A patient who sees that those tools are FDA approved will assume that each of those is the gold standard” in terms of expectations for delivering accurate results.

Like many of the panelists, Dr. Rotemberg urged the FDA to gather data about how patients would react to different messages encoded in consumer-oriented products.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

“If the device says: ‘You should see a dermatologist for this’ and no other information, that’s very different from [saying]: ‘That lesion is suspicious for melanoma,’ ” Dr. Rotemberg said.

Despite the likely difficulties in conducting trials, the FDA needs to have the data to answer key questions about patient and physician reactions to readings from new tools, Dr. Rotemberg said.

“We don’t know how many additional biopsies we would cause with a specificity of 80%” for a new SLA tool, Dr. Rotemberg said, giving an example. “We don’t know how confident a dermatologist might be to say: ‘Actually, I’m not suspicious about that lesion and we can just fudge it or not biopsy it.’ We don’t know any of that until we study it in real life.”

The panelists also urged the FDA to seek to ensure that new tools used in analyzing skin lesions improve the quality of diagnosis.
 

Addressing equity

The FDA also asked the panel to weigh in on whether the agency should clear SLA tools in cases where the existing study data is drawn heavily from people considered to be at higher risk for skin cancer.

No credit needed per U.S. gov work.

“To ensure generalizability across the entire U.S. population, should FDA require SLAs indicated for use beyond cancerous lesions be tested in a representative U.S. population?” the FDA asked.

The three most common skin cancers – melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma – are more prevalent in people with Fitzpatrick I and II skin types, who tend to get sunburns, not tans. But people of color are more likely to develop melanoma in areas that are not sun exposed, such as the sole of the foot or under fingernails or toenails.

“Due in part to lower expected risk and screening, these melanomas are often detected late,” the FDA said in the briefing document.

There was broad consensus among panelists that the FDA should encourage companies to enroll people with all skin types and tones.

But they also looked for ways that the FDA could clear devices based on initial studies conducted largely with people considered to be at higher risk, with the agency then requiring follow-up trials to see how these products would work for the general U.S. population.

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

A federal advisory panel stressed the need for further research about potential expanded use of devices in detection of skin cancer, with U.S. regulators readying for challenges in determining how well these tools need to work and how to address longstanding issues of racial equity in this field of medicine.

The Food and Drug Administration has scheduled two meetings to gather expert feedback about managing an expected expansion in the use of skin lesion apps and devices. Outside of the United States, there are apps promoted as being able to help spot skin lesions that should trigger a medical visit.

AGA Institute

The general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee began work on this topic on July 28, with a wide-ranging discussion about potential expanded use of computer-aided, skin lesion analyzer (SLA) devices. On Friday, the panel is considering an FDA proposal to shift the designation for an approved device for aiding dermatologists in skin cancer diagnoses from the most stringent regulatory category, class III, to the less restrictive class II.

The FDA called the meeting amid growing interest in using technology to aid in finding cancers, with some of these products already marketed to consumers outside of the United States. There are presently no legally marketed, FDA-cleared or FDA-approved SLA devices indicated for use by clinicians other than dermatologists or the lay public, the agency said in a briefing memo for the meeting. There are two devices with FDA approval, though, for aiding dermatologists. The FDA approved SciBase’s Nevisense in 2017 and Mela Sciences’ MelaFind, which has fallen out of use, in 2012. Both are class III devices.

But some companies intend to offer products for consumers in the United States. The company SkinVision, for example, has developed an app of the same name, which is intended to detect suspicious-looking skin spots via smartphone photos. SkinVision’s website says the product has been offered to consumers in Australia for remote skin checks since 2015. People in the Netherlands and United Kingdom also can use SkinVision, according to the company’s website. SkinVision says the company is working on providing the app for U.S. customers, “but we are not quite there yet.”

During the meeting, FDA panelists repeatedly emphasized the potential risks of these devices in terms of sensitivity (how often a test correctly generates a positive result) and of specificity (how often a test correctly generates a negative result).

New tools intended to aid in detection of skin cancer might produce too many false positives and thus trigger floods of worried patients seeking care and often facing unnecessary biopsies, the FDA panelists said. But more worrisome would be FDA clearance of tools that delivered too many false negative results, leaving people unaware of their cancers.

The standards would have to be set very high for new products, especially those intended for consumers, said FDA panelist Murad Alam, MD, a dermatologist and vice chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. Current technologies for analyzing skin lesions are not yet up to that task. Dr. Alam likened the situation to the hopes for self-driving cars.

“It sounds great in principle. If you read the predictions from 20 years ago, it should already have happened,” Dr. Alam said. “But we’re still struggling with that because there are serious points of failure.”

FDA panelist Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, also argued for well-designed studies to understand how consumers and clinicians would react to new tools.

“We have to define what prospective information, in the intended use setting, we need to feel comfortable saying that these tools could be in a layperson’s hand or a primary care person’s hand,” Dr. Rotemberg said.

The studies would not need to be large, especially in the case of nonmelanoma skin cancer, which is common, she added.

“There’s too much nuance here for us to be able to say: ‘This is what would happen,’ without testing it,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “I do not think these prospective studies would be very burdensome, but they would help us understand what the burden would be and what the costs would be and what the potential harms would be.”

Because of rules against disclosing corporate information, the FDA cannot tell the public about the kinds of inquiries it already may have fielded from companies interested in selling skin cancer detection tools.

But in response to a question during the FDA meeting, Binita Ashar, MD, a top official in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said there is interest in having these kinds of products sold in the United States as well.

“I can tell you that this a very timely discussion and questions that we’re posing to you are the questions that we’re encountering or that we have been grappling with,” Dr. Ashar said.

FDA panelists noted that many patients cannot get access easily to dermatology visits.

Companies seeking to develop SLA devices likely will market their tools as attempts to fill a gap that now exists in medical care.

But there will be challenges ahead in explaining to patients how to interpret readings from these tools, the FDA panelists said. Consumers should know these tools are meant to assist in diagnosis, and not to make it.

“I’m not sure the layperson will hear that,” said FDA panelist Paula E. Bourelly, MD, a dermatologist from Olney, Md.

As a result, use of SLA tools could create tension between physicians and patients, with consumers demanding biopsies after seeing readings they don’t understand.

“I do have great concerns about the layperson feeling overly confident and reducing the provider to a technician,” she said.

The FDA panelists were not asked to cast formal votes on any issues discussed during the meeting They instead engaged in broad discussions around questions posed by the FDA in three key areas:

• What standards should be used to confirm lesion diagnosis in clinical testing of the accuracy of SLA devices?
• What would be acceptable true false-positive and false-negative results (sensitivity and specificity) for different diagnoses and users?
• How can the FDA address health equity considerations based on variable incidence of skin lesions?

Developing standards

The FDA asked the panel to consider several scenarios for SLA devices and to discuss how standards might vary depending on the user of the device, whether it would be dermatologists, other clinicians, or consumers.

The agency sought comments in particular about using histological diagnosis (core specimen processing with a consensus diagnosis from an expert dermatopathologist panel). In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA argued that this approach provides the greatest certainty in the diagnosis.

“Device developers, however, cite concerns, both practical and ethical, in requiring biopsy of all lesions, particularly those that appear benign,” the FDA said. “They have proposed alternate means of defining ground truth, including consensus opinion of experts (of visual or dermoscopic examination of the lesion[s]), opinion of one expert (visual or dermoscopic examination), or other methods.”

In summarizing the discussion on this question, the FDA panel chairman, Hobart W. Harris, MD, MPH, a surgeon from the University of California, San Francisco, noted that there was broad support for histological data in clinical trials of SLA devices, with some allowance for cases where more hybrid approaches would be used.

There were also suggestions offered about designing trials and the need for biopsies of lesions that are clearly benign, as this would help gather data to help in developing algorithms.

Dr. Alam said care should be taken in explaining to study participants that they might have to undergo biopsies that they didn’t need, as part of the larger effort to gather data. This should be detailed in the consent form, he said.

“But I also think this is a relatively minor risk,” Dr. Alam said, comparing these biopsies to the blood samples that patients in many clinical studies routinely give.

“Are all of those blood draws necessary to track the change in whatever parameters that are being tracked? Probably not,” Dr. Alam said. “I think it would be possible to explain to a reasonable patient what this entails.”

Dr. Alam noted that companies might face extra hurdles in enrolling study participants and keeping them in the trials if the FDA seeks this kind of biopsy data. “But I don’t think inconvenience to the study sponsor is a good argument” for not seeking this kind of data, he added.

Leaving a loophole where certain kinds of clearly benign lesions don’t require a biopsy would eventually erode the quality of the research done on these devices. “That bar will be moved to accommodate the convenience of the sponsor, to make the study feasible,” Dr. Alam said. “And pretty soon, you’ll be missing a lot of patients that really should have biopsies.”
 

Acceptable rates of false positives, false negatives

The FDA panel chair noted that his colleagues had strongly urged review standards that would require that the devices improve on the rates of successful catches of suspicious lesions and lower false positives. But they did not endorse specific targets regarding the sensitivity and specificity rates.

“No one seems to be comfortable with providing or preordaining” these targets, Dr. Harris said.

Panelist Deneen Hesser, MSHSA, RN, urged a deep recognition of the power of a FDA clearance in the view of consumers.

“We need to be cognizant of what the term ‘FDA approved’ means to the lay individual,” said Ms. Hesser, who served as the patient representative on the panel. “A patient who sees that those tools are FDA approved will assume that each of those is the gold standard” in terms of expectations for delivering accurate results.

Like many of the panelists, Dr. Rotemberg urged the FDA to gather data about how patients would react to different messages encoded in consumer-oriented products.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

“If the device says: ‘You should see a dermatologist for this’ and no other information, that’s very different from [saying]: ‘That lesion is suspicious for melanoma,’ ” Dr. Rotemberg said.

Despite the likely difficulties in conducting trials, the FDA needs to have the data to answer key questions about patient and physician reactions to readings from new tools, Dr. Rotemberg said.

“We don’t know how many additional biopsies we would cause with a specificity of 80%” for a new SLA tool, Dr. Rotemberg said, giving an example. “We don’t know how confident a dermatologist might be to say: ‘Actually, I’m not suspicious about that lesion and we can just fudge it or not biopsy it.’ We don’t know any of that until we study it in real life.”

The panelists also urged the FDA to seek to ensure that new tools used in analyzing skin lesions improve the quality of diagnosis.
 

Addressing equity

The FDA also asked the panel to weigh in on whether the agency should clear SLA tools in cases where the existing study data is drawn heavily from people considered to be at higher risk for skin cancer.

No credit needed per U.S. gov work.

“To ensure generalizability across the entire U.S. population, should FDA require SLAs indicated for use beyond cancerous lesions be tested in a representative U.S. population?” the FDA asked.

The three most common skin cancers – melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma – are more prevalent in people with Fitzpatrick I and II skin types, who tend to get sunburns, not tans. But people of color are more likely to develop melanoma in areas that are not sun exposed, such as the sole of the foot or under fingernails or toenails.

“Due in part to lower expected risk and screening, these melanomas are often detected late,” the FDA said in the briefing document.

There was broad consensus among panelists that the FDA should encourage companies to enroll people with all skin types and tones.

But they also looked for ways that the FDA could clear devices based on initial studies conducted largely with people considered to be at higher risk, with the agency then requiring follow-up trials to see how these products would work for the general U.S. population.

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

A federal advisory panel stressed the need for further research about potential expanded use of devices in detection of skin cancer, with U.S. regulators readying for challenges in determining how well these tools need to work and how to address longstanding issues of racial equity in this field of medicine.

The Food and Drug Administration has scheduled two meetings to gather expert feedback about managing an expected expansion in the use of skin lesion apps and devices. Outside of the United States, there are apps promoted as being able to help spot skin lesions that should trigger a medical visit.

AGA Institute

The general and plastic surgery devices panel of the FDA’s Medical Devices Advisory Committee began work on this topic on July 28, with a wide-ranging discussion about potential expanded use of computer-aided, skin lesion analyzer (SLA) devices. On Friday, the panel is considering an FDA proposal to shift the designation for an approved device for aiding dermatologists in skin cancer diagnoses from the most stringent regulatory category, class III, to the less restrictive class II.

The FDA called the meeting amid growing interest in using technology to aid in finding cancers, with some of these products already marketed to consumers outside of the United States. There are presently no legally marketed, FDA-cleared or FDA-approved SLA devices indicated for use by clinicians other than dermatologists or the lay public, the agency said in a briefing memo for the meeting. There are two devices with FDA approval, though, for aiding dermatologists. The FDA approved SciBase’s Nevisense in 2017 and Mela Sciences’ MelaFind, which has fallen out of use, in 2012. Both are class III devices.

But some companies intend to offer products for consumers in the United States. The company SkinVision, for example, has developed an app of the same name, which is intended to detect suspicious-looking skin spots via smartphone photos. SkinVision’s website says the product has been offered to consumers in Australia for remote skin checks since 2015. People in the Netherlands and United Kingdom also can use SkinVision, according to the company’s website. SkinVision says the company is working on providing the app for U.S. customers, “but we are not quite there yet.”

During the meeting, FDA panelists repeatedly emphasized the potential risks of these devices in terms of sensitivity (how often a test correctly generates a positive result) and of specificity (how often a test correctly generates a negative result).

New tools intended to aid in detection of skin cancer might produce too many false positives and thus trigger floods of worried patients seeking care and often facing unnecessary biopsies, the FDA panelists said. But more worrisome would be FDA clearance of tools that delivered too many false negative results, leaving people unaware of their cancers.

The standards would have to be set very high for new products, especially those intended for consumers, said FDA panelist Murad Alam, MD, a dermatologist and vice chair of the department of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago. Current technologies for analyzing skin lesions are not yet up to that task. Dr. Alam likened the situation to the hopes for self-driving cars.

“It sounds great in principle. If you read the predictions from 20 years ago, it should already have happened,” Dr. Alam said. “But we’re still struggling with that because there are serious points of failure.”

FDA panelist Veronica Rotemberg, MD, PhD, a dermatologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, also argued for well-designed studies to understand how consumers and clinicians would react to new tools.

“We have to define what prospective information, in the intended use setting, we need to feel comfortable saying that these tools could be in a layperson’s hand or a primary care person’s hand,” Dr. Rotemberg said.

The studies would not need to be large, especially in the case of nonmelanoma skin cancer, which is common, she added.

“There’s too much nuance here for us to be able to say: ‘This is what would happen,’ without testing it,” Dr. Rotemberg said. “I do not think these prospective studies would be very burdensome, but they would help us understand what the burden would be and what the costs would be and what the potential harms would be.”

Because of rules against disclosing corporate information, the FDA cannot tell the public about the kinds of inquiries it already may have fielded from companies interested in selling skin cancer detection tools.

But in response to a question during the FDA meeting, Binita Ashar, MD, a top official in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said there is interest in having these kinds of products sold in the United States as well.

“I can tell you that this a very timely discussion and questions that we’re posing to you are the questions that we’re encountering or that we have been grappling with,” Dr. Ashar said.

FDA panelists noted that many patients cannot get access easily to dermatology visits.

Companies seeking to develop SLA devices likely will market their tools as attempts to fill a gap that now exists in medical care.

But there will be challenges ahead in explaining to patients how to interpret readings from these tools, the FDA panelists said. Consumers should know these tools are meant to assist in diagnosis, and not to make it.

“I’m not sure the layperson will hear that,” said FDA panelist Paula E. Bourelly, MD, a dermatologist from Olney, Md.

As a result, use of SLA tools could create tension between physicians and patients, with consumers demanding biopsies after seeing readings they don’t understand.

“I do have great concerns about the layperson feeling overly confident and reducing the provider to a technician,” she said.

The FDA panelists were not asked to cast formal votes on any issues discussed during the meeting They instead engaged in broad discussions around questions posed by the FDA in three key areas:

• What standards should be used to confirm lesion diagnosis in clinical testing of the accuracy of SLA devices?
• What would be acceptable true false-positive and false-negative results (sensitivity and specificity) for different diagnoses and users?
• How can the FDA address health equity considerations based on variable incidence of skin lesions?

Developing standards

The FDA asked the panel to consider several scenarios for SLA devices and to discuss how standards might vary depending on the user of the device, whether it would be dermatologists, other clinicians, or consumers.

The agency sought comments in particular about using histological diagnosis (core specimen processing with a consensus diagnosis from an expert dermatopathologist panel). In the briefing document for the meeting, the FDA argued that this approach provides the greatest certainty in the diagnosis.

“Device developers, however, cite concerns, both practical and ethical, in requiring biopsy of all lesions, particularly those that appear benign,” the FDA said. “They have proposed alternate means of defining ground truth, including consensus opinion of experts (of visual or dermoscopic examination of the lesion[s]), opinion of one expert (visual or dermoscopic examination), or other methods.”

In summarizing the discussion on this question, the FDA panel chairman, Hobart W. Harris, MD, MPH, a surgeon from the University of California, San Francisco, noted that there was broad support for histological data in clinical trials of SLA devices, with some allowance for cases where more hybrid approaches would be used.

There were also suggestions offered about designing trials and the need for biopsies of lesions that are clearly benign, as this would help gather data to help in developing algorithms.

Dr. Alam said care should be taken in explaining to study participants that they might have to undergo biopsies that they didn’t need, as part of the larger effort to gather data. This should be detailed in the consent form, he said.

“But I also think this is a relatively minor risk,” Dr. Alam said, comparing these biopsies to the blood samples that patients in many clinical studies routinely give.

“Are all of those blood draws necessary to track the change in whatever parameters that are being tracked? Probably not,” Dr. Alam said. “I think it would be possible to explain to a reasonable patient what this entails.”

Dr. Alam noted that companies might face extra hurdles in enrolling study participants and keeping them in the trials if the FDA seeks this kind of biopsy data. “But I don’t think inconvenience to the study sponsor is a good argument” for not seeking this kind of data, he added.

Leaving a loophole where certain kinds of clearly benign lesions don’t require a biopsy would eventually erode the quality of the research done on these devices. “That bar will be moved to accommodate the convenience of the sponsor, to make the study feasible,” Dr. Alam said. “And pretty soon, you’ll be missing a lot of patients that really should have biopsies.”
 

Acceptable rates of false positives, false negatives

The FDA panel chair noted that his colleagues had strongly urged review standards that would require that the devices improve on the rates of successful catches of suspicious lesions and lower false positives. But they did not endorse specific targets regarding the sensitivity and specificity rates.

“No one seems to be comfortable with providing or preordaining” these targets, Dr. Harris said.

Panelist Deneen Hesser, MSHSA, RN, urged a deep recognition of the power of a FDA clearance in the view of consumers.

“We need to be cognizant of what the term ‘FDA approved’ means to the lay individual,” said Ms. Hesser, who served as the patient representative on the panel. “A patient who sees that those tools are FDA approved will assume that each of those is the gold standard” in terms of expectations for delivering accurate results.

Like many of the panelists, Dr. Rotemberg urged the FDA to gather data about how patients would react to different messages encoded in consumer-oriented products.

Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

“If the device says: ‘You should see a dermatologist for this’ and no other information, that’s very different from [saying]: ‘That lesion is suspicious for melanoma,’ ” Dr. Rotemberg said.

Despite the likely difficulties in conducting trials, the FDA needs to have the data to answer key questions about patient and physician reactions to readings from new tools, Dr. Rotemberg said.

“We don’t know how many additional biopsies we would cause with a specificity of 80%” for a new SLA tool, Dr. Rotemberg said, giving an example. “We don’t know how confident a dermatologist might be to say: ‘Actually, I’m not suspicious about that lesion and we can just fudge it or not biopsy it.’ We don’t know any of that until we study it in real life.”

The panelists also urged the FDA to seek to ensure that new tools used in analyzing skin lesions improve the quality of diagnosis.
 

Addressing equity

The FDA also asked the panel to weigh in on whether the agency should clear SLA tools in cases where the existing study data is drawn heavily from people considered to be at higher risk for skin cancer.

No credit needed per U.S. gov work.

“To ensure generalizability across the entire U.S. population, should FDA require SLAs indicated for use beyond cancerous lesions be tested in a representative U.S. population?” the FDA asked.

The three most common skin cancers – melanoma, basal cell carcinoma, and squamous cell carcinoma – are more prevalent in people with Fitzpatrick I and II skin types, who tend to get sunburns, not tans. But people of color are more likely to develop melanoma in areas that are not sun exposed, such as the sole of the foot or under fingernails or toenails.

“Due in part to lower expected risk and screening, these melanomas are often detected late,” the FDA said in the briefing document.

There was broad consensus among panelists that the FDA should encourage companies to enroll people with all skin types and tones.

But they also looked for ways that the FDA could clear devices based on initial studies conducted largely with people considered to be at higher risk, with the agency then requiring follow-up trials to see how these products would work for the general U.S. population.

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

INDIANAPOLIS – If there’s one truth that David R. Stukus, MD, has come to realize from his 2 years as director of a food allergy treatment center, it’s that food allergies in children and adolescents are grossly overdiagnosed and misdiagnosed.

“When they’re given a diagnosis of food allergy, many families do not receive proper education to help them understand the risk as well as self-management and prognosis,” he said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “They are left to fend for themselves, which leads to increased anxiety. If they don’t understand what it means to manage their child’s food allergy, they’re going to think that they’re a ticking time bomb,” said Dr. Stukus, director of the Food Allergy Treatment Center and professor of pediatrics in the division of allergy and immunology at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

During his presentation, he toured clinicians through best practices to diagnose and treat food allergies and shared cautionary tales of unsupported claims, unnecessary testing, and potential harm to misdiagnosed patients.

While food allergies can be serious and life-threatening, they are also manageable, he continued. It doesn’t mean that children with food allergies can’t go to school, attend baseball games, or participate in activities that any other child would. “Telling someone to adopt a restricted diet is not a benign recommendation,” he said. “That can cause real harm.”

Dr. Stukus defined food allergy as an immunologic response to an allergen that results in reproducible symptoms with every exposure. “Most commonly we’re going to see IgE-mediated food allergies, which often occur within minutes of eating certain foods,” he said.

Food intolerance, on the other hand, is a nonimmunologic response to a food that causes gastrointestinal symptoms with exposure. “This can come and go over time,” he said. “The most common example is lactose intolerance.”

Then there’s food sensitivity, which Dr. Stukus said is not a medical term but a marketing term often applied to a variety of symptoms without evidence to support its use.

“On the Internet you will find many companies marketing food sensitivity tests,” he said. “Gluten-free foods are now a billion-dollar industry. There are no validated tests to diagnose food sensitivity. All the blood tests measure IgG, which is memory antibody. If you eat a food, it is a normal response to produce IgG to it, but these companies will test all these things and when it comes back elevated, they say ‘Aha! This is your food sensitivity and this is why you’re not sleeping well at night.’ ” To illustrate the harm that can come from food allergy tests he discussed a 6-year-old girl who presented to his clinic several years ago with typical symptoms of allergic rhinitis. The parent reported a history of sneezing around dogs, itchy, watery eyes in the spring, recurrent cough, and frequent upper respiratory infections.

The referring physician had ordered an allergy panel, which flagged a long list of foods that the girl was supposedly allergic to, including banana, egg white, cod, and peanut. “This family was told to take all of these foods out of her diet,” Dr. Stukus said. “Interestingly, she had been seen by this physician for evaluation of environmental allergies, but the only ones included in the test were cat, cockroach, dog, and dust mite. They didn’t even include the spring pollen allergies. You want to avoid tests like this.”

Food sensitization is not the same as food allergy, he continued, noting that about 30% of all children will have detectable IgE toward peanuts, milk, egg, and shrimp, but that only about 5% are truly allergic to those foods.

“If we go by IgE testing alone, we’re going to overdiagnose the vast majority of people with food allergies that they don’t actually have,” he said. “Food allergy is diagnosed by the history and then confirmed by testing. With IgE-mediated food allergies we know that milk, egg, wheat, soy, finned fish, shellfish, and peanuts account for more than 90% of all food allergy reactions. Can any food potentially cause a food allergy? Yes, potentially, but we know that most fruits and vegetables and grains are very unlikely to cause an allergy.”

IgE-mediated food allergies are objective, immediate onset, and reproducible with every exposure to the offending food, no matter what form. Typical symptoms include hives, swelling, vomiting, runny nose/congestion, wheezing, hypotension, and anaphylaxis.

“We can also accurately identify infants that are more at risk to develop food allergies,” Dr. Stukus said. Infants with refractory atopic dermatitis often progress from eczema to food allergies to allergic rhinitis and asthma, the so-called “allergic march.” “Family history does have a role as well, but it’s not as significant,” he said. As for diagnostic tools, skin prick testing detects the presence of specific IgE bound to cutaneous mast cells and has a high negative predictive value and a low positive predictive value (around 50%).

With serum-specific IgE testing, levels of IgE for food and/or inhalant allergen can be obtained conveniently through routine venipuncture. Results are reported in ranges from 0.1 kU/L to 100 kU/L, and some are reported as arbitrary classes in levels of severity from 1 to 5.

“I highly discourage anybody from paying attention to arbitrary classes [on these reports],” Dr. Stukus said. “Those are meaningless. The absolute value is all that matters.”

He added that both skin and blood testing have high rates of false positive results. “We really need to use the history to help guide what tests we do; they were never designed to be used as screening tests, yet they’re used as screening tests on a regular basis,” he said. “There is also no indication to do shotgun testing. The reason why is because we see lots of cross reactivity on testing. If we have someone with peanut allergy and we start doing specific IgE testing for all legumes, more often than not we’re going to find detectable IgE, but it’s much less likely that they actually have clinical reactivity to foods like soy and beans.”

Dr. Stukus advises clinicians to consider certain questions before they order an allergen panel, the first being: Do I have the knowledge and experience to properly interpret the results?

“If you don’t know how to interpret the test, you probably shouldn’t order it in the first place,” he said. “If you do have the knowledge to interpret the results, will the results help to determine the diagnosis or change management? If not, why are you testing just to test? There is zero clinical indication to order a food allergy panel.” Dr. Stukus recommended a review of unproven tests for adverse reactions to foods published in 2018 in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

According to Dr. Stukus, potential harms from unproven food allergy tests include cost, unnecessary dietary avoidance, and a delay in diagnosis for the underlying condition. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he observed an increase in the number of patients with orthorexia, which he described as an eating disorder characterized by having an unsafe obsession with healthy food that becomes deeply rooted in the individual’s way of thinking to the point that it interferes with daily life.

“If you take someone who has anxiety at baseline, and then you give them a list of foods that they allegedly can’t eat, that’s going to cause worse anxiety,” he added. “We’re seeing that from the results of these tests.”

Dr. Stukus disclosed that he is a consultant for Before Brands, Kaleo, and Novartis. He is also associate editor of the Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

INDIANAPOLIS – If there’s one truth that David R. Stukus, MD, has come to realize from his 2 years as director of a food allergy treatment center, it’s that food allergies in children and adolescents are grossly overdiagnosed and misdiagnosed.

“When they’re given a diagnosis of food allergy, many families do not receive proper education to help them understand the risk as well as self-management and prognosis,” he said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “They are left to fend for themselves, which leads to increased anxiety. If they don’t understand what it means to manage their child’s food allergy, they’re going to think that they’re a ticking time bomb,” said Dr. Stukus, director of the Food Allergy Treatment Center and professor of pediatrics in the division of allergy and immunology at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

During his presentation, he toured clinicians through best practices to diagnose and treat food allergies and shared cautionary tales of unsupported claims, unnecessary testing, and potential harm to misdiagnosed patients.

While food allergies can be serious and life-threatening, they are also manageable, he continued. It doesn’t mean that children with food allergies can’t go to school, attend baseball games, or participate in activities that any other child would. “Telling someone to adopt a restricted diet is not a benign recommendation,” he said. “That can cause real harm.”

Dr. Stukus defined food allergy as an immunologic response to an allergen that results in reproducible symptoms with every exposure. “Most commonly we’re going to see IgE-mediated food allergies, which often occur within minutes of eating certain foods,” he said.

Food intolerance, on the other hand, is a nonimmunologic response to a food that causes gastrointestinal symptoms with exposure. “This can come and go over time,” he said. “The most common example is lactose intolerance.”

Then there’s food sensitivity, which Dr. Stukus said is not a medical term but a marketing term often applied to a variety of symptoms without evidence to support its use.

“On the Internet you will find many companies marketing food sensitivity tests,” he said. “Gluten-free foods are now a billion-dollar industry. There are no validated tests to diagnose food sensitivity. All the blood tests measure IgG, which is memory antibody. If you eat a food, it is a normal response to produce IgG to it, but these companies will test all these things and when it comes back elevated, they say ‘Aha! This is your food sensitivity and this is why you’re not sleeping well at night.’ ” To illustrate the harm that can come from food allergy tests he discussed a 6-year-old girl who presented to his clinic several years ago with typical symptoms of allergic rhinitis. The parent reported a history of sneezing around dogs, itchy, watery eyes in the spring, recurrent cough, and frequent upper respiratory infections.

The referring physician had ordered an allergy panel, which flagged a long list of foods that the girl was supposedly allergic to, including banana, egg white, cod, and peanut. “This family was told to take all of these foods out of her diet,” Dr. Stukus said. “Interestingly, she had been seen by this physician for evaluation of environmental allergies, but the only ones included in the test were cat, cockroach, dog, and dust mite. They didn’t even include the spring pollen allergies. You want to avoid tests like this.”

Food sensitization is not the same as food allergy, he continued, noting that about 30% of all children will have detectable IgE toward peanuts, milk, egg, and shrimp, but that only about 5% are truly allergic to those foods.

“If we go by IgE testing alone, we’re going to overdiagnose the vast majority of people with food allergies that they don’t actually have,” he said. “Food allergy is diagnosed by the history and then confirmed by testing. With IgE-mediated food allergies we know that milk, egg, wheat, soy, finned fish, shellfish, and peanuts account for more than 90% of all food allergy reactions. Can any food potentially cause a food allergy? Yes, potentially, but we know that most fruits and vegetables and grains are very unlikely to cause an allergy.”

IgE-mediated food allergies are objective, immediate onset, and reproducible with every exposure to the offending food, no matter what form. Typical symptoms include hives, swelling, vomiting, runny nose/congestion, wheezing, hypotension, and anaphylaxis.

“We can also accurately identify infants that are more at risk to develop food allergies,” Dr. Stukus said. Infants with refractory atopic dermatitis often progress from eczema to food allergies to allergic rhinitis and asthma, the so-called “allergic march.” “Family history does have a role as well, but it’s not as significant,” he said. As for diagnostic tools, skin prick testing detects the presence of specific IgE bound to cutaneous mast cells and has a high negative predictive value and a low positive predictive value (around 50%).

With serum-specific IgE testing, levels of IgE for food and/or inhalant allergen can be obtained conveniently through routine venipuncture. Results are reported in ranges from 0.1 kU/L to 100 kU/L, and some are reported as arbitrary classes in levels of severity from 1 to 5.

“I highly discourage anybody from paying attention to arbitrary classes [on these reports],” Dr. Stukus said. “Those are meaningless. The absolute value is all that matters.”

He added that both skin and blood testing have high rates of false positive results. “We really need to use the history to help guide what tests we do; they were never designed to be used as screening tests, yet they’re used as screening tests on a regular basis,” he said. “There is also no indication to do shotgun testing. The reason why is because we see lots of cross reactivity on testing. If we have someone with peanut allergy and we start doing specific IgE testing for all legumes, more often than not we’re going to find detectable IgE, but it’s much less likely that they actually have clinical reactivity to foods like soy and beans.”

Dr. Stukus advises clinicians to consider certain questions before they order an allergen panel, the first being: Do I have the knowledge and experience to properly interpret the results?

“If you don’t know how to interpret the test, you probably shouldn’t order it in the first place,” he said. “If you do have the knowledge to interpret the results, will the results help to determine the diagnosis or change management? If not, why are you testing just to test? There is zero clinical indication to order a food allergy panel.” Dr. Stukus recommended a review of unproven tests for adverse reactions to foods published in 2018 in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

According to Dr. Stukus, potential harms from unproven food allergy tests include cost, unnecessary dietary avoidance, and a delay in diagnosis for the underlying condition. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he observed an increase in the number of patients with orthorexia, which he described as an eating disorder characterized by having an unsafe obsession with healthy food that becomes deeply rooted in the individual’s way of thinking to the point that it interferes with daily life.

“If you take someone who has anxiety at baseline, and then you give them a list of foods that they allegedly can’t eat, that’s going to cause worse anxiety,” he added. “We’re seeing that from the results of these tests.”

Dr. Stukus disclosed that he is a consultant for Before Brands, Kaleo, and Novartis. He is also associate editor of the Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

INDIANAPOLIS – If there’s one truth that David R. Stukus, MD, has come to realize from his 2 years as director of a food allergy treatment center, it’s that food allergies in children and adolescents are grossly overdiagnosed and misdiagnosed.

“When they’re given a diagnosis of food allergy, many families do not receive proper education to help them understand the risk as well as self-management and prognosis,” he said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology. “They are left to fend for themselves, which leads to increased anxiety. If they don’t understand what it means to manage their child’s food allergy, they’re going to think that they’re a ticking time bomb,” said Dr. Stukus, director of the Food Allergy Treatment Center and professor of pediatrics in the division of allergy and immunology at Nationwide Children’s Hospital in Columbus, Ohio.

During his presentation, he toured clinicians through best practices to diagnose and treat food allergies and shared cautionary tales of unsupported claims, unnecessary testing, and potential harm to misdiagnosed patients.

While food allergies can be serious and life-threatening, they are also manageable, he continued. It doesn’t mean that children with food allergies can’t go to school, attend baseball games, or participate in activities that any other child would. “Telling someone to adopt a restricted diet is not a benign recommendation,” he said. “That can cause real harm.”

Dr. Stukus defined food allergy as an immunologic response to an allergen that results in reproducible symptoms with every exposure. “Most commonly we’re going to see IgE-mediated food allergies, which often occur within minutes of eating certain foods,” he said.

Food intolerance, on the other hand, is a nonimmunologic response to a food that causes gastrointestinal symptoms with exposure. “This can come and go over time,” he said. “The most common example is lactose intolerance.”

Then there’s food sensitivity, which Dr. Stukus said is not a medical term but a marketing term often applied to a variety of symptoms without evidence to support its use.

“On the Internet you will find many companies marketing food sensitivity tests,” he said. “Gluten-free foods are now a billion-dollar industry. There are no validated tests to diagnose food sensitivity. All the blood tests measure IgG, which is memory antibody. If you eat a food, it is a normal response to produce IgG to it, but these companies will test all these things and when it comes back elevated, they say ‘Aha! This is your food sensitivity and this is why you’re not sleeping well at night.’ ” To illustrate the harm that can come from food allergy tests he discussed a 6-year-old girl who presented to his clinic several years ago with typical symptoms of allergic rhinitis. The parent reported a history of sneezing around dogs, itchy, watery eyes in the spring, recurrent cough, and frequent upper respiratory infections.

The referring physician had ordered an allergy panel, which flagged a long list of foods that the girl was supposedly allergic to, including banana, egg white, cod, and peanut. “This family was told to take all of these foods out of her diet,” Dr. Stukus said. “Interestingly, she had been seen by this physician for evaluation of environmental allergies, but the only ones included in the test were cat, cockroach, dog, and dust mite. They didn’t even include the spring pollen allergies. You want to avoid tests like this.”

Food sensitization is not the same as food allergy, he continued, noting that about 30% of all children will have detectable IgE toward peanuts, milk, egg, and shrimp, but that only about 5% are truly allergic to those foods.

“If we go by IgE testing alone, we’re going to overdiagnose the vast majority of people with food allergies that they don’t actually have,” he said. “Food allergy is diagnosed by the history and then confirmed by testing. With IgE-mediated food allergies we know that milk, egg, wheat, soy, finned fish, shellfish, and peanuts account for more than 90% of all food allergy reactions. Can any food potentially cause a food allergy? Yes, potentially, but we know that most fruits and vegetables and grains are very unlikely to cause an allergy.”

IgE-mediated food allergies are objective, immediate onset, and reproducible with every exposure to the offending food, no matter what form. Typical symptoms include hives, swelling, vomiting, runny nose/congestion, wheezing, hypotension, and anaphylaxis.

“We can also accurately identify infants that are more at risk to develop food allergies,” Dr. Stukus said. Infants with refractory atopic dermatitis often progress from eczema to food allergies to allergic rhinitis and asthma, the so-called “allergic march.” “Family history does have a role as well, but it’s not as significant,” he said. As for diagnostic tools, skin prick testing detects the presence of specific IgE bound to cutaneous mast cells and has a high negative predictive value and a low positive predictive value (around 50%).

With serum-specific IgE testing, levels of IgE for food and/or inhalant allergen can be obtained conveniently through routine venipuncture. Results are reported in ranges from 0.1 kU/L to 100 kU/L, and some are reported as arbitrary classes in levels of severity from 1 to 5.

“I highly discourage anybody from paying attention to arbitrary classes [on these reports],” Dr. Stukus said. “Those are meaningless. The absolute value is all that matters.”

He added that both skin and blood testing have high rates of false positive results. “We really need to use the history to help guide what tests we do; they were never designed to be used as screening tests, yet they’re used as screening tests on a regular basis,” he said. “There is also no indication to do shotgun testing. The reason why is because we see lots of cross reactivity on testing. If we have someone with peanut allergy and we start doing specific IgE testing for all legumes, more often than not we’re going to find detectable IgE, but it’s much less likely that they actually have clinical reactivity to foods like soy and beans.”

Dr. Stukus advises clinicians to consider certain questions before they order an allergen panel, the first being: Do I have the knowledge and experience to properly interpret the results?

“If you don’t know how to interpret the test, you probably shouldn’t order it in the first place,” he said. “If you do have the knowledge to interpret the results, will the results help to determine the diagnosis or change management? If not, why are you testing just to test? There is zero clinical indication to order a food allergy panel.” Dr. Stukus recommended a review of unproven tests for adverse reactions to foods published in 2018 in The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology.

According to Dr. Stukus, potential harms from unproven food allergy tests include cost, unnecessary dietary avoidance, and a delay in diagnosis for the underlying condition. During the COVID-19 pandemic, he observed an increase in the number of patients with orthorexia, which he described as an eating disorder characterized by having an unsafe obsession with healthy food that becomes deeply rooted in the individual’s way of thinking to the point that it interferes with daily life.

“If you take someone who has anxiety at baseline, and then you give them a list of foods that they allegedly can’t eat, that’s going to cause worse anxiety,” he added. “We’re seeing that from the results of these tests.”

Dr. Stukus disclosed that he is a consultant for Before Brands, Kaleo, and Novartis. He is also associate editor of the Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

As cases of monkeypox continue to mount in the United States and abroad, infectious disease experts are closely monitoring one group of people in particular: women.

So far, the overwhelming majority of cases of the viral disease have been reported in men who have sex with men. But in recent days, officials have learned of a handful of cases in women – possibly indicating that the outbreak may be widening.

Researchers are keeping close tabs on the proportion of cases in women to “assess whether the outbreak is moving away” from networks of men who have sex with men, where most of the initial cases have been identified, according to a briefing from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA).

“There is insufficient evidence to support a change in the transmission dynamics,” the agency said. “However, over the last few weeks the proportion of female cases has been increasing, so this trend needs to be monitored closely.”

A global collaboration of researchers and clinicians recently described 528 cases of monkeypox in 16 countries – but none were in women.

Since data collection for that study ended in June, the research group has confirmed cases in women, said study coauthor John P. Thornhill, MD, PhD, consultant physician in sexual health and HIV and clinical senior lecturer at Barts Health NHS Trust and Queen Mary University of London.

“Cases in women have certainly been reported but are currently far less common,” Dr. Thornhill told this news organization.

Although infections in women have been outliers during the current outbreak, they can be severe when they do occur. Several women in England have been hospitalized with severe symptoms.

A similar pattern has been seen in New York City, where just one woman is among the 639 total cases, according to a July 21 report from the city’s health agency.

Researchers have recently published guidance on monkeypox for ob.gyns., maternal-fetal medicine subspecialists, and people who are pregnant or breastfeeding in anticipation of the possibility of more cases in women.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises that “pregnant, recently pregnant, and breastfeeding people should be prioritized for medical treatment” of monkeypox if needed. 

One monkeypox vaccine, Jynneos, can be offered to people who are pregnant or breastfeeding and are otherwise eligible for vaccination on the basis of confirmed or likely contact with cases, ideally within 4 days of exposure. Some people at high risk for exposure, such as laboratory workers, may receive the vaccine preemptively.

Another vaccine, ACAM2000, is contraindicated in people who are pregnant or breastfeeding, according to the CDC.
 

Transmission dynamics

Investigators have not yet identified substantial spread of monkeypox beyond men who have sex with men, although transmission among household contacts, including women and children, has been reported.

Most initial infections during the current outbreak occurred during sexual activity. But monkeypox can spread through any close contact with skin lesions or body fluids and possibly through touching contaminated items like clothing or linens, according to the CDC. It also may spread from mother to child in utero.

Infected pets have been known to spread the disease as well. A multistate monkeypox outbreak in the United States in 2003 was linked to pet prairie dogs, including in childcare and school settings. That year, 55% of the 71 cases occurred in female patients.
 

More testing, higher positivity rates in men

Since May, more men than women in the United Kingdom have undergone testing for monkeypox, with 3,467 tests in men versus 447 tests in women. Among those tested, the positivity rate has been far higher in men than in women, 54% versus 2.2%, respectively.

As of July 20, about 0.65% of U.K. cases with known gender were in women. Two weeks prior, about 0.4% were in women.

In all, 13 monkeypox cases in England have been in women, and four had severe manifestations that required hospitalization, according to the UKHSA.

Globally, more than 16,000 monkeypox cases have been reported, according to the World Health Organization. The agency said that it plans to rename the disease to reduce stigma.
 

Monkeypox and pregnancy

Ob.gyns. are often on the “front line in terms of identifying people with infectious diseases,” said Denise J. Jamieson, MD, MPH, Emory University, Atlanta. Dr. Jamieson coauthored “A Primer on Monkeypox Virus for Obstetrician-Gynecologists,” published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“Obstetricians need to be aware of what infectious diseases are circulating and be aware of what is going on in the community,” she said.

With monkeypox, “it is anybody’s guess as to how widespread this is going to be,” Dr. Jamieson said.

“The initial monkeypox cases in the current outbreak have been predominately but not exclusively among men who have sex with men; enhanced transmission in this group may be facilitated by sexual activity and spread through complex sexual networks,” Dr. Thornhill said. “As the outbreak continues, we will likely see more monkeypox infections” outside that group.

“Those working in sexual health should have a high index of suspicion in all individuals presenting with genital and oral ulcers and those with proctitis,” he added.

During previous monkeypox outbreaks, the chain of household transmissions has been short, typically two or three people, said Chloe M. Orkin, MD, professor of HIV medicine at Queen Mary University of London. Dr. Orkin directs the Sexual Health and HIV All East Research (SHARE) Collaborative, which has worked to compile the international case series.

Though monkeypox has mainly been transmitted among men who have sex with men, not all identify as gay and some may also have female and nonbinary partners, Dr. Orkin said.

“Clinicians should bear this in mind when examining any person,” she said.

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

As cases of monkeypox continue to mount in the United States and abroad, infectious disease experts are closely monitoring one group of people in particular: women.

So far, the overwhelming majority of cases of the viral disease have been reported in men who have sex with men. But in recent days, officials have learned of a handful of cases in women – possibly indicating that the outbreak may be widening.

Researchers are keeping close tabs on the proportion of cases in women to “assess whether the outbreak is moving away” from networks of men who have sex with men, where most of the initial cases have been identified, according to a briefing from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA).

“There is insufficient evidence to support a change in the transmission dynamics,” the agency said. “However, over the last few weeks the proportion of female cases has been increasing, so this trend needs to be monitored closely.”

A global collaboration of researchers and clinicians recently described 528 cases of monkeypox in 16 countries – but none were in women.

Since data collection for that study ended in June, the research group has confirmed cases in women, said study coauthor John P. Thornhill, MD, PhD, consultant physician in sexual health and HIV and clinical senior lecturer at Barts Health NHS Trust and Queen Mary University of London.

“Cases in women have certainly been reported but are currently far less common,” Dr. Thornhill told this news organization.

Although infections in women have been outliers during the current outbreak, they can be severe when they do occur. Several women in England have been hospitalized with severe symptoms.

A similar pattern has been seen in New York City, where just one woman is among the 639 total cases, according to a July 21 report from the city’s health agency.

Researchers have recently published guidance on monkeypox for ob.gyns., maternal-fetal medicine subspecialists, and people who are pregnant or breastfeeding in anticipation of the possibility of more cases in women.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises that “pregnant, recently pregnant, and breastfeeding people should be prioritized for medical treatment” of monkeypox if needed. 

One monkeypox vaccine, Jynneos, can be offered to people who are pregnant or breastfeeding and are otherwise eligible for vaccination on the basis of confirmed or likely contact with cases, ideally within 4 days of exposure. Some people at high risk for exposure, such as laboratory workers, may receive the vaccine preemptively.

Another vaccine, ACAM2000, is contraindicated in people who are pregnant or breastfeeding, according to the CDC.
 

Transmission dynamics

Investigators have not yet identified substantial spread of monkeypox beyond men who have sex with men, although transmission among household contacts, including women and children, has been reported.

Most initial infections during the current outbreak occurred during sexual activity. But monkeypox can spread through any close contact with skin lesions or body fluids and possibly through touching contaminated items like clothing or linens, according to the CDC. It also may spread from mother to child in utero.

Infected pets have been known to spread the disease as well. A multistate monkeypox outbreak in the United States in 2003 was linked to pet prairie dogs, including in childcare and school settings. That year, 55% of the 71 cases occurred in female patients.
 

More testing, higher positivity rates in men

Since May, more men than women in the United Kingdom have undergone testing for monkeypox, with 3,467 tests in men versus 447 tests in women. Among those tested, the positivity rate has been far higher in men than in women, 54% versus 2.2%, respectively.

As of July 20, about 0.65% of U.K. cases with known gender were in women. Two weeks prior, about 0.4% were in women.

In all, 13 monkeypox cases in England have been in women, and four had severe manifestations that required hospitalization, according to the UKHSA.

Globally, more than 16,000 monkeypox cases have been reported, according to the World Health Organization. The agency said that it plans to rename the disease to reduce stigma.
 

Monkeypox and pregnancy

Ob.gyns. are often on the “front line in terms of identifying people with infectious diseases,” said Denise J. Jamieson, MD, MPH, Emory University, Atlanta. Dr. Jamieson coauthored “A Primer on Monkeypox Virus for Obstetrician-Gynecologists,” published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“Obstetricians need to be aware of what infectious diseases are circulating and be aware of what is going on in the community,” she said.

With monkeypox, “it is anybody’s guess as to how widespread this is going to be,” Dr. Jamieson said.

“The initial monkeypox cases in the current outbreak have been predominately but not exclusively among men who have sex with men; enhanced transmission in this group may be facilitated by sexual activity and spread through complex sexual networks,” Dr. Thornhill said. “As the outbreak continues, we will likely see more monkeypox infections” outside that group.

“Those working in sexual health should have a high index of suspicion in all individuals presenting with genital and oral ulcers and those with proctitis,” he added.

During previous monkeypox outbreaks, the chain of household transmissions has been short, typically two or three people, said Chloe M. Orkin, MD, professor of HIV medicine at Queen Mary University of London. Dr. Orkin directs the Sexual Health and HIV All East Research (SHARE) Collaborative, which has worked to compile the international case series.

Though monkeypox has mainly been transmitted among men who have sex with men, not all identify as gay and some may also have female and nonbinary partners, Dr. Orkin said.

“Clinicians should bear this in mind when examining any person,” she said.

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

As cases of monkeypox continue to mount in the United States and abroad, infectious disease experts are closely monitoring one group of people in particular: women.

So far, the overwhelming majority of cases of the viral disease have been reported in men who have sex with men. But in recent days, officials have learned of a handful of cases in women – possibly indicating that the outbreak may be widening.

Researchers are keeping close tabs on the proportion of cases in women to “assess whether the outbreak is moving away” from networks of men who have sex with men, where most of the initial cases have been identified, according to a briefing from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA).

“There is insufficient evidence to support a change in the transmission dynamics,” the agency said. “However, over the last few weeks the proportion of female cases has been increasing, so this trend needs to be monitored closely.”

A global collaboration of researchers and clinicians recently described 528 cases of monkeypox in 16 countries – but none were in women.

Since data collection for that study ended in June, the research group has confirmed cases in women, said study coauthor John P. Thornhill, MD, PhD, consultant physician in sexual health and HIV and clinical senior lecturer at Barts Health NHS Trust and Queen Mary University of London.

“Cases in women have certainly been reported but are currently far less common,” Dr. Thornhill told this news organization.

Although infections in women have been outliers during the current outbreak, they can be severe when they do occur. Several women in England have been hospitalized with severe symptoms.

A similar pattern has been seen in New York City, where just one woman is among the 639 total cases, according to a July 21 report from the city’s health agency.

Researchers have recently published guidance on monkeypox for ob.gyns., maternal-fetal medicine subspecialists, and people who are pregnant or breastfeeding in anticipation of the possibility of more cases in women.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises that “pregnant, recently pregnant, and breastfeeding people should be prioritized for medical treatment” of monkeypox if needed. 

One monkeypox vaccine, Jynneos, can be offered to people who are pregnant or breastfeeding and are otherwise eligible for vaccination on the basis of confirmed or likely contact with cases, ideally within 4 days of exposure. Some people at high risk for exposure, such as laboratory workers, may receive the vaccine preemptively.

Another vaccine, ACAM2000, is contraindicated in people who are pregnant or breastfeeding, according to the CDC.
 

Transmission dynamics

Investigators have not yet identified substantial spread of monkeypox beyond men who have sex with men, although transmission among household contacts, including women and children, has been reported.

Most initial infections during the current outbreak occurred during sexual activity. But monkeypox can spread through any close contact with skin lesions or body fluids and possibly through touching contaminated items like clothing or linens, according to the CDC. It also may spread from mother to child in utero.

Infected pets have been known to spread the disease as well. A multistate monkeypox outbreak in the United States in 2003 was linked to pet prairie dogs, including in childcare and school settings. That year, 55% of the 71 cases occurred in female patients.
 

More testing, higher positivity rates in men

Since May, more men than women in the United Kingdom have undergone testing for monkeypox, with 3,467 tests in men versus 447 tests in women. Among those tested, the positivity rate has been far higher in men than in women, 54% versus 2.2%, respectively.

As of July 20, about 0.65% of U.K. cases with known gender were in women. Two weeks prior, about 0.4% were in women.

In all, 13 monkeypox cases in England have been in women, and four had severe manifestations that required hospitalization, according to the UKHSA.

Globally, more than 16,000 monkeypox cases have been reported, according to the World Health Organization. The agency said that it plans to rename the disease to reduce stigma.
 

Monkeypox and pregnancy

Ob.gyns. are often on the “front line in terms of identifying people with infectious diseases,” said Denise J. Jamieson, MD, MPH, Emory University, Atlanta. Dr. Jamieson coauthored “A Primer on Monkeypox Virus for Obstetrician-Gynecologists,” published in Obstetrics & Gynecology.

“Obstetricians need to be aware of what infectious diseases are circulating and be aware of what is going on in the community,” she said.

With monkeypox, “it is anybody’s guess as to how widespread this is going to be,” Dr. Jamieson said.

“The initial monkeypox cases in the current outbreak have been predominately but not exclusively among men who have sex with men; enhanced transmission in this group may be facilitated by sexual activity and spread through complex sexual networks,” Dr. Thornhill said. “As the outbreak continues, we will likely see more monkeypox infections” outside that group.

“Those working in sexual health should have a high index of suspicion in all individuals presenting with genital and oral ulcers and those with proctitis,” he added.

During previous monkeypox outbreaks, the chain of household transmissions has been short, typically two or three people, said Chloe M. Orkin, MD, professor of HIV medicine at Queen Mary University of London. Dr. Orkin directs the Sexual Health and HIV All East Research (SHARE) Collaborative, which has worked to compile the international case series.

Though monkeypox has mainly been transmitted among men who have sex with men, not all identify as gay and some may also have female and nonbinary partners, Dr. Orkin said.

“Clinicians should bear this in mind when examining any person,” she said.

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

Shave biopsy was consistent with a solitary periungual angiofibroma, often termed a Koenen tumor. These can manifest as a soft pink papule (as with this patient), sometimes with a distal keratinaceous tip. At times, the nail bed and nail plate may be deformed because of the angiofibroma.

Periungual angiofibromas can occur sporadically in children and adults, it was a solitary finding in this case. Importantly, periungual angiofibromas may also occur as a visible sign of a multisystem genetic disorder known as tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC). TSC causes benign tumors to develop throughout the body (eg, skin, brain, heart, lungs). The condition can be mild or lead to serious disabilities, including seizures and developmental delays.

In isolation, periungual angiofibromas are benign but occasionally hurt or bleed from light trauma. In such cases, or for cosmetic reasons, patients may seek treatments. Complete excision of the lesion may include the affected portion of the nail bed or matrix. This is more easily repaired when the lesion is on the lateral nail fold, facilitating an en bloc fusiform excision and matrixectomy.¹ Surgical excision of a lesion in the mid-proximal nail fold is much more likely to result in long-term nail deformity. Electrosurgery and various laser modalities have been successful as less invasive removal options.² While expensive, topical sirolimus 1% has been used successfully in sporadic angiofibromas and those associated with TSC.

The patient in this case underwent lateral nail fold excision with complete removal of the tumor and repair with a side-to-side closure.

‌

Text courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).

Shave biopsy was consistent with a solitary periungual angiofibroma, often termed a Koenen tumor. These can manifest as a soft pink papule (as with this patient), sometimes with a distal keratinaceous tip. At times, the nail bed and nail plate may be deformed because of the angiofibroma.

Periungual angiofibromas can occur sporadically in children and adults, it was a solitary finding in this case. Importantly, periungual angiofibromas may also occur as a visible sign of a multisystem genetic disorder known as tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC). TSC causes benign tumors to develop throughout the body (eg, skin, brain, heart, lungs). The condition can be mild or lead to serious disabilities, including seizures and developmental delays.

In isolation, periungual angiofibromas are benign but occasionally hurt or bleed from light trauma. In such cases, or for cosmetic reasons, patients may seek treatments. Complete excision of the lesion may include the affected portion of the nail bed or matrix. This is more easily repaired when the lesion is on the lateral nail fold, facilitating an en bloc fusiform excision and matrixectomy.¹ Surgical excision of a lesion in the mid-proximal nail fold is much more likely to result in long-term nail deformity. Electrosurgery and various laser modalities have been successful as less invasive removal options.² While expensive, topical sirolimus 1% has been used successfully in sporadic angiofibromas and those associated with TSC.

The patient in this case underwent lateral nail fold excision with complete removal of the tumor and repair with a side-to-side closure.

‌

Text courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).

Shave biopsy was consistent with a solitary periungual angiofibroma, often termed a Koenen tumor. These can manifest as a soft pink papule (as with this patient), sometimes with a distal keratinaceous tip. At times, the nail bed and nail plate may be deformed because of the angiofibroma.

Periungual angiofibromas can occur sporadically in children and adults, it was a solitary finding in this case. Importantly, periungual angiofibromas may also occur as a visible sign of a multisystem genetic disorder known as tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC). TSC causes benign tumors to develop throughout the body (eg, skin, brain, heart, lungs). The condition can be mild or lead to serious disabilities, including seizures and developmental delays.

In isolation, periungual angiofibromas are benign but occasionally hurt or bleed from light trauma. In such cases, or for cosmetic reasons, patients may seek treatments. Complete excision of the lesion may include the affected portion of the nail bed or matrix. This is more easily repaired when the lesion is on the lateral nail fold, facilitating an en bloc fusiform excision and matrixectomy.¹ Surgical excision of a lesion in the mid-proximal nail fold is much more likely to result in long-term nail deformity. Electrosurgery and various laser modalities have been successful as less invasive removal options.² While expensive, topical sirolimus 1% has been used successfully in sporadic angiofibromas and those associated with TSC.

The patient in this case underwent lateral nail fold excision with complete removal of the tumor and repair with a side-to-side closure.

‌

Text courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD, medical director, MDFMR Dermatology Services, Augusta, ME. Photos courtesy of Jonathan Karnes, MD (copyright retained).

INDIANAPOLIS – When adolescents present with acne that is not responding to isotretinoin, make sure to ask if they’re taking the medication when eating fatty food – which is known to increase the drug’s bioavailability, advises James R. Treat, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“We see lots of teenagers who are on a restrictive diet,” which is “certainly one reason they could be failing isotretinoin,” Dr. Treat said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Often, patients say that they have been referred to him because they had no response to 20 mg or 30 mg per day of isotretinoin. But after a dose escalation to 60 mg per day, their acne worsened.

If the patient’s acne is worsening with a cystic flare, “tripling the dose of isotretinoin is not something that you should do,” Dr. Treat said. “You should lower the dose and consider adding steroids.” For evidence-based recommendations on managing acne fulminans, he recommended an article published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in 2017.

Skin picking is another common reason for failure of isotretinoin, as well as with other acne therapies. These patients may have associated anxiety, which “might be a contraindication or at least something to consider before you put them on isotretinoin,” he noted.

In his experience, off-label use of N-acetylcysteine, an antioxidant and cysteine prodrug, has been “extremely effective” for patients with excoriation disorder. In a randomized trial of adults 18-60 years of age, 47% patients who took 1,200-3,000 mg per day doses of N-acetylcysteine for 12 weeks reported that their skin picking was much or very much improved, compared to 19% of those who took placebo (P = .03). The authors wrote that N-acetylcysteine “increases extracellular levels of glutamate in the nucleus accumbens,” and that these results support the hypothesis that “pharmacologic manipulation of the glutamate system may target core symptoms of compulsive behaviors.”

The tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha blocker adalimumab is a reasonable option for patients with severe cystic inflammatory acne who fail isotretinoin, Dr. Treat said. In one published case, clinicians administered adalimumab 40 mg every other week for a 16-year-old male patient who received isotretinoin for moderate acne vulgaris, which caused sudden development of acne fulminans and incapacitating acute sacroiliitis with bilateral hip arthritis. Inflammatory lesions started to clear in 1 month and comedones improved by 3 months of treatment. Adalimumab was discontinued after 1 year and the patient remained clear.

“There are now multiple reports as well as some case series showing TNF-alpha agents causing clearance of acne,” said Dr. Treat, who directs the hospital’s pediatric dermatology fellowship program. A literature review of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab for treatment-resistant acne found that all agents had similar efficacy after 3-6 months of therapy. “We see this in our GI population, where TNF-alpha agents are helping their acne also,” he said. “We just have to augment it with some topical medications.”

Certain medications can drive the development of acne, including phenytoin, phenobarbital, lithium, MEK inhibitors, EGFR inhibitors, systemic steroids, and unopposed progesterone contraceptives. Some genetic conditions also predispose patients to acne, including mutations in the NCSTN gene and trisomy 13.

Dr. Treat discussed one of his patients with severe acne who had trisomy 13. The patient failed 12 months of doxycycline and amoxicillin in combination with a topical retinoid. He also failed low- and high-dose isotretinoin in combination with prednisone, as well as oral dapsone at a dose of 1 mg/kg per day for 3 months. He was started on adalimumab, but that was stopped after he flared. The patient is now maintained on ustekinumab monthly at a dose of 45 mg.

“I’ve only had a few patients where isotretinoin truly has failed,” Dr. Treat said. He described one patient with severe acne who had a hidradenitis-like appearance in his axilla and groin. “I treated with isotretinoin very gingerly in the beginning, [but] he flared significantly. I had given him concomitant steroids from the very beginning and transitioned to multiple different therapies – all of which failed.”

Next, Dr. Treat tried a course of systemic dapsone, and the patient responded nicely. “As an anti-inflammatory agent, dapsone is very reasonable” to consider, he said. “It’s something to add to your armamentarium.”

Dr. Treat disclosed that he is a consultant for Palvella and Regeneron. He has ownership interests in Matinas Biopharma Holdings, Axsome, Sorrento, and Amarin.

INDIANAPOLIS – When adolescents present with acne that is not responding to isotretinoin, make sure to ask if they’re taking the medication when eating fatty food – which is known to increase the drug’s bioavailability, advises James R. Treat, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“We see lots of teenagers who are on a restrictive diet,” which is “certainly one reason they could be failing isotretinoin,” Dr. Treat said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Often, patients say that they have been referred to him because they had no response to 20 mg or 30 mg per day of isotretinoin. But after a dose escalation to 60 mg per day, their acne worsened.

If the patient’s acne is worsening with a cystic flare, “tripling the dose of isotretinoin is not something that you should do,” Dr. Treat said. “You should lower the dose and consider adding steroids.” For evidence-based recommendations on managing acne fulminans, he recommended an article published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in 2017.

Skin picking is another common reason for failure of isotretinoin, as well as with other acne therapies. These patients may have associated anxiety, which “might be a contraindication or at least something to consider before you put them on isotretinoin,” he noted.

In his experience, off-label use of N-acetylcysteine, an antioxidant and cysteine prodrug, has been “extremely effective” for patients with excoriation disorder. In a randomized trial of adults 18-60 years of age, 47% patients who took 1,200-3,000 mg per day doses of N-acetylcysteine for 12 weeks reported that their skin picking was much or very much improved, compared to 19% of those who took placebo (P = .03). The authors wrote that N-acetylcysteine “increases extracellular levels of glutamate in the nucleus accumbens,” and that these results support the hypothesis that “pharmacologic manipulation of the glutamate system may target core symptoms of compulsive behaviors.”

The tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha blocker adalimumab is a reasonable option for patients with severe cystic inflammatory acne who fail isotretinoin, Dr. Treat said. In one published case, clinicians administered adalimumab 40 mg every other week for a 16-year-old male patient who received isotretinoin for moderate acne vulgaris, which caused sudden development of acne fulminans and incapacitating acute sacroiliitis with bilateral hip arthritis. Inflammatory lesions started to clear in 1 month and comedones improved by 3 months of treatment. Adalimumab was discontinued after 1 year and the patient remained clear.

“There are now multiple reports as well as some case series showing TNF-alpha agents causing clearance of acne,” said Dr. Treat, who directs the hospital’s pediatric dermatology fellowship program. A literature review of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab for treatment-resistant acne found that all agents had similar efficacy after 3-6 months of therapy. “We see this in our GI population, where TNF-alpha agents are helping their acne also,” he said. “We just have to augment it with some topical medications.”

Certain medications can drive the development of acne, including phenytoin, phenobarbital, lithium, MEK inhibitors, EGFR inhibitors, systemic steroids, and unopposed progesterone contraceptives. Some genetic conditions also predispose patients to acne, including mutations in the NCSTN gene and trisomy 13.

Dr. Treat discussed one of his patients with severe acne who had trisomy 13. The patient failed 12 months of doxycycline and amoxicillin in combination with a topical retinoid. He also failed low- and high-dose isotretinoin in combination with prednisone, as well as oral dapsone at a dose of 1 mg/kg per day for 3 months. He was started on adalimumab, but that was stopped after he flared. The patient is now maintained on ustekinumab monthly at a dose of 45 mg.

“I’ve only had a few patients where isotretinoin truly has failed,” Dr. Treat said. He described one patient with severe acne who had a hidradenitis-like appearance in his axilla and groin. “I treated with isotretinoin very gingerly in the beginning, [but] he flared significantly. I had given him concomitant steroids from the very beginning and transitioned to multiple different therapies – all of which failed.”

Next, Dr. Treat tried a course of systemic dapsone, and the patient responded nicely. “As an anti-inflammatory agent, dapsone is very reasonable” to consider, he said. “It’s something to add to your armamentarium.”

Dr. Treat disclosed that he is a consultant for Palvella and Regeneron. He has ownership interests in Matinas Biopharma Holdings, Axsome, Sorrento, and Amarin.

INDIANAPOLIS – When adolescents present with acne that is not responding to isotretinoin, make sure to ask if they’re taking the medication when eating fatty food – which is known to increase the drug’s bioavailability, advises James R. Treat, MD, a pediatric dermatologist at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“We see lots of teenagers who are on a restrictive diet,” which is “certainly one reason they could be failing isotretinoin,” Dr. Treat said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Often, patients say that they have been referred to him because they had no response to 20 mg or 30 mg per day of isotretinoin. But after a dose escalation to 60 mg per day, their acne worsened.

If the patient’s acne is worsening with a cystic flare, “tripling the dose of isotretinoin is not something that you should do,” Dr. Treat said. “You should lower the dose and consider adding steroids.” For evidence-based recommendations on managing acne fulminans, he recommended an article published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in 2017.

Skin picking is another common reason for failure of isotretinoin, as well as with other acne therapies. These patients may have associated anxiety, which “might be a contraindication or at least something to consider before you put them on isotretinoin,” he noted.

In his experience, off-label use of N-acetylcysteine, an antioxidant and cysteine prodrug, has been “extremely effective” for patients with excoriation disorder. In a randomized trial of adults 18-60 years of age, 47% patients who took 1,200-3,000 mg per day doses of N-acetylcysteine for 12 weeks reported that their skin picking was much or very much improved, compared to 19% of those who took placebo (P = .03). The authors wrote that N-acetylcysteine “increases extracellular levels of glutamate in the nucleus accumbens,” and that these results support the hypothesis that “pharmacologic manipulation of the glutamate system may target core symptoms of compulsive behaviors.”

The tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-alpha blocker adalimumab is a reasonable option for patients with severe cystic inflammatory acne who fail isotretinoin, Dr. Treat said. In one published case, clinicians administered adalimumab 40 mg every other week for a 16-year-old male patient who received isotretinoin for moderate acne vulgaris, which caused sudden development of acne fulminans and incapacitating acute sacroiliitis with bilateral hip arthritis. Inflammatory lesions started to clear in 1 month and comedones improved by 3 months of treatment. Adalimumab was discontinued after 1 year and the patient remained clear.

“There are now multiple reports as well as some case series showing TNF-alpha agents causing clearance of acne,” said Dr. Treat, who directs the hospital’s pediatric dermatology fellowship program. A literature review of adalimumab, etanercept, and infliximab for treatment-resistant acne found that all agents had similar efficacy after 3-6 months of therapy. “We see this in our GI population, where TNF-alpha agents are helping their acne also,” he said. “We just have to augment it with some topical medications.”

Certain medications can drive the development of acne, including phenytoin, phenobarbital, lithium, MEK inhibitors, EGFR inhibitors, systemic steroids, and unopposed progesterone contraceptives. Some genetic conditions also predispose patients to acne, including mutations in the NCSTN gene and trisomy 13.

Dr. Treat discussed one of his patients with severe acne who had trisomy 13. The patient failed 12 months of doxycycline and amoxicillin in combination with a topical retinoid. He also failed low- and high-dose isotretinoin in combination with prednisone, as well as oral dapsone at a dose of 1 mg/kg per day for 3 months. He was started on adalimumab, but that was stopped after he flared. The patient is now maintained on ustekinumab monthly at a dose of 45 mg.

“I’ve only had a few patients where isotretinoin truly has failed,” Dr. Treat said. He described one patient with severe acne who had a hidradenitis-like appearance in his axilla and groin. “I treated with isotretinoin very gingerly in the beginning, [but] he flared significantly. I had given him concomitant steroids from the very beginning and transitioned to multiple different therapies – all of which failed.”

Next, Dr. Treat tried a course of systemic dapsone, and the patient responded nicely. “As an anti-inflammatory agent, dapsone is very reasonable” to consider, he said. “It’s something to add to your armamentarium.”

Dr. Treat disclosed that he is a consultant for Palvella and Regeneron. He has ownership interests in Matinas Biopharma Holdings, Axsome, Sorrento, and Amarin.

NEW YORK – A questionnaire-based screening tool appears to accelerate the time to diagnosis of axial involvement in patients presenting with psoriasis but no clinical signs of joint pain, according to a study called ATTRACT that was presented at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

The risk of a delayed diagnosis of an axial component in patients with psoriasis, meaning a delay in the underlying diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), is substantial, according to Devis Benfaremo, MD, of the department of clinical and molecular science at Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

There is “no consensus for the best strategy to achieve early detection of joint disease” in patients presenting with psoriasis, but Dr. Benfaremo pointed out that missing axial involvement is a particular problem because it is far more likely than swollen joints to be missed on clinical examination.

While about one in three patients with psoriasis have or will develop psoriatic arthritis, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation, delays in diagnosis are common, according to Dr. Benfaremo. In patients with undiagnosed PsA characterized by axial involvement alone, subtle symptoms can be overlooked or attributed to other causes.

There are several screening questionnaires to detect joint symptoms in patients presenting with psoriasis, such as the five-question Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool, but the questionnaire tested in the ATTRACT trial is focused on detecting axial involvement specifically. It was characterized as the first to do so.

In the ongoing ATTRACT study, 253 patients with psoriasis but no history of PsA or axial disease have been enrolled so far. In the study, patients are screened for PsA based on a patient-completed yes-or-no questionnaire, which takes only a few minutes to complete.

“It is a validated questionnaire for axial [spondyloarthritis], but we have adopted it for detection of psoriasis patients with PsA,” Dr. Benfaremo explained.

The questionnaire for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) was initially evaluated and validated by Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charité Hospital, Berlin. In addition to a patient self-completed questionnaire, Dr. Proft and coinvestigators have also created a related questionnaire to be administered by physicians.

In the ATTRACT study, patients completed the questionnaire on an electronic device in the waiting room. Positive answers to specific questions about symptoms, which addressed back pain and joint function as well as joint symptoms, divided patients into three groups:

• Group A patients did not respond positively to any of the symptom questions that would prompt suspicion of axial disease. These represented about one-third of those screened so far.
• Group B patients were those who answered positively to at least two questions that related to a high suspicion of axial involvement. These represented 45% of patients.
• The remaining patients were placed in Group C, a category of intermediate risk based on positive responses to some, but not all, questions relating to axial symptoms.

Those in group B are being referred to rheumatology. Patients in group C are given “conditional” eligibility based on the presence of additional risk factors.
 

AxSpA screening tool ‘makes sense’ for potential use in PsA

The primary outcome of the ATTRACT trial is early identification of axial PsA. Correctly identifying patients with or without peripheral joint involvement is one of several secondary outcomes. The identification of patients who fulfill Assessment Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria for axSpA is another secondary outcome.

Of the 114 patients placed in group B and analyzed so far, 87 have completed an assessment by a rheumatologist with laboratory analyses and imaging, as well as a clinical examination.

Of those 87 assessed by a rheumatologist, 17 did not have either axial or peripheral inflammation. Another 19 were diagnosed with axial disease, including 14 who met ASAS criteria. A total of 10 were classified as having PsA with peripheral inflammation, according to Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis criteria, and 41 are still being considered for a diagnosis of axial or peripheral PsA on the basis of further workup.

“Among the patients with axial PsA, only 10% had elevated C-reactive protein levels,” according to Dr. Benfaremo, echoing previous evidence that inflammatory biomarkers by themselves have limited value for identifying psoriasis patients at high risk of joint involvement.

The findings are preliminary, but Dr. Benfaremo reported that the questionnaire is showing promise for the routine stratification of patients who should be considered for a rheumatology consultation.

If further analyses validate the clinical utility of these stratifications, there is the potential for a substantial acceleration to the diagnosis of PsA.

When contacted to comment about this work, Dr. Proft said that there is an important need for new strategies reduce delay in the diagnosis of PsA among patients presenting with psoriasis. He thinks the screening tool he developed for axSpA “makes sense” as a potential tool in PsA.

“If validated, this could be a very useful for earlier identification of PsA,” Dr. Proft said. He reiterated the importance of focusing on axial involvement.

“Previous screening tools have focused on symptoms of PsA more generally, but inflammation in the peripheral joints is something that you can easily see in most patients,” he said.

In addition to the patient-completed questionnaire and the physician-administered questionnaire, Dr. Proft has also evaluated an online self-referral tool for patients.

“If we can diagnose PsA earlier in the course of disease, we can start treatment earlier, prevent or delay joint damage, and potentially improve outcomes for patients,” Dr. Proft said. He considers this an important direction of research.

Dr. Benfaremo and Dr. Proft reported no potential conflicts of interest.

NEW YORK – A questionnaire-based screening tool appears to accelerate the time to diagnosis of axial involvement in patients presenting with psoriasis but no clinical signs of joint pain, according to a study called ATTRACT that was presented at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

The risk of a delayed diagnosis of an axial component in patients with psoriasis, meaning a delay in the underlying diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), is substantial, according to Devis Benfaremo, MD, of the department of clinical and molecular science at Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

There is “no consensus for the best strategy to achieve early detection of joint disease” in patients presenting with psoriasis, but Dr. Benfaremo pointed out that missing axial involvement is a particular problem because it is far more likely than swollen joints to be missed on clinical examination.

While about one in three patients with psoriasis have or will develop psoriatic arthritis, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation, delays in diagnosis are common, according to Dr. Benfaremo. In patients with undiagnosed PsA characterized by axial involvement alone, subtle symptoms can be overlooked or attributed to other causes.

There are several screening questionnaires to detect joint symptoms in patients presenting with psoriasis, such as the five-question Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool, but the questionnaire tested in the ATTRACT trial is focused on detecting axial involvement specifically. It was characterized as the first to do so.

In the ongoing ATTRACT study, 253 patients with psoriasis but no history of PsA or axial disease have been enrolled so far. In the study, patients are screened for PsA based on a patient-completed yes-or-no questionnaire, which takes only a few minutes to complete.

“It is a validated questionnaire for axial [spondyloarthritis], but we have adopted it for detection of psoriasis patients with PsA,” Dr. Benfaremo explained.

The questionnaire for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) was initially evaluated and validated by Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charité Hospital, Berlin. In addition to a patient self-completed questionnaire, Dr. Proft and coinvestigators have also created a related questionnaire to be administered by physicians.

In the ATTRACT study, patients completed the questionnaire on an electronic device in the waiting room. Positive answers to specific questions about symptoms, which addressed back pain and joint function as well as joint symptoms, divided patients into three groups:

• Group A patients did not respond positively to any of the symptom questions that would prompt suspicion of axial disease. These represented about one-third of those screened so far.
• Group B patients were those who answered positively to at least two questions that related to a high suspicion of axial involvement. These represented 45% of patients.
• The remaining patients were placed in Group C, a category of intermediate risk based on positive responses to some, but not all, questions relating to axial symptoms.

Those in group B are being referred to rheumatology. Patients in group C are given “conditional” eligibility based on the presence of additional risk factors.
 

AxSpA screening tool ‘makes sense’ for potential use in PsA

The primary outcome of the ATTRACT trial is early identification of axial PsA. Correctly identifying patients with or without peripheral joint involvement is one of several secondary outcomes. The identification of patients who fulfill Assessment Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria for axSpA is another secondary outcome.

Of the 114 patients placed in group B and analyzed so far, 87 have completed an assessment by a rheumatologist with laboratory analyses and imaging, as well as a clinical examination.

Of those 87 assessed by a rheumatologist, 17 did not have either axial or peripheral inflammation. Another 19 were diagnosed with axial disease, including 14 who met ASAS criteria. A total of 10 were classified as having PsA with peripheral inflammation, according to Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis criteria, and 41 are still being considered for a diagnosis of axial or peripheral PsA on the basis of further workup.

“Among the patients with axial PsA, only 10% had elevated C-reactive protein levels,” according to Dr. Benfaremo, echoing previous evidence that inflammatory biomarkers by themselves have limited value for identifying psoriasis patients at high risk of joint involvement.

The findings are preliminary, but Dr. Benfaremo reported that the questionnaire is showing promise for the routine stratification of patients who should be considered for a rheumatology consultation.

If further analyses validate the clinical utility of these stratifications, there is the potential for a substantial acceleration to the diagnosis of PsA.

When contacted to comment about this work, Dr. Proft said that there is an important need for new strategies reduce delay in the diagnosis of PsA among patients presenting with psoriasis. He thinks the screening tool he developed for axSpA “makes sense” as a potential tool in PsA.

“If validated, this could be a very useful for earlier identification of PsA,” Dr. Proft said. He reiterated the importance of focusing on axial involvement.

“Previous screening tools have focused on symptoms of PsA more generally, but inflammation in the peripheral joints is something that you can easily see in most patients,” he said.

In addition to the patient-completed questionnaire and the physician-administered questionnaire, Dr. Proft has also evaluated an online self-referral tool for patients.

“If we can diagnose PsA earlier in the course of disease, we can start treatment earlier, prevent or delay joint damage, and potentially improve outcomes for patients,” Dr. Proft said. He considers this an important direction of research.

Dr. Benfaremo and Dr. Proft reported no potential conflicts of interest.

NEW YORK – A questionnaire-based screening tool appears to accelerate the time to diagnosis of axial involvement in patients presenting with psoriasis but no clinical signs of joint pain, according to a study called ATTRACT that was presented at the annual meeting of the Group for Research and Assessment of Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis.

The risk of a delayed diagnosis of an axial component in patients with psoriasis, meaning a delay in the underlying diagnosis of psoriatic arthritis (PsA), is substantial, according to Devis Benfaremo, MD, of the department of clinical and molecular science at Marche Polytechnic University, Ancona, Italy.

Ted Bosworth/MDedge News

There is “no consensus for the best strategy to achieve early detection of joint disease” in patients presenting with psoriasis, but Dr. Benfaremo pointed out that missing axial involvement is a particular problem because it is far more likely than swollen joints to be missed on clinical examination.

While about one in three patients with psoriasis have or will develop psoriatic arthritis, according to the National Psoriasis Foundation, delays in diagnosis are common, according to Dr. Benfaremo. In patients with undiagnosed PsA characterized by axial involvement alone, subtle symptoms can be overlooked or attributed to other causes.

There are several screening questionnaires to detect joint symptoms in patients presenting with psoriasis, such as the five-question Psoriasis Epidemiology Screening Tool, but the questionnaire tested in the ATTRACT trial is focused on detecting axial involvement specifically. It was characterized as the first to do so.

In the ongoing ATTRACT study, 253 patients with psoriasis but no history of PsA or axial disease have been enrolled so far. In the study, patients are screened for PsA based on a patient-completed yes-or-no questionnaire, which takes only a few minutes to complete.

“It is a validated questionnaire for axial [spondyloarthritis], but we have adopted it for detection of psoriasis patients with PsA,” Dr. Benfaremo explained.

The questionnaire for axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA) was initially evaluated and validated by Fabian Proft, MD, head of the clinical trials unit at Charité Hospital, Berlin. In addition to a patient self-completed questionnaire, Dr. Proft and coinvestigators have also created a related questionnaire to be administered by physicians.

In the ATTRACT study, patients completed the questionnaire on an electronic device in the waiting room. Positive answers to specific questions about symptoms, which addressed back pain and joint function as well as joint symptoms, divided patients into three groups:

• Group A patients did not respond positively to any of the symptom questions that would prompt suspicion of axial disease. These represented about one-third of those screened so far.
• Group B patients were those who answered positively to at least two questions that related to a high suspicion of axial involvement. These represented 45% of patients.
• The remaining patients were placed in Group C, a category of intermediate risk based on positive responses to some, but not all, questions relating to axial symptoms.

Those in group B are being referred to rheumatology. Patients in group C are given “conditional” eligibility based on the presence of additional risk factors.
 

AxSpA screening tool ‘makes sense’ for potential use in PsA

The primary outcome of the ATTRACT trial is early identification of axial PsA. Correctly identifying patients with or without peripheral joint involvement is one of several secondary outcomes. The identification of patients who fulfill Assessment Spondyloarthritis International Society (ASAS) criteria for axSpA is another secondary outcome.

Of the 114 patients placed in group B and analyzed so far, 87 have completed an assessment by a rheumatologist with laboratory analyses and imaging, as well as a clinical examination.

Of those 87 assessed by a rheumatologist, 17 did not have either axial or peripheral inflammation. Another 19 were diagnosed with axial disease, including 14 who met ASAS criteria. A total of 10 were classified as having PsA with peripheral inflammation, according to Classification for Psoriatic Arthritis criteria, and 41 are still being considered for a diagnosis of axial or peripheral PsA on the basis of further workup.

“Among the patients with axial PsA, only 10% had elevated C-reactive protein levels,” according to Dr. Benfaremo, echoing previous evidence that inflammatory biomarkers by themselves have limited value for identifying psoriasis patients at high risk of joint involvement.

The findings are preliminary, but Dr. Benfaremo reported that the questionnaire is showing promise for the routine stratification of patients who should be considered for a rheumatology consultation.

If further analyses validate the clinical utility of these stratifications, there is the potential for a substantial acceleration to the diagnosis of PsA.

When contacted to comment about this work, Dr. Proft said that there is an important need for new strategies reduce delay in the diagnosis of PsA among patients presenting with psoriasis. He thinks the screening tool he developed for axSpA “makes sense” as a potential tool in PsA.

“If validated, this could be a very useful for earlier identification of PsA,” Dr. Proft said. He reiterated the importance of focusing on axial involvement.

“Previous screening tools have focused on symptoms of PsA more generally, but inflammation in the peripheral joints is something that you can easily see in most patients,” he said.

In addition to the patient-completed questionnaire and the physician-administered questionnaire, Dr. Proft has also evaluated an online self-referral tool for patients.

“If we can diagnose PsA earlier in the course of disease, we can start treatment earlier, prevent or delay joint damage, and potentially improve outcomes for patients,” Dr. Proft said. He considers this an important direction of research.

Dr. Benfaremo and Dr. Proft reported no potential conflicts of interest.