Pediatrics

Nail disorders are common among pediatric patients but often are underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed because of their unique disease manifestations. These conditions may severely impact quality of life. There are few nail disease clinical trials that include children. Consequently, most treatment recommendations are based on case series and expert consensus recommendations. We review inflammatory and infectious nail disorders in pediatric patients. By describing characteristics, clinical manifestations, and management approaches for these conditions, we aim to provide guidance to dermatologists in their diagnosis and treatment.

INFLAMMATORY NAIL DISORDERS

Nail Psoriasis

Nail involvement in children with psoriasis is common, with prevalence estimates ranging from 17% to 39.2%.¹ Nail matrix psoriasis may manifest with pitting (large irregular pits) and leukonychia as well as chromonychia and nail plate crumbling. Onycholysis, oil drop spots (salmon patches), and subungual hyperkeratosis can be seen in nail bed psoriasis. Nail pitting is the most frequently observed clinical finding (Figure 1).^2,3 In a cross-sectional multicenter study of 313 children with cutaneous psoriasis in France, nail findings were present in 101 patients (32.3%). There were associations between nail findings and presence of psoriatic arthritis (P=.03), palmoplantar psoriasis (P<.001), and severity of psoriatic disease, defined as use of systemic treatment with phototherapy (psoralen plus UVA, UVB), traditional systemic treatment (acitretin, methotrexate, cyclosporine), or a biologic (P=.003).⁴

Topical steroids and vitamin D analogues may be used with or without occlusion and may be efficacious.⁵ Several case reports describe systemic treatments for psoriasis in children, including methotrexate, acitretin, and apremilast (approved for children 6 years and older for plaque psoriasis by the US Food and Drug Administration [FDA]).² There are 5 biologic drugs currently approved for the treatment of pediatric psoriasis—adalimumab, etanercept, ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab—and 6 drugs currently undergoing phase 3 studies—brodalumab, guselkumab, risankizumab, tildrakizumab, certolizumab pegol, and deucravacitinib (Table 1).^6-15 Adalimumab is specifically approved for moderate to severe nail psoriasis in adults 18 years and older.

Intralesional steroid injections are sometimes useful in the management of nail matrix psoriasis; however, appropriate patient selection is critical due to the pain associated with the procedure. In a prospective study of 16 children (age range, 9–17 years) with nail psoriasis treated with intralesional triamcinolone (ILTAC) 2.5 to 5 mg/mL every 4 to 8 weeks for a minimum of 3 to 6 months, 9 patients achieved resolution and 6 had improvement of clinical findings.¹⁶ Local adverse events were mild, including injection-site pain (66%), subungual hematoma (n=1), Beau lines (n=1), proximal nail fold hypopigmentation (n=2), and proximal nail fold atrophy (n=2). Because the proximal nail fold in children is thinner than in adults, there may be an increased risk for nail fold hypopigmentation and atrophy in children. Therefore, a maximum ILTAC concentration of 2.5 mg/mL with 0.2 mL maximum volume per nail per session is recommended for children younger than 15 years.¹⁶

Nail Lichen Planus

Nail lichen planus (NLP) is uncommon in children, with few biopsy-proven cases documented in the literature.¹⁷ Common clinical findings are onychorrhexis, nail plate thinning, fissuring, splitting, and atrophy with koilonychia.⁵ Although pterygium development (irreversible nail matrix scarring) is uncommon in pediatric patients, NLP can be progressive and may cause irreversible destruction of the nail matrix and subsequent nail loss, warranting therapeutic intervention.¹⁸

Treatment of NLP may be difficult, as there are no options that work in all patients. Current literature supports the use of systemic corticosteroids or ILTAC for the treatment of NLP; however, recurrence rates can be high. According to an expert consensus paper on NLP treatment, ILTAC may be injected in a concentration of 2.5, 5, or 10 mg/mL according to disease severity.¹⁹ In severe or resistant cases, intramuscular (IM) triamcinolone may be considered, especially if more than 3 nails are affected. A dosage of 0.5 to 1 mg/kg/mo for at least 3 to 6 months is recommended for both children and adults, with 1 mg/kg/mo recommended in the active treatment phase (first 2–3 months).¹⁹ In a retrospective review of 5 pediatric patients with NLP treated with IM triamcinolone 0.5 mg/kg/mo, 3 patients had resolution and 2 improved with treatment.²⁰ In a prospective study of 10 children with NLP, IM triamcinolone at a dosage of 0.5 to 1 mg/kg every 30 days for 3 to 6 months resulted in resolution of nail findings in 9 patients.¹⁷ In a prospective study of 14 pediatric patients with NLP treated with 2.5 to 5 mg/mL of ILTAC, 10 achieved resolution and 3 improved.¹⁶

Intralesional triamcinolone injections may be better suited for teenagers compared to younger children who may be more apprehensive of needles. To minimize pain, it is recommended to inject ILTAC slowly at room temperature, with use of “talkesthesia” and vibration devices, 1% lidocaine, or ethyl chloride spray.¹⁸

Trachyonychia

Trachyonychia is characterized by the presence of sandpaperlike nails. It manifests with brittle thin nails with longitudinal ridging, onychoschizia, and thickened hyperkeratotic cuticles. Trachyonychia typically involves multiple nails, with a peak age of onset between 3 and 12 years.^21,22 There are 2 variants: the opaque type with rough longitudinal ridging, and the shiny variant with opalescent nails and pits that reflect light. The opaque variant is more common and is associated with psoriasis, whereas the shiny variant is less common and is associated with alopecia areata.²³ Although most cases are idiopathic, some are associated with psoriasis and alopecia areata, as previously noted, as well as atopic dermatitis (AD) and lichen planus.^22,24

Fortunately, trachyonychia does not lead to permanent nail damage or pterygium, making treatment primarily focused on addressing functional and cosmetic concerns.²⁴ Spontaneous resolution occurs in approximately 50% of patients. In a prospective study of 11 patients with idiopathic trachyonychia, there was partial improvement in 5 of 9 patients treated with topical steroids, 1 with only petrolatum, and 1 with vitamin supplements. Complete resolution was reported in 1 patient treated with topical steroids.²⁵ Because trachyonychia often is self-resolving, no treatment is required and a conservative approach is strongly recommended.²⁶ Treatment options include topical corticosteroids, tazarotene, and 5-fluorouracil. Intralesional triamcinolone, systemic cyclosporine, retinoids, systemic corticosteroids, and tofacitinib have been described in case reports, though none of these have been shown to be 100% efficacious.²⁴

Nail Lichen Striatus

Lichen striatus involving the nail is uncommon and is characterized by onycholysis, longitudinal ridging, ­splitting, and fraying, as well as what appears to be a subungual tumor. It can encompass the entire nail or may be isolated to a portion of the nail (Figure 2). Usually, a Blaschko-linear array of flesh-colored papules on the more proximal digit directly adjacent to the nail dystrophy will be seen, though nail findings can occur in ­isolation.^27-29 The underlying pathophysiology is not clear; however, one hypothesis is that a triggering event, such as trauma, induces the expression of antigens that elicit a self-limiting immune-mediated response by CD8 T lymphocytes.³⁰

Generally, nail lichen striatus spontaneously resolves in 1 to 2 years without treatment. In a prospective study of 5 patients with nail lichen striatus, the median time to resolution was 22.6 months (range, 10–30 months).³¹ Topical steroids may be used for pruritus. In one case report, a 3-year-old boy with nail lichen striatus of 4 months’ duration was treated with tacrolimus ointment 0.03% daily for 3 months.²⁸

Nail AD

Nail changes with AD may be more common in adults than children or are underreported. In a study of 777 adults with AD, nail dystrophy was present in 124 patients (16%), whereas in a study of 250 pediatric patients with AD (aged 0-2 years), nail dystrophy was present in only 4 patients.^32,33

Periungual inflammation from AD causes the nail changes.³⁴ In a cross-sectional study of 24 pediatric patients with nail dystrophy due to AD, transverse grooves (Beau lines) were present in 25% (6/24), nail pitting in 16.7% (4/24), koilonychia in 16.7% (4/24), trachyonychia in 12.5% (3/24), leukonychia in 12.5% (3/24), brachyonychia in 8.3% (2/24), melanonychia in 8.3% (2/24), onychomadesis in 8.3% (2/24), onychoschizia in 8.3% (2/24), and onycholysis in 8.3% (2/24). There was an association between disease severity and presence of toenail dystrophy (P=.03).³⁵

Topical steroids with or without occlusion can be used to treat nail changes. Although there is limited literature describing the treatment of nail AD in children, a 61-year-old man with nail changes associated with AD achieved resolution with 3 months of treatment with dupilumab.³⁶ Anecdotally, most patients will improve with usual cutaneous AD management.

INFECTIOUS NAIL DISORDERS

Viral Infections

Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease—Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) is a common childhood viral infection caused by various enteroviruses, most commonly coxsackievirus A16, with the A6 variant causing more severe disease. Fever and painful vesicles involving the oral mucosa as well as palms and soles give the disease its name. Nail changes are common. In a prospective study involving 130 patients with laboratory-confirmed coxsackievirus CA6 serotype infection, 37% developed onychomadesis vs only 5% of 145 cases with non-CA6 enterovirus infection who developed nail findings. There was an association between CA6 infection and presence of nail changes (P<.001).³⁷

Findings ranging from transverse grooves (Beau lines) to complete nail shedding (onychomadesis)(Figure 3) may be seen.^38,39 Nail findings in HFMD are due to transient inhibition of nail growth and present approximately 3 to 6 weeks after infection.⁴⁰ Onychomadesis is seen in 30% to 68% of patients with HFMD.^37,41,42 Nail findings in HFMD spontaneously resolve with nail growth (2–3 mm per month for fingernails and 1 mm per month for toenails) and do not require specific treatment. Although the appearance of nail changes associated with HFMD can be disturbing, dermatologists can reassure children and their parents that the nails will resolve with the next cycle of growth.

Kawasaki Disease—Kawasaki disease (KD) is a vasculitis primarily affecting children and infants. Although the specific pathogen and pathophysiology is not entirely clear, clinical observations have suggested an infectious cause, most likely a virus.⁴³ In Japan, more than 15,000 cases of KD are documented annually, while approximately 4200 cases are seen in the United States.⁴⁴ In a prospective study from 1984 to 1990, 4 of 26 (15.4%) patients with KD presented with nail manifestations during the late acute phase or early convalescent phase of disease. There were no significant associations between nail dystrophy and severity of KD, such as coronary artery aneurysm.⁴⁵

Nail changes reported in children with KD include onychomadesis, onycholysis, orange-brown chromonychia, splinter hemorrhages, Beau lines, and pincer nails. In a review of nail changes associated with KD from 1980 to 2021, orange-brown transverse chromonychia, which may evolve into transverse leukonychia, was the most common nail finding reported, occurring in 17 of 31 (54.8%) patients.⁴⁴ It has been hypothesized that nail changes may result from blood flow disturbance due to the underlying vasculitis.⁴⁶ Nail changes appear several weeks after the onset of fever and are self-limited. Resolution occurs with nail growth, with no treatment required.

FUNGAL INFECTIONS

Onychomycosis

Onychomycosis is a fungal infection of the nails that occurs in 0.2% to 5.5% of pediatric patients, and its prevalence may be increasing, which may be due to environmental factors or increased rates of diabetes mellitus and obesity in the pediatric population.⁴⁷ Onychomycosis represents 15.5% of nail dystrophies in pediatric patients.⁴⁸ Some dermatologists treat presumptive onychomycosis without confirmation; however, we do not recommend that approach. Because the differential is broad and the duration of treatment is long, mycologic examination (potassium hydroxide preparation, fungal culture, polymerase chain reaction, and/or histopathology) should be obtained to confirm onychomycosis prior to initiation of antifungal management. Family members of affected individuals should be evaluated and treated, if indicated, for onychomycosis and tinea pedis, as household transmission is common.

Currently, there are 2 topical FDA-approved treatments for pediatric onychomycosis in children 6 years and older (Table 2).^49,50 There is a discussion of the need for confirmatory testing for onychomycosis in children, particularly when systemic treatment is prescribed. In a retrospective review of 269 pediatric patients with onychomycosis prescribed terbinafine, 53.5% (n=144) underwent laboratory monitoring of liver function and complete blood cell counts, and 12.5% had grade 1 laboratory abnormalities either prior to (12/144 [8.3%]) or during (6/144 [4.2%]) therapy.⁵¹ Baseline transaminase monitoring is recommended, though subsequent routine laboratory monitoring in healthy children may have limited utility with associated increased costs, incidental findings, and patient discomfort and likely is not needed.⁵¹

Pediatric onychomycosis responds better to topical therapy than adult disease, and pediatric patients do not always require systemic treatment.⁵² Ciclopirox is not FDA approved for the treatment of pediatric onychomycosis, but in a 32-week clinical trial of ciclopirox lacquer 8% use in 40 patients, 77% (27/35) of treated patients achieved mycologic cure. Overall, 71% of treated patients (25/35) vs 22% (2/9) of controls achieved efficacy (defined as investigator global assessment score of 2 or lower).⁵² In an open-label, single-arm clinical trial assessing tavaborole solution 5% applied once daily for 48 weeks for the treatment of toenail onychomycosis in pediatric patients (aged 6–17 years), 36.2% (20/55) of patients achieved mycologic cure, and 8.5% (5/55) achieved complete cure at week 52 with mild or minimal adverse effects.⁵³ In an open-label, phase 4 study of the safety and efficacy of efinaconazole solution 10% applied once daily for 48 weeks in pediatric patients (aged 6 to 16 years) (n=60), 65% (35/60) achieved mycologic cure, 42% (25/60) achieved clinical cure, and 40% (24/60) achieved complete cure at 52 weeks. The most common adverse effects of efina­conazole were local and included ingrown toenail (1/60), application-site dermatitis (1/60), application-site vesicles (1/60), and application-site pain (1/60).⁵⁴

In a systematic review of systemic antifungals for onychomycosis in 151 pediatric patients, itraconazole, fluconazole, griseofulvin, and terbinafine resulted in complete cure rates similar to those of the adult population, with excellent safety profiles.⁵⁵ Depending on the situation, initiation of treatment with topical medications followed by addition of systemic antifungal agents only if needed may be an appropriate course of action.

BACTERIAL INFECTIONS

Acute Paronychia

Acute paronychia is a nail-fold infection that develops after the protective nail barrier has been compromised.⁵⁶ In children, thumb-sucking, nail-biting, frequent oral manipulation of the digits, and poor skin hygiene are risk factors. Acute paronychia also may develop in association with congenital malalignment of the great toenails.⁵⁷

Clinical manifestations include localized pain, erythema, and nail fold edema (Figure 4). Purulent material and abscess formation may ensue. Staphylococcus aureus as well as methicillin-resistant S aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes are classically the most common causes of acute paronychia. Treatment of paronychia is based on severity. In mild cases, warm soaks with topical antibiotics are indicated. Oral antibiotics should be prescribed for more severe presentations. If there is no improvement after 48 hours, surgical drainage is required to facilitate healing.⁵⁶

FINAL THOUGHTS

Inflammatory and infectious nail disorders in children are relatively common and may impact the physical and emotional well-being of young patients. By understanding the distinctive features of these nail disorders in pediatric patients, dermatologists can provide anticipatory guidance and informed treatment options to children and their parents. Further research is needed to expand our understanding of pediatric nail disorders and create targeted therapeutic interventions, particularly for NLP and psoriasis.

Nail disorders are common among pediatric patients but often are underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed because of their unique disease manifestations. These conditions may severely impact quality of life. There are few nail disease clinical trials that include children. Consequently, most treatment recommendations are based on case series and expert consensus recommendations. We review inflammatory and infectious nail disorders in pediatric patients. By describing characteristics, clinical manifestations, and management approaches for these conditions, we aim to provide guidance to dermatologists in their diagnosis and treatment.

INFLAMMATORY NAIL DISORDERS

Nail Psoriasis

Nail involvement in children with psoriasis is common, with prevalence estimates ranging from 17% to 39.2%.¹ Nail matrix psoriasis may manifest with pitting (large irregular pits) and leukonychia as well as chromonychia and nail plate crumbling. Onycholysis, oil drop spots (salmon patches), and subungual hyperkeratosis can be seen in nail bed psoriasis. Nail pitting is the most frequently observed clinical finding (Figure 1).^2,3 In a cross-sectional multicenter study of 313 children with cutaneous psoriasis in France, nail findings were present in 101 patients (32.3%). There were associations between nail findings and presence of psoriatic arthritis (P=.03), palmoplantar psoriasis (P<.001), and severity of psoriatic disease, defined as use of systemic treatment with phototherapy (psoralen plus UVA, UVB), traditional systemic treatment (acitretin, methotrexate, cyclosporine), or a biologic (P=.003).⁴

Topical steroids and vitamin D analogues may be used with or without occlusion and may be efficacious.⁵ Several case reports describe systemic treatments for psoriasis in children, including methotrexate, acitretin, and apremilast (approved for children 6 years and older for plaque psoriasis by the US Food and Drug Administration [FDA]).² There are 5 biologic drugs currently approved for the treatment of pediatric psoriasis—adalimumab, etanercept, ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab—and 6 drugs currently undergoing phase 3 studies—brodalumab, guselkumab, risankizumab, tildrakizumab, certolizumab pegol, and deucravacitinib (Table 1).^6-15 Adalimumab is specifically approved for moderate to severe nail psoriasis in adults 18 years and older.

Intralesional steroid injections are sometimes useful in the management of nail matrix psoriasis; however, appropriate patient selection is critical due to the pain associated with the procedure. In a prospective study of 16 children (age range, 9–17 years) with nail psoriasis treated with intralesional triamcinolone (ILTAC) 2.5 to 5 mg/mL every 4 to 8 weeks for a minimum of 3 to 6 months, 9 patients achieved resolution and 6 had improvement of clinical findings.¹⁶ Local adverse events were mild, including injection-site pain (66%), subungual hematoma (n=1), Beau lines (n=1), proximal nail fold hypopigmentation (n=2), and proximal nail fold atrophy (n=2). Because the proximal nail fold in children is thinner than in adults, there may be an increased risk for nail fold hypopigmentation and atrophy in children. Therefore, a maximum ILTAC concentration of 2.5 mg/mL with 0.2 mL maximum volume per nail per session is recommended for children younger than 15 years.¹⁶

Nail Lichen Planus

Nail lichen planus (NLP) is uncommon in children, with few biopsy-proven cases documented in the literature.¹⁷ Common clinical findings are onychorrhexis, nail plate thinning, fissuring, splitting, and atrophy with koilonychia.⁵ Although pterygium development (irreversible nail matrix scarring) is uncommon in pediatric patients, NLP can be progressive and may cause irreversible destruction of the nail matrix and subsequent nail loss, warranting therapeutic intervention.¹⁸

Treatment of NLP may be difficult, as there are no options that work in all patients. Current literature supports the use of systemic corticosteroids or ILTAC for the treatment of NLP; however, recurrence rates can be high. According to an expert consensus paper on NLP treatment, ILTAC may be injected in a concentration of 2.5, 5, or 10 mg/mL according to disease severity.¹⁹ In severe or resistant cases, intramuscular (IM) triamcinolone may be considered, especially if more than 3 nails are affected. A dosage of 0.5 to 1 mg/kg/mo for at least 3 to 6 months is recommended for both children and adults, with 1 mg/kg/mo recommended in the active treatment phase (first 2–3 months).¹⁹ In a retrospective review of 5 pediatric patients with NLP treated with IM triamcinolone 0.5 mg/kg/mo, 3 patients had resolution and 2 improved with treatment.²⁰ In a prospective study of 10 children with NLP, IM triamcinolone at a dosage of 0.5 to 1 mg/kg every 30 days for 3 to 6 months resulted in resolution of nail findings in 9 patients.¹⁷ In a prospective study of 14 pediatric patients with NLP treated with 2.5 to 5 mg/mL of ILTAC, 10 achieved resolution and 3 improved.¹⁶

Intralesional triamcinolone injections may be better suited for teenagers compared to younger children who may be more apprehensive of needles. To minimize pain, it is recommended to inject ILTAC slowly at room temperature, with use of “talkesthesia” and vibration devices, 1% lidocaine, or ethyl chloride spray.¹⁸

Trachyonychia

Trachyonychia is characterized by the presence of sandpaperlike nails. It manifests with brittle thin nails with longitudinal ridging, onychoschizia, and thickened hyperkeratotic cuticles. Trachyonychia typically involves multiple nails, with a peak age of onset between 3 and 12 years.^21,22 There are 2 variants: the opaque type with rough longitudinal ridging, and the shiny variant with opalescent nails and pits that reflect light. The opaque variant is more common and is associated with psoriasis, whereas the shiny variant is less common and is associated with alopecia areata.²³ Although most cases are idiopathic, some are associated with psoriasis and alopecia areata, as previously noted, as well as atopic dermatitis (AD) and lichen planus.^22,24

Fortunately, trachyonychia does not lead to permanent nail damage or pterygium, making treatment primarily focused on addressing functional and cosmetic concerns.²⁴ Spontaneous resolution occurs in approximately 50% of patients. In a prospective study of 11 patients with idiopathic trachyonychia, there was partial improvement in 5 of 9 patients treated with topical steroids, 1 with only petrolatum, and 1 with vitamin supplements. Complete resolution was reported in 1 patient treated with topical steroids.²⁵ Because trachyonychia often is self-resolving, no treatment is required and a conservative approach is strongly recommended.²⁶ Treatment options include topical corticosteroids, tazarotene, and 5-fluorouracil. Intralesional triamcinolone, systemic cyclosporine, retinoids, systemic corticosteroids, and tofacitinib have been described in case reports, though none of these have been shown to be 100% efficacious.²⁴

Nail Lichen Striatus

Lichen striatus involving the nail is uncommon and is characterized by onycholysis, longitudinal ridging, ­splitting, and fraying, as well as what appears to be a subungual tumor. It can encompass the entire nail or may be isolated to a portion of the nail (Figure 2). Usually, a Blaschko-linear array of flesh-colored papules on the more proximal digit directly adjacent to the nail dystrophy will be seen, though nail findings can occur in ­isolation.^27-29 The underlying pathophysiology is not clear; however, one hypothesis is that a triggering event, such as trauma, induces the expression of antigens that elicit a self-limiting immune-mediated response by CD8 T lymphocytes.³⁰

Generally, nail lichen striatus spontaneously resolves in 1 to 2 years without treatment. In a prospective study of 5 patients with nail lichen striatus, the median time to resolution was 22.6 months (range, 10–30 months).³¹ Topical steroids may be used for pruritus. In one case report, a 3-year-old boy with nail lichen striatus of 4 months’ duration was treated with tacrolimus ointment 0.03% daily for 3 months.²⁸

Nail AD

Nail changes with AD may be more common in adults than children or are underreported. In a study of 777 adults with AD, nail dystrophy was present in 124 patients (16%), whereas in a study of 250 pediatric patients with AD (aged 0-2 years), nail dystrophy was present in only 4 patients.^32,33

Periungual inflammation from AD causes the nail changes.³⁴ In a cross-sectional study of 24 pediatric patients with nail dystrophy due to AD, transverse grooves (Beau lines) were present in 25% (6/24), nail pitting in 16.7% (4/24), koilonychia in 16.7% (4/24), trachyonychia in 12.5% (3/24), leukonychia in 12.5% (3/24), brachyonychia in 8.3% (2/24), melanonychia in 8.3% (2/24), onychomadesis in 8.3% (2/24), onychoschizia in 8.3% (2/24), and onycholysis in 8.3% (2/24). There was an association between disease severity and presence of toenail dystrophy (P=.03).³⁵

Topical steroids with or without occlusion can be used to treat nail changes. Although there is limited literature describing the treatment of nail AD in children, a 61-year-old man with nail changes associated with AD achieved resolution with 3 months of treatment with dupilumab.³⁶ Anecdotally, most patients will improve with usual cutaneous AD management.

INFECTIOUS NAIL DISORDERS

Viral Infections

Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease—Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) is a common childhood viral infection caused by various enteroviruses, most commonly coxsackievirus A16, with the A6 variant causing more severe disease. Fever and painful vesicles involving the oral mucosa as well as palms and soles give the disease its name. Nail changes are common. In a prospective study involving 130 patients with laboratory-confirmed coxsackievirus CA6 serotype infection, 37% developed onychomadesis vs only 5% of 145 cases with non-CA6 enterovirus infection who developed nail findings. There was an association between CA6 infection and presence of nail changes (P<.001).³⁷

Findings ranging from transverse grooves (Beau lines) to complete nail shedding (onychomadesis)(Figure 3) may be seen.^38,39 Nail findings in HFMD are due to transient inhibition of nail growth and present approximately 3 to 6 weeks after infection.⁴⁰ Onychomadesis is seen in 30% to 68% of patients with HFMD.^37,41,42 Nail findings in HFMD spontaneously resolve with nail growth (2–3 mm per month for fingernails and 1 mm per month for toenails) and do not require specific treatment. Although the appearance of nail changes associated with HFMD can be disturbing, dermatologists can reassure children and their parents that the nails will resolve with the next cycle of growth.

Kawasaki Disease—Kawasaki disease (KD) is a vasculitis primarily affecting children and infants. Although the specific pathogen and pathophysiology is not entirely clear, clinical observations have suggested an infectious cause, most likely a virus.⁴³ In Japan, more than 15,000 cases of KD are documented annually, while approximately 4200 cases are seen in the United States.⁴⁴ In a prospective study from 1984 to 1990, 4 of 26 (15.4%) patients with KD presented with nail manifestations during the late acute phase or early convalescent phase of disease. There were no significant associations between nail dystrophy and severity of KD, such as coronary artery aneurysm.⁴⁵

Nail changes reported in children with KD include onychomadesis, onycholysis, orange-brown chromonychia, splinter hemorrhages, Beau lines, and pincer nails. In a review of nail changes associated with KD from 1980 to 2021, orange-brown transverse chromonychia, which may evolve into transverse leukonychia, was the most common nail finding reported, occurring in 17 of 31 (54.8%) patients.⁴⁴ It has been hypothesized that nail changes may result from blood flow disturbance due to the underlying vasculitis.⁴⁶ Nail changes appear several weeks after the onset of fever and are self-limited. Resolution occurs with nail growth, with no treatment required.

FUNGAL INFECTIONS

Onychomycosis

Onychomycosis is a fungal infection of the nails that occurs in 0.2% to 5.5% of pediatric patients, and its prevalence may be increasing, which may be due to environmental factors or increased rates of diabetes mellitus and obesity in the pediatric population.⁴⁷ Onychomycosis represents 15.5% of nail dystrophies in pediatric patients.⁴⁸ Some dermatologists treat presumptive onychomycosis without confirmation; however, we do not recommend that approach. Because the differential is broad and the duration of treatment is long, mycologic examination (potassium hydroxide preparation, fungal culture, polymerase chain reaction, and/or histopathology) should be obtained to confirm onychomycosis prior to initiation of antifungal management. Family members of affected individuals should be evaluated and treated, if indicated, for onychomycosis and tinea pedis, as household transmission is common.

Currently, there are 2 topical FDA-approved treatments for pediatric onychomycosis in children 6 years and older (Table 2).^49,50 There is a discussion of the need for confirmatory testing for onychomycosis in children, particularly when systemic treatment is prescribed. In a retrospective review of 269 pediatric patients with onychomycosis prescribed terbinafine, 53.5% (n=144) underwent laboratory monitoring of liver function and complete blood cell counts, and 12.5% had grade 1 laboratory abnormalities either prior to (12/144 [8.3%]) or during (6/144 [4.2%]) therapy.⁵¹ Baseline transaminase monitoring is recommended, though subsequent routine laboratory monitoring in healthy children may have limited utility with associated increased costs, incidental findings, and patient discomfort and likely is not needed.⁵¹

Pediatric onychomycosis responds better to topical therapy than adult disease, and pediatric patients do not always require systemic treatment.⁵² Ciclopirox is not FDA approved for the treatment of pediatric onychomycosis, but in a 32-week clinical trial of ciclopirox lacquer 8% use in 40 patients, 77% (27/35) of treated patients achieved mycologic cure. Overall, 71% of treated patients (25/35) vs 22% (2/9) of controls achieved efficacy (defined as investigator global assessment score of 2 or lower).⁵² In an open-label, single-arm clinical trial assessing tavaborole solution 5% applied once daily for 48 weeks for the treatment of toenail onychomycosis in pediatric patients (aged 6–17 years), 36.2% (20/55) of patients achieved mycologic cure, and 8.5% (5/55) achieved complete cure at week 52 with mild or minimal adverse effects.⁵³ In an open-label, phase 4 study of the safety and efficacy of efinaconazole solution 10% applied once daily for 48 weeks in pediatric patients (aged 6 to 16 years) (n=60), 65% (35/60) achieved mycologic cure, 42% (25/60) achieved clinical cure, and 40% (24/60) achieved complete cure at 52 weeks. The most common adverse effects of efina­conazole were local and included ingrown toenail (1/60), application-site dermatitis (1/60), application-site vesicles (1/60), and application-site pain (1/60).⁵⁴

In a systematic review of systemic antifungals for onychomycosis in 151 pediatric patients, itraconazole, fluconazole, griseofulvin, and terbinafine resulted in complete cure rates similar to those of the adult population, with excellent safety profiles.⁵⁵ Depending on the situation, initiation of treatment with topical medications followed by addition of systemic antifungal agents only if needed may be an appropriate course of action.

BACTERIAL INFECTIONS

Acute Paronychia

Acute paronychia is a nail-fold infection that develops after the protective nail barrier has been compromised.⁵⁶ In children, thumb-sucking, nail-biting, frequent oral manipulation of the digits, and poor skin hygiene are risk factors. Acute paronychia also may develop in association with congenital malalignment of the great toenails.⁵⁷

Clinical manifestations include localized pain, erythema, and nail fold edema (Figure 4). Purulent material and abscess formation may ensue. Staphylococcus aureus as well as methicillin-resistant S aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes are classically the most common causes of acute paronychia. Treatment of paronychia is based on severity. In mild cases, warm soaks with topical antibiotics are indicated. Oral antibiotics should be prescribed for more severe presentations. If there is no improvement after 48 hours, surgical drainage is required to facilitate healing.⁵⁶

FINAL THOUGHTS

Inflammatory and infectious nail disorders in children are relatively common and may impact the physical and emotional well-being of young patients. By understanding the distinctive features of these nail disorders in pediatric patients, dermatologists can provide anticipatory guidance and informed treatment options to children and their parents. Further research is needed to expand our understanding of pediatric nail disorders and create targeted therapeutic interventions, particularly for NLP and psoriasis.

Nail disorders are common among pediatric patients but often are underdiagnosed or misdiagnosed because of their unique disease manifestations. These conditions may severely impact quality of life. There are few nail disease clinical trials that include children. Consequently, most treatment recommendations are based on case series and expert consensus recommendations. We review inflammatory and infectious nail disorders in pediatric patients. By describing characteristics, clinical manifestations, and management approaches for these conditions, we aim to provide guidance to dermatologists in their diagnosis and treatment.

INFLAMMATORY NAIL DISORDERS

Nail Psoriasis

Nail involvement in children with psoriasis is common, with prevalence estimates ranging from 17% to 39.2%.¹ Nail matrix psoriasis may manifest with pitting (large irregular pits) and leukonychia as well as chromonychia and nail plate crumbling. Onycholysis, oil drop spots (salmon patches), and subungual hyperkeratosis can be seen in nail bed psoriasis. Nail pitting is the most frequently observed clinical finding (Figure 1).^2,3 In a cross-sectional multicenter study of 313 children with cutaneous psoriasis in France, nail findings were present in 101 patients (32.3%). There were associations between nail findings and presence of psoriatic arthritis (P=.03), palmoplantar psoriasis (P<.001), and severity of psoriatic disease, defined as use of systemic treatment with phototherapy (psoralen plus UVA, UVB), traditional systemic treatment (acitretin, methotrexate, cyclosporine), or a biologic (P=.003).⁴

Topical steroids and vitamin D analogues may be used with or without occlusion and may be efficacious.⁵ Several case reports describe systemic treatments for psoriasis in children, including methotrexate, acitretin, and apremilast (approved for children 6 years and older for plaque psoriasis by the US Food and Drug Administration [FDA]).² There are 5 biologic drugs currently approved for the treatment of pediatric psoriasis—adalimumab, etanercept, ustekinumab, secukinumab, ixekizumab—and 6 drugs currently undergoing phase 3 studies—brodalumab, guselkumab, risankizumab, tildrakizumab, certolizumab pegol, and deucravacitinib (Table 1).^6-15 Adalimumab is specifically approved for moderate to severe nail psoriasis in adults 18 years and older.

Intralesional steroid injections are sometimes useful in the management of nail matrix psoriasis; however, appropriate patient selection is critical due to the pain associated with the procedure. In a prospective study of 16 children (age range, 9–17 years) with nail psoriasis treated with intralesional triamcinolone (ILTAC) 2.5 to 5 mg/mL every 4 to 8 weeks for a minimum of 3 to 6 months, 9 patients achieved resolution and 6 had improvement of clinical findings.¹⁶ Local adverse events were mild, including injection-site pain (66%), subungual hematoma (n=1), Beau lines (n=1), proximal nail fold hypopigmentation (n=2), and proximal nail fold atrophy (n=2). Because the proximal nail fold in children is thinner than in adults, there may be an increased risk for nail fold hypopigmentation and atrophy in children. Therefore, a maximum ILTAC concentration of 2.5 mg/mL with 0.2 mL maximum volume per nail per session is recommended for children younger than 15 years.¹⁶

Nail Lichen Planus

Nail lichen planus (NLP) is uncommon in children, with few biopsy-proven cases documented in the literature.¹⁷ Common clinical findings are onychorrhexis, nail plate thinning, fissuring, splitting, and atrophy with koilonychia.⁵ Although pterygium development (irreversible nail matrix scarring) is uncommon in pediatric patients, NLP can be progressive and may cause irreversible destruction of the nail matrix and subsequent nail loss, warranting therapeutic intervention.¹⁸

Treatment of NLP may be difficult, as there are no options that work in all patients. Current literature supports the use of systemic corticosteroids or ILTAC for the treatment of NLP; however, recurrence rates can be high. According to an expert consensus paper on NLP treatment, ILTAC may be injected in a concentration of 2.5, 5, or 10 mg/mL according to disease severity.¹⁹ In severe or resistant cases, intramuscular (IM) triamcinolone may be considered, especially if more than 3 nails are affected. A dosage of 0.5 to 1 mg/kg/mo for at least 3 to 6 months is recommended for both children and adults, with 1 mg/kg/mo recommended in the active treatment phase (first 2–3 months).¹⁹ In a retrospective review of 5 pediatric patients with NLP treated with IM triamcinolone 0.5 mg/kg/mo, 3 patients had resolution and 2 improved with treatment.²⁰ In a prospective study of 10 children with NLP, IM triamcinolone at a dosage of 0.5 to 1 mg/kg every 30 days for 3 to 6 months resulted in resolution of nail findings in 9 patients.¹⁷ In a prospective study of 14 pediatric patients with NLP treated with 2.5 to 5 mg/mL of ILTAC, 10 achieved resolution and 3 improved.¹⁶

Intralesional triamcinolone injections may be better suited for teenagers compared to younger children who may be more apprehensive of needles. To minimize pain, it is recommended to inject ILTAC slowly at room temperature, with use of “talkesthesia” and vibration devices, 1% lidocaine, or ethyl chloride spray.¹⁸

Trachyonychia

Trachyonychia is characterized by the presence of sandpaperlike nails. It manifests with brittle thin nails with longitudinal ridging, onychoschizia, and thickened hyperkeratotic cuticles. Trachyonychia typically involves multiple nails, with a peak age of onset between 3 and 12 years.^21,22 There are 2 variants: the opaque type with rough longitudinal ridging, and the shiny variant with opalescent nails and pits that reflect light. The opaque variant is more common and is associated with psoriasis, whereas the shiny variant is less common and is associated with alopecia areata.²³ Although most cases are idiopathic, some are associated with psoriasis and alopecia areata, as previously noted, as well as atopic dermatitis (AD) and lichen planus.^22,24

Fortunately, trachyonychia does not lead to permanent nail damage or pterygium, making treatment primarily focused on addressing functional and cosmetic concerns.²⁴ Spontaneous resolution occurs in approximately 50% of patients. In a prospective study of 11 patients with idiopathic trachyonychia, there was partial improvement in 5 of 9 patients treated with topical steroids, 1 with only petrolatum, and 1 with vitamin supplements. Complete resolution was reported in 1 patient treated with topical steroids.²⁵ Because trachyonychia often is self-resolving, no treatment is required and a conservative approach is strongly recommended.²⁶ Treatment options include topical corticosteroids, tazarotene, and 5-fluorouracil. Intralesional triamcinolone, systemic cyclosporine, retinoids, systemic corticosteroids, and tofacitinib have been described in case reports, though none of these have been shown to be 100% efficacious.²⁴

Nail Lichen Striatus

Lichen striatus involving the nail is uncommon and is characterized by onycholysis, longitudinal ridging, ­splitting, and fraying, as well as what appears to be a subungual tumor. It can encompass the entire nail or may be isolated to a portion of the nail (Figure 2). Usually, a Blaschko-linear array of flesh-colored papules on the more proximal digit directly adjacent to the nail dystrophy will be seen, though nail findings can occur in ­isolation.^27-29 The underlying pathophysiology is not clear; however, one hypothesis is that a triggering event, such as trauma, induces the expression of antigens that elicit a self-limiting immune-mediated response by CD8 T lymphocytes.³⁰

Generally, nail lichen striatus spontaneously resolves in 1 to 2 years without treatment. In a prospective study of 5 patients with nail lichen striatus, the median time to resolution was 22.6 months (range, 10–30 months).³¹ Topical steroids may be used for pruritus. In one case report, a 3-year-old boy with nail lichen striatus of 4 months’ duration was treated with tacrolimus ointment 0.03% daily for 3 months.²⁸

Nail AD

Nail changes with AD may be more common in adults than children or are underreported. In a study of 777 adults with AD, nail dystrophy was present in 124 patients (16%), whereas in a study of 250 pediatric patients with AD (aged 0-2 years), nail dystrophy was present in only 4 patients.^32,33

Periungual inflammation from AD causes the nail changes.³⁴ In a cross-sectional study of 24 pediatric patients with nail dystrophy due to AD, transverse grooves (Beau lines) were present in 25% (6/24), nail pitting in 16.7% (4/24), koilonychia in 16.7% (4/24), trachyonychia in 12.5% (3/24), leukonychia in 12.5% (3/24), brachyonychia in 8.3% (2/24), melanonychia in 8.3% (2/24), onychomadesis in 8.3% (2/24), onychoschizia in 8.3% (2/24), and onycholysis in 8.3% (2/24). There was an association between disease severity and presence of toenail dystrophy (P=.03).³⁵

Topical steroids with or without occlusion can be used to treat nail changes. Although there is limited literature describing the treatment of nail AD in children, a 61-year-old man with nail changes associated with AD achieved resolution with 3 months of treatment with dupilumab.³⁶ Anecdotally, most patients will improve with usual cutaneous AD management.

INFECTIOUS NAIL DISORDERS

Viral Infections

Hand, Foot, and Mouth Disease—Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) is a common childhood viral infection caused by various enteroviruses, most commonly coxsackievirus A16, with the A6 variant causing more severe disease. Fever and painful vesicles involving the oral mucosa as well as palms and soles give the disease its name. Nail changes are common. In a prospective study involving 130 patients with laboratory-confirmed coxsackievirus CA6 serotype infection, 37% developed onychomadesis vs only 5% of 145 cases with non-CA6 enterovirus infection who developed nail findings. There was an association between CA6 infection and presence of nail changes (P<.001).³⁷

Findings ranging from transverse grooves (Beau lines) to complete nail shedding (onychomadesis)(Figure 3) may be seen.^38,39 Nail findings in HFMD are due to transient inhibition of nail growth and present approximately 3 to 6 weeks after infection.⁴⁰ Onychomadesis is seen in 30% to 68% of patients with HFMD.^37,41,42 Nail findings in HFMD spontaneously resolve with nail growth (2–3 mm per month for fingernails and 1 mm per month for toenails) and do not require specific treatment. Although the appearance of nail changes associated with HFMD can be disturbing, dermatologists can reassure children and their parents that the nails will resolve with the next cycle of growth.

Kawasaki Disease—Kawasaki disease (KD) is a vasculitis primarily affecting children and infants. Although the specific pathogen and pathophysiology is not entirely clear, clinical observations have suggested an infectious cause, most likely a virus.⁴³ In Japan, more than 15,000 cases of KD are documented annually, while approximately 4200 cases are seen in the United States.⁴⁴ In a prospective study from 1984 to 1990, 4 of 26 (15.4%) patients with KD presented with nail manifestations during the late acute phase or early convalescent phase of disease. There were no significant associations between nail dystrophy and severity of KD, such as coronary artery aneurysm.⁴⁵

Nail changes reported in children with KD include onychomadesis, onycholysis, orange-brown chromonychia, splinter hemorrhages, Beau lines, and pincer nails. In a review of nail changes associated with KD from 1980 to 2021, orange-brown transverse chromonychia, which may evolve into transverse leukonychia, was the most common nail finding reported, occurring in 17 of 31 (54.8%) patients.⁴⁴ It has been hypothesized that nail changes may result from blood flow disturbance due to the underlying vasculitis.⁴⁶ Nail changes appear several weeks after the onset of fever and are self-limited. Resolution occurs with nail growth, with no treatment required.

FUNGAL INFECTIONS

Onychomycosis

Onychomycosis is a fungal infection of the nails that occurs in 0.2% to 5.5% of pediatric patients, and its prevalence may be increasing, which may be due to environmental factors or increased rates of diabetes mellitus and obesity in the pediatric population.⁴⁷ Onychomycosis represents 15.5% of nail dystrophies in pediatric patients.⁴⁸ Some dermatologists treat presumptive onychomycosis without confirmation; however, we do not recommend that approach. Because the differential is broad and the duration of treatment is long, mycologic examination (potassium hydroxide preparation, fungal culture, polymerase chain reaction, and/or histopathology) should be obtained to confirm onychomycosis prior to initiation of antifungal management. Family members of affected individuals should be evaluated and treated, if indicated, for onychomycosis and tinea pedis, as household transmission is common.

Currently, there are 2 topical FDA-approved treatments for pediatric onychomycosis in children 6 years and older (Table 2).^49,50 There is a discussion of the need for confirmatory testing for onychomycosis in children, particularly when systemic treatment is prescribed. In a retrospective review of 269 pediatric patients with onychomycosis prescribed terbinafine, 53.5% (n=144) underwent laboratory monitoring of liver function and complete blood cell counts, and 12.5% had grade 1 laboratory abnormalities either prior to (12/144 [8.3%]) or during (6/144 [4.2%]) therapy.⁵¹ Baseline transaminase monitoring is recommended, though subsequent routine laboratory monitoring in healthy children may have limited utility with associated increased costs, incidental findings, and patient discomfort and likely is not needed.⁵¹

Pediatric onychomycosis responds better to topical therapy than adult disease, and pediatric patients do not always require systemic treatment.⁵² Ciclopirox is not FDA approved for the treatment of pediatric onychomycosis, but in a 32-week clinical trial of ciclopirox lacquer 8% use in 40 patients, 77% (27/35) of treated patients achieved mycologic cure. Overall, 71% of treated patients (25/35) vs 22% (2/9) of controls achieved efficacy (defined as investigator global assessment score of 2 or lower).⁵² In an open-label, single-arm clinical trial assessing tavaborole solution 5% applied once daily for 48 weeks for the treatment of toenail onychomycosis in pediatric patients (aged 6–17 years), 36.2% (20/55) of patients achieved mycologic cure, and 8.5% (5/55) achieved complete cure at week 52 with mild or minimal adverse effects.⁵³ In an open-label, phase 4 study of the safety and efficacy of efinaconazole solution 10% applied once daily for 48 weeks in pediatric patients (aged 6 to 16 years) (n=60), 65% (35/60) achieved mycologic cure, 42% (25/60) achieved clinical cure, and 40% (24/60) achieved complete cure at 52 weeks. The most common adverse effects of efina­conazole were local and included ingrown toenail (1/60), application-site dermatitis (1/60), application-site vesicles (1/60), and application-site pain (1/60).⁵⁴

In a systematic review of systemic antifungals for onychomycosis in 151 pediatric patients, itraconazole, fluconazole, griseofulvin, and terbinafine resulted in complete cure rates similar to those of the adult population, with excellent safety profiles.⁵⁵ Depending on the situation, initiation of treatment with topical medications followed by addition of systemic antifungal agents only if needed may be an appropriate course of action.

BACTERIAL INFECTIONS

Acute Paronychia

Acute paronychia is a nail-fold infection that develops after the protective nail barrier has been compromised.⁵⁶ In children, thumb-sucking, nail-biting, frequent oral manipulation of the digits, and poor skin hygiene are risk factors. Acute paronychia also may develop in association with congenital malalignment of the great toenails.⁵⁷

Clinical manifestations include localized pain, erythema, and nail fold edema (Figure 4). Purulent material and abscess formation may ensue. Staphylococcus aureus as well as methicillin-resistant S aureus and Streptococcus pyogenes are classically the most common causes of acute paronychia. Treatment of paronychia is based on severity. In mild cases, warm soaks with topical antibiotics are indicated. Oral antibiotics should be prescribed for more severe presentations. If there is no improvement after 48 hours, surgical drainage is required to facilitate healing.⁵⁶

FINAL THOUGHTS

Inflammatory and infectious nail disorders in children are relatively common and may impact the physical and emotional well-being of young patients. By understanding the distinctive features of these nail disorders in pediatric patients, dermatologists can provide anticipatory guidance and informed treatment options to children and their parents. Further research is needed to expand our understanding of pediatric nail disorders and create targeted therapeutic interventions, particularly for NLP and psoriasis.

Bacterial and nonbacterial components of the gut microbiome and their function can accurately differentiate children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) from neurotypical children, new research shows. 

The findings could form the basis for development of a noninvasive diagnostic test for ASD and also provide novel therapeutic targets, wrote investigators, led by Siew C. Ng, MBBS, PhD, with the Microbiota I-Center (MagIC), the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Their study was published online in Nature Microbiology. 
 

Beyond Bacteria

The gut microbiome has been shown to play a central role in modulating the gut-brain axis, potentially influencing the development of ASD. 

However, most studies in ASD have focused on the bacterial component of the microbiome. Whether nonbacterial microorganisms (such as gut archaea, fungi, and viruses) or function of the gut microbiome are altered in ASD remains unclear. 

To investigate, the researchers performed metagenomic sequencing on fecal samples from 1627 boys and girls aged 1-13 years with and without ASD from five cohorts in China. 

After controlling for diet, medication, and comorbidity, they identified 14 archaea, 51 bacteria, 7 fungi, 18 viruses, 27 microbial genes, and 12 metabolic pathways that were altered in children with ASD. 

Machine-learning models using single-kingdom panels (archaea, bacteria, fungi, viruses) achieved area under the curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.68 to 0.87 in differentiating children with ASD from neurotypical control children. 

A model based on a panel of 31 multikingdom and functional markers achieved “high predictive value” for ASD, achieving an AUC of 0.91, with comparable performance among boys and girls. 

“The reproducible performance of the models across ages, sexes, and cohorts highlights their potential as promising diagnostic tools for ASD,” the investigators wrote. 

They also noted that the accuracy of the model was largely driven by the biosynthesis pathways of ubiquinol-7 and thiamine diphosphate, which were less abundant in children with ASD, and may serve as therapeutic targets. 
 

‘Exciting’ Possibilities 

“This study broadens our understanding by including fungi, archaea, and viruses, where previous studies have largely focused on the role of gut bacteria in autism,” Bhismadev Chakrabarti, PhD, research director of the Centre for Autism at the University of Reading, United Kingdom, said in a statement from the nonprofit UK Science Media Centre. 

“The results are broadly in line with previous studies that show reduced microbial diversity in autistic individuals. It also examines one of the largest samples seen in a study like this, which further strengthens the results,” Dr. Chakrabarti added. 

He said this research may provide “new ways of detecting autism, if microbial markers turn out to strengthen the ability of genetic and behavioral tests to detect autism. A future platform that can combine genetic, microbial, and simple behavioral assessments could help address the detection gap.

“One limitation of this data is that it cannot assess any causal role for the microbiota in the development of autism,” Dr. Chakrabarti noted. 

This study was supported by InnoHK, the Government of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, The D. H. Chen Foundation, and the New Cornerstone Science Foundation through the New Cornerstone Investigator Program. Dr. Ng has served as an advisory board member for Pfizer, Ferring, Janssen, and AbbVie; has received honoraria as a speaker for Ferring, Tillotts, Menarini, Janssen, AbbVie, and Takeda; is a scientific cofounder and shareholder of GenieBiome; receives patent royalties through her affiliated institutions; and is named as a co-inventor of patent applications that cover the therapeutic and diagnostic use of microbiome. Dr. Chakrabarti has no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

Bacterial and nonbacterial components of the gut microbiome and their function can accurately differentiate children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) from neurotypical children, new research shows. 

The findings could form the basis for development of a noninvasive diagnostic test for ASD and also provide novel therapeutic targets, wrote investigators, led by Siew C. Ng, MBBS, PhD, with the Microbiota I-Center (MagIC), the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Their study was published online in Nature Microbiology. 
 

Beyond Bacteria

The gut microbiome has been shown to play a central role in modulating the gut-brain axis, potentially influencing the development of ASD. 

However, most studies in ASD have focused on the bacterial component of the microbiome. Whether nonbacterial microorganisms (such as gut archaea, fungi, and viruses) or function of the gut microbiome are altered in ASD remains unclear. 

To investigate, the researchers performed metagenomic sequencing on fecal samples from 1627 boys and girls aged 1-13 years with and without ASD from five cohorts in China. 

After controlling for diet, medication, and comorbidity, they identified 14 archaea, 51 bacteria, 7 fungi, 18 viruses, 27 microbial genes, and 12 metabolic pathways that were altered in children with ASD. 

Machine-learning models using single-kingdom panels (archaea, bacteria, fungi, viruses) achieved area under the curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.68 to 0.87 in differentiating children with ASD from neurotypical control children. 

A model based on a panel of 31 multikingdom and functional markers achieved “high predictive value” for ASD, achieving an AUC of 0.91, with comparable performance among boys and girls. 

“The reproducible performance of the models across ages, sexes, and cohorts highlights their potential as promising diagnostic tools for ASD,” the investigators wrote. 

They also noted that the accuracy of the model was largely driven by the biosynthesis pathways of ubiquinol-7 and thiamine diphosphate, which were less abundant in children with ASD, and may serve as therapeutic targets. 
 

‘Exciting’ Possibilities 

“This study broadens our understanding by including fungi, archaea, and viruses, where previous studies have largely focused on the role of gut bacteria in autism,” Bhismadev Chakrabarti, PhD, research director of the Centre for Autism at the University of Reading, United Kingdom, said in a statement from the nonprofit UK Science Media Centre. 

“The results are broadly in line with previous studies that show reduced microbial diversity in autistic individuals. It also examines one of the largest samples seen in a study like this, which further strengthens the results,” Dr. Chakrabarti added. 

He said this research may provide “new ways of detecting autism, if microbial markers turn out to strengthen the ability of genetic and behavioral tests to detect autism. A future platform that can combine genetic, microbial, and simple behavioral assessments could help address the detection gap.

“One limitation of this data is that it cannot assess any causal role for the microbiota in the development of autism,” Dr. Chakrabarti noted. 

This study was supported by InnoHK, the Government of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, The D. H. Chen Foundation, and the New Cornerstone Science Foundation through the New Cornerstone Investigator Program. Dr. Ng has served as an advisory board member for Pfizer, Ferring, Janssen, and AbbVie; has received honoraria as a speaker for Ferring, Tillotts, Menarini, Janssen, AbbVie, and Takeda; is a scientific cofounder and shareholder of GenieBiome; receives patent royalties through her affiliated institutions; and is named as a co-inventor of patent applications that cover the therapeutic and diagnostic use of microbiome. Dr. Chakrabarti has no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

Bacterial and nonbacterial components of the gut microbiome and their function can accurately differentiate children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) from neurotypical children, new research shows. 

The findings could form the basis for development of a noninvasive diagnostic test for ASD and also provide novel therapeutic targets, wrote investigators, led by Siew C. Ng, MBBS, PhD, with the Microbiota I-Center (MagIC), the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Their study was published online in Nature Microbiology. 
 

Beyond Bacteria

The gut microbiome has been shown to play a central role in modulating the gut-brain axis, potentially influencing the development of ASD. 

However, most studies in ASD have focused on the bacterial component of the microbiome. Whether nonbacterial microorganisms (such as gut archaea, fungi, and viruses) or function of the gut microbiome are altered in ASD remains unclear. 

To investigate, the researchers performed metagenomic sequencing on fecal samples from 1627 boys and girls aged 1-13 years with and without ASD from five cohorts in China. 

After controlling for diet, medication, and comorbidity, they identified 14 archaea, 51 bacteria, 7 fungi, 18 viruses, 27 microbial genes, and 12 metabolic pathways that were altered in children with ASD. 

Machine-learning models using single-kingdom panels (archaea, bacteria, fungi, viruses) achieved area under the curve (AUC) values ranging from 0.68 to 0.87 in differentiating children with ASD from neurotypical control children. 

A model based on a panel of 31 multikingdom and functional markers achieved “high predictive value” for ASD, achieving an AUC of 0.91, with comparable performance among boys and girls. 

“The reproducible performance of the models across ages, sexes, and cohorts highlights their potential as promising diagnostic tools for ASD,” the investigators wrote. 

They also noted that the accuracy of the model was largely driven by the biosynthesis pathways of ubiquinol-7 and thiamine diphosphate, which were less abundant in children with ASD, and may serve as therapeutic targets. 
 

‘Exciting’ Possibilities 

“This study broadens our understanding by including fungi, archaea, and viruses, where previous studies have largely focused on the role of gut bacteria in autism,” Bhismadev Chakrabarti, PhD, research director of the Centre for Autism at the University of Reading, United Kingdom, said in a statement from the nonprofit UK Science Media Centre. 

“The results are broadly in line with previous studies that show reduced microbial diversity in autistic individuals. It also examines one of the largest samples seen in a study like this, which further strengthens the results,” Dr. Chakrabarti added. 

He said this research may provide “new ways of detecting autism, if microbial markers turn out to strengthen the ability of genetic and behavioral tests to detect autism. A future platform that can combine genetic, microbial, and simple behavioral assessments could help address the detection gap.

“One limitation of this data is that it cannot assess any causal role for the microbiota in the development of autism,” Dr. Chakrabarti noted. 

This study was supported by InnoHK, the Government of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, The D. H. Chen Foundation, and the New Cornerstone Science Foundation through the New Cornerstone Investigator Program. Dr. Ng has served as an advisory board member for Pfizer, Ferring, Janssen, and AbbVie; has received honoraria as a speaker for Ferring, Tillotts, Menarini, Janssen, AbbVie, and Takeda; is a scientific cofounder and shareholder of GenieBiome; receives patent royalties through her affiliated institutions; and is named as a co-inventor of patent applications that cover the therapeutic and diagnostic use of microbiome. Dr. Chakrabarti has no relevant conflicts of interest.
 

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

Patients with treatment-refractory cancers who did not meet eligibility criteria for a pan-cancer clinical trial but received waivers allowing them to participate had similar outcomes to patients who participated without waivers, a new analysis revealed.

The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”

Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.

In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.

In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.

Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing. 

The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers. 

Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.

A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.

The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).

“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.

The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.

So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.

Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.

Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”

However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.

“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with treatment-refractory cancers who did not meet eligibility criteria for a pan-cancer clinical trial but received waivers allowing them to participate had similar outcomes to patients who participated without waivers, a new analysis revealed.

The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”

Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.

In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.

In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.

Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing. 

The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers. 

Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.

A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.

The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).

“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.

The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.

So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.

Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.

Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”

However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.

“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with treatment-refractory cancers who did not meet eligibility criteria for a pan-cancer clinical trial but received waivers allowing them to participate had similar outcomes to patients who participated without waivers, a new analysis revealed.

The study, published online in Clinical Cancer Research, highlighted the potential benefits of broadening eligibility criteria for clinical trials.

“It is well known that results in an ‘ideal’ population do not always translate to the real-world population,” senior author Hans Gelderblom, MD, chair of the Department of Medical Oncology at the Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands, said in a press release. “Eligibility criteria are often too strict, and educated exemptions by experienced investigators can help individual patients, especially in a last-resort trial.”

Although experts have expressed interest in improving trial inclusivity, it’s unclear how doing so might impact treatment safety and efficacy.

In the Drug Rediscovery Protocol (DRUP), Dr. Gelderblom and colleagues examined the impact of broadening trial eligibility on patient outcomes. DRUP is an ongoing Dutch national, multicenter, pan-cancer, nonrandomized clinical trial in which patients are treated off-label with approved molecularly targeted or immunotherapies.

In the trial, 1019 patients with treatment-refractory disease were matched to one of the available study drugs based on their tumor molecular profile and enrolled in parallel cohorts. Cohorts were defined by tumor type, molecular profile, and study drug.

Among these patients, 82 patients — 8% of the cohort — were granted waivers to participate. Most waivers (45%) were granted as exceptions to general- or drug-related eligibility criteria, often because of out-of-range lab results. Other categories included treatment and testing exceptions, as well as out-of-window testing. 

The researchers then compared safety and efficacy outcomes between the 82 participants granted waivers and the 937 who did not receive waivers. 

Overall, Dr. Gelderblom’s team found that the rate of serious adverse events was similar between patients who received a waiver and those who did not: 39% vs 41%, respectively.

A relationship between waivers and serious adverse events was deemed “unlikely” for 86% of patients and “possible” for 14%. In two cases concerning a direct relationship, for instance, patients who received waivers for decreased hemoglobin levels developed anemia.

The rate of clinical benefit — defined as an objective response or stable disease for at least 16 weeks — was similar between the groups. Overall, 40% of patients who received a waiver (33 of 82) had a clinical benefit vs 33% of patients without a waiver (P = .43). Median overall survival for patients that received a waiver was also similar — 11 months in the waiver group and 8 months in the nonwaiver group (hazard ratio, 0.87; P = .33).

“Safety and clinical benefit were preserved in patients for whom a waiver was granted,” the authors concluded.

The study had several limitations. The diversity of cancer types, treatments, and reasons for protocol exemptions precluded subgroup analyses. In addition, because the decision to grant waivers depended in large part on the likelihood of clinical benefit, “it is possible that patients who received waivers were positively selected for clinical benefit compared with the general study population,” the authors wrote.

So, “although the clinical benefit rate of the patient group for whom a waiver was granted appears to be slightly higher, this difference might be explained by the selection process of the central study team, in which each waiver request was carefully considered, weighing the risks and potential benefits for the patient in question,” the authors explained.

Overall, “these findings advocate for a broader and more inclusive design when establishing novel trials, paving the way for a more effective and tailored application of cancer therapies in patients with advanced or refractory disease,” Dr. Gelderblom said.

Commenting on the study, Bishal Gyawali, MD, PhD, said that “relaxing eligibility criteria is important, and I support this. Trials should include patients that are more representative of the real-world, so that results are generalizable.”

However, “the paper overemphasized efficacy,” said Dr. Gyawali, from Queen’s University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. The sample size of waiver-granted patients was small, plus “the clinical benefit rate is not a marker of efficacy.

“The response rate is somewhat better, but for a heterogeneous study with multiple targets and drugs, it is difficult to say much about treatment effects here,” Dr. Gyawali added. Overall, “we shouldn’t read too much into treatment benefits based on these numbers.”

Funding for the study was provided by the Stelvio for Life Foundation, the Dutch Cancer Society, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, pharma&, Eisai Co., Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Roche. Dr. Gelderblom declared no conflicts of interest, and Dr. Gyawali declared no conflicts of interest related to his comment.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

I recently encountered a study that reviewed return visits of pediatric patients after undergoing adenotonsillectomy. The investigators discovered that pain-related visits were higher for patients who had received prescriptions for opioids. After the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a boxed warning about the use of codeine in postoperative pediatric tonsillectomy with adenoidectomy (T&A), patients pain-related return visits declined and steroid prescriptions increased.

On the surface, this inverse relationship between opioid prescriptions and pain-related visits seems counterintuitive. This is particularly true if you believe that opioids are effective pain medications. The relationship between pain-related visits, steroid use, and the boxed warning is a bit easier to understand and most likely points to the effectiveness of the steroids.

Keeping in mind this was a single-institution study that included more than 5000 patients and more than 700 return visits, we should be careful in reading too much into these results. However, I can’t resist the temptation to use it as a springboard from which to launch a short dissertation on pain management.

First, let’s consider whether there was something about the opioids that was causing more pain for the patients. I’m not aware of any studies that suggest pain as a side effect of codeine. Nausea and vomiting, yes. And, although the investigators were focusing on pain, it may have been that the general discomfort associated with the gastrointestinal effects of the drug were lowering the patients’ pain threshold. I certainly know of many adults who have said that they now avoid opioids postoperatively because of the general sense of unwellness they have experienced during previous surgical adventures.

However, my bias leads me to focus on this question: If the patients didn’t receive opioids postoperatively, were they receiving something else that was making them less likely to arrive at the hospital or clinic complaining of pain? I assume the researchers would have told us about some new alternative miracle painkiller that was being prescribed.

As a card-carrying nihilist in good standing, I am tempted to claim that this is another example of nothing is better than most well-intentioned somethings. However, I am going to posit that these patients were receiving something that lessened their need to seek help with their pain.

Most likely that something was a thoughtful preemptive dialogue postoperatively about what they (and in most cases their parents) might expect in the way of symptoms. And ... an easy-to-reach contact point preferably with a person with whom they were familiar. And ... were scheduled to receive follow up phone calls at intervals relevant to the details of their surgery.

I know many of you are going to say, “We are already doing those things.” And, if so, you are to be commended. And, I’m sure that every outpatient postoperative manual includes all of those common-sense ingredients of good follow-up care. However, you know as well as I do that not all postoperative instructions are delivered with same degree of thoroughness nor with sufficient pauses thoughtfully delivered to make it a real dialogue. Nor is the follow-up contact person as easy to reach as promised.

I’m not sure how much we can thank the FDA boxed warning about codeine for the decrease in postoperative pain-generated visits. However, it could be that when physicians were discouraged from prescribing postoperative opioids, they may have felt the need to lean more heavily on good old-fashioned postoperative follow-up care. Instructions presented more as a dialogue and preemptive follow-up calls made with an aura of caring are well known deterrents of middle-of-the-night calls for help.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I recently encountered a study that reviewed return visits of pediatric patients after undergoing adenotonsillectomy. The investigators discovered that pain-related visits were higher for patients who had received prescriptions for opioids. After the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a boxed warning about the use of codeine in postoperative pediatric tonsillectomy with adenoidectomy (T&A), patients pain-related return visits declined and steroid prescriptions increased.

On the surface, this inverse relationship between opioid prescriptions and pain-related visits seems counterintuitive. This is particularly true if you believe that opioids are effective pain medications. The relationship between pain-related visits, steroid use, and the boxed warning is a bit easier to understand and most likely points to the effectiveness of the steroids.

Keeping in mind this was a single-institution study that included more than 5000 patients and more than 700 return visits, we should be careful in reading too much into these results. However, I can’t resist the temptation to use it as a springboard from which to launch a short dissertation on pain management.

First, let’s consider whether there was something about the opioids that was causing more pain for the patients. I’m not aware of any studies that suggest pain as a side effect of codeine. Nausea and vomiting, yes. And, although the investigators were focusing on pain, it may have been that the general discomfort associated with the gastrointestinal effects of the drug were lowering the patients’ pain threshold. I certainly know of many adults who have said that they now avoid opioids postoperatively because of the general sense of unwellness they have experienced during previous surgical adventures.

However, my bias leads me to focus on this question: If the patients didn’t receive opioids postoperatively, were they receiving something else that was making them less likely to arrive at the hospital or clinic complaining of pain? I assume the researchers would have told us about some new alternative miracle painkiller that was being prescribed.

As a card-carrying nihilist in good standing, I am tempted to claim that this is another example of nothing is better than most well-intentioned somethings. However, I am going to posit that these patients were receiving something that lessened their need to seek help with their pain.

Most likely that something was a thoughtful preemptive dialogue postoperatively about what they (and in most cases their parents) might expect in the way of symptoms. And ... an easy-to-reach contact point preferably with a person with whom they were familiar. And ... were scheduled to receive follow up phone calls at intervals relevant to the details of their surgery.

I know many of you are going to say, “We are already doing those things.” And, if so, you are to be commended. And, I’m sure that every outpatient postoperative manual includes all of those common-sense ingredients of good follow-up care. However, you know as well as I do that not all postoperative instructions are delivered with same degree of thoroughness nor with sufficient pauses thoughtfully delivered to make it a real dialogue. Nor is the follow-up contact person as easy to reach as promised.

I’m not sure how much we can thank the FDA boxed warning about codeine for the decrease in postoperative pain-generated visits. However, it could be that when physicians were discouraged from prescribing postoperative opioids, they may have felt the need to lean more heavily on good old-fashioned postoperative follow-up care. Instructions presented more as a dialogue and preemptive follow-up calls made with an aura of caring are well known deterrents of middle-of-the-night calls for help.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

I recently encountered a study that reviewed return visits of pediatric patients after undergoing adenotonsillectomy. The investigators discovered that pain-related visits were higher for patients who had received prescriptions for opioids. After the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a boxed warning about the use of codeine in postoperative pediatric tonsillectomy with adenoidectomy (T&A), patients pain-related return visits declined and steroid prescriptions increased.

On the surface, this inverse relationship between opioid prescriptions and pain-related visits seems counterintuitive. This is particularly true if you believe that opioids are effective pain medications. The relationship between pain-related visits, steroid use, and the boxed warning is a bit easier to understand and most likely points to the effectiveness of the steroids.

Keeping in mind this was a single-institution study that included more than 5000 patients and more than 700 return visits, we should be careful in reading too much into these results. However, I can’t resist the temptation to use it as a springboard from which to launch a short dissertation on pain management.

First, let’s consider whether there was something about the opioids that was causing more pain for the patients. I’m not aware of any studies that suggest pain as a side effect of codeine. Nausea and vomiting, yes. And, although the investigators were focusing on pain, it may have been that the general discomfort associated with the gastrointestinal effects of the drug were lowering the patients’ pain threshold. I certainly know of many adults who have said that they now avoid opioids postoperatively because of the general sense of unwellness they have experienced during previous surgical adventures.

However, my bias leads me to focus on this question: If the patients didn’t receive opioids postoperatively, were they receiving something else that was making them less likely to arrive at the hospital or clinic complaining of pain? I assume the researchers would have told us about some new alternative miracle painkiller that was being prescribed.

As a card-carrying nihilist in good standing, I am tempted to claim that this is another example of nothing is better than most well-intentioned somethings. However, I am going to posit that these patients were receiving something that lessened their need to seek help with their pain.

Most likely that something was a thoughtful preemptive dialogue postoperatively about what they (and in most cases their parents) might expect in the way of symptoms. And ... an easy-to-reach contact point preferably with a person with whom they were familiar. And ... were scheduled to receive follow up phone calls at intervals relevant to the details of their surgery.

I know many of you are going to say, “We are already doing those things.” And, if so, you are to be commended. And, I’m sure that every outpatient postoperative manual includes all of those common-sense ingredients of good follow-up care. However, you know as well as I do that not all postoperative instructions are delivered with same degree of thoroughness nor with sufficient pauses thoughtfully delivered to make it a real dialogue. Nor is the follow-up contact person as easy to reach as promised.

I’m not sure how much we can thank the FDA boxed warning about codeine for the decrease in postoperative pain-generated visits. However, it could be that when physicians were discouraged from prescribing postoperative opioids, they may have felt the need to lean more heavily on good old-fashioned postoperative follow-up care. Instructions presented more as a dialogue and preemptive follow-up calls made with an aura of caring are well known deterrents of middle-of-the-night calls for help.

Dr. Wilkoff practiced primary care pediatrics in Brunswick, Maine, for nearly 40 years. He has authored several books on behavioral pediatrics, including “How to Say No to Your Toddler.” Other than a Littman stethoscope he accepted as a first-year medical student in 1966, Dr. Wilkoff reports having nothing to disclose. Email him at [email protected].

Good news for younger children suffering from the uncommon but debilitating gastrointestinal condition eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE): A randomized placebo-controlled study found the monoclonal antibody dupilumab (Dupixent) led to histologic remission in significantly more affected children than placebo. Data from this trial led to a January US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the anti-inflammatory biologic for patients aged 1-11 years weighing at least 15 kg.

In addition, the trial, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, found that a higher-exposure dupilumab regimen (approximating the trough concentration of a 300-mg dose administered once weekly versus every 2 weeks) improved key secondary end points, according to gastroenterologist Mirna Chehade, MD, MPH, AGAF, a professor of pediatrics at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Mount Sinai Kravis Children’s Hospital in New York City, and colleagues.

The Trial

Conducted at one Canadian and 26 US sites, the two-part phase 3 study randomly assigned 102 EoE patients aged 1-11 years who were refractory to proton pump inhibition in a 2:2:1:1 ratio.

Part A enrolled 102 patients and evaluated dupilumab at a weight-tiered higher-dose or lower-dose regimen vs placebo (two groups) for 16 weeks.

Part B was a 36-week extended active treatment period in which eligible dupilumab recipients from part A maintained their weight-tiered higher- or lower-dose regimen, whereas those in the placebo groups switched to weight-tiered higher- or lower-dose dupilumab.

The primary end point was histologic remission (peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count, ≤ 6 per high-power field) at week 16. Continued dupilumab treatment appeared to maintain its effect through week 52.

During part A, histologic remission occurred in 25 of the 37 higher-exposure patients (68%), 18 of the 31 lower-exposure patients (58%), and one of the 34 placebo patients (3%).

The difference between the higher-exposure regimen and placebo was 65 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 48-81; P < .001), whereas that between the lower-exposure regimen and placebo was 55 percentage points (95% CI, 37-73; P < .001).

Higher exposure led to significant improvements in histologic, endoscopic, and transcriptomic measures over placebo. Improvements between baseline and week 52 in all patients were generally similar to those between baseline and week 16 in patients who received dupilumab in part A.

As for adverse events, in part A, the incidence of coronavirus disease, nausea, injection-site pain, and headache was at least 10 percentage points higher among dupilumab recipients at either dose than among placebo recipients. Serious adverse events were reported in three dupilumab patients during part A and in six patients overall during part B.
 

A Balanced Approach

On a cautionary note, Eric H. Chiou, MD, an assistant professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine and a pediatric gastroenterologist at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, said that while dupilumab shows great promise, further research is needed on its cost-effectiveness in EoE.

“The cost of treatment will need to be compared relative to potential long-term savings from reduced hospitalizations, fewer complications, and improved quality of life,” said Dr. Chiou, who was not involved in the study. “A balanced approach that considers clinical efficacy, patient well-being, cost-effectiveness, and equity is essential.”

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

Good news for younger children suffering from the uncommon but debilitating gastrointestinal condition eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE): A randomized placebo-controlled study found the monoclonal antibody dupilumab (Dupixent) led to histologic remission in significantly more affected children than placebo. Data from this trial led to a January US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the anti-inflammatory biologic for patients aged 1-11 years weighing at least 15 kg.

In addition, the trial, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, found that a higher-exposure dupilumab regimen (approximating the trough concentration of a 300-mg dose administered once weekly versus every 2 weeks) improved key secondary end points, according to gastroenterologist Mirna Chehade, MD, MPH, AGAF, a professor of pediatrics at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Mount Sinai Kravis Children’s Hospital in New York City, and colleagues.

The Trial

Conducted at one Canadian and 26 US sites, the two-part phase 3 study randomly assigned 102 EoE patients aged 1-11 years who were refractory to proton pump inhibition in a 2:2:1:1 ratio.

Part A enrolled 102 patients and evaluated dupilumab at a weight-tiered higher-dose or lower-dose regimen vs placebo (two groups) for 16 weeks.

Part B was a 36-week extended active treatment period in which eligible dupilumab recipients from part A maintained their weight-tiered higher- or lower-dose regimen, whereas those in the placebo groups switched to weight-tiered higher- or lower-dose dupilumab.

The primary end point was histologic remission (peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count, ≤ 6 per high-power field) at week 16. Continued dupilumab treatment appeared to maintain its effect through week 52.

During part A, histologic remission occurred in 25 of the 37 higher-exposure patients (68%), 18 of the 31 lower-exposure patients (58%), and one of the 34 placebo patients (3%).

The difference between the higher-exposure regimen and placebo was 65 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 48-81; P < .001), whereas that between the lower-exposure regimen and placebo was 55 percentage points (95% CI, 37-73; P < .001).

Higher exposure led to significant improvements in histologic, endoscopic, and transcriptomic measures over placebo. Improvements between baseline and week 52 in all patients were generally similar to those between baseline and week 16 in patients who received dupilumab in part A.

As for adverse events, in part A, the incidence of coronavirus disease, nausea, injection-site pain, and headache was at least 10 percentage points higher among dupilumab recipients at either dose than among placebo recipients. Serious adverse events were reported in three dupilumab patients during part A and in six patients overall during part B.
 

A Balanced Approach

On a cautionary note, Eric H. Chiou, MD, an assistant professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine and a pediatric gastroenterologist at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, said that while dupilumab shows great promise, further research is needed on its cost-effectiveness in EoE.

“The cost of treatment will need to be compared relative to potential long-term savings from reduced hospitalizations, fewer complications, and improved quality of life,” said Dr. Chiou, who was not involved in the study. “A balanced approach that considers clinical efficacy, patient well-being, cost-effectiveness, and equity is essential.”

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

Good news for younger children suffering from the uncommon but debilitating gastrointestinal condition eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE): A randomized placebo-controlled study found the monoclonal antibody dupilumab (Dupixent) led to histologic remission in significantly more affected children than placebo. Data from this trial led to a January US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the anti-inflammatory biologic for patients aged 1-11 years weighing at least 15 kg.

In addition, the trial, published in The New England Journal of Medicine, found that a higher-exposure dupilumab regimen (approximating the trough concentration of a 300-mg dose administered once weekly versus every 2 weeks) improved key secondary end points, according to gastroenterologist Mirna Chehade, MD, MPH, AGAF, a professor of pediatrics at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and Mount Sinai Kravis Children’s Hospital in New York City, and colleagues.

The Trial

Conducted at one Canadian and 26 US sites, the two-part phase 3 study randomly assigned 102 EoE patients aged 1-11 years who were refractory to proton pump inhibition in a 2:2:1:1 ratio.

Part A enrolled 102 patients and evaluated dupilumab at a weight-tiered higher-dose or lower-dose regimen vs placebo (two groups) for 16 weeks.

Part B was a 36-week extended active treatment period in which eligible dupilumab recipients from part A maintained their weight-tiered higher- or lower-dose regimen, whereas those in the placebo groups switched to weight-tiered higher- or lower-dose dupilumab.

The primary end point was histologic remission (peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count, ≤ 6 per high-power field) at week 16. Continued dupilumab treatment appeared to maintain its effect through week 52.

During part A, histologic remission occurred in 25 of the 37 higher-exposure patients (68%), 18 of the 31 lower-exposure patients (58%), and one of the 34 placebo patients (3%).

The difference between the higher-exposure regimen and placebo was 65 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], 48-81; P < .001), whereas that between the lower-exposure regimen and placebo was 55 percentage points (95% CI, 37-73; P < .001).

Higher exposure led to significant improvements in histologic, endoscopic, and transcriptomic measures over placebo. Improvements between baseline and week 52 in all patients were generally similar to those between baseline and week 16 in patients who received dupilumab in part A.

As for adverse events, in part A, the incidence of coronavirus disease, nausea, injection-site pain, and headache was at least 10 percentage points higher among dupilumab recipients at either dose than among placebo recipients. Serious adverse events were reported in three dupilumab patients during part A and in six patients overall during part B.
 

A Balanced Approach

On a cautionary note, Eric H. Chiou, MD, an assistant professor of pediatrics at Baylor College of Medicine and a pediatric gastroenterologist at Texas Children’s Hospital in Houston, said that while dupilumab shows great promise, further research is needed on its cost-effectiveness in EoE.

“The cost of treatment will need to be compared relative to potential long-term savings from reduced hospitalizations, fewer complications, and improved quality of life,” said Dr. Chiou, who was not involved in the study. “A balanced approach that considers clinical efficacy, patient well-being, cost-effectiveness, and equity is essential.”

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

In one of several recently published studies on the relationship between COVID-19 infection and asthma, asthma symptoms in children declined as the proportion of the US population vaccinated against COVID-19 increased, according to data drawn from the National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH).

The inverse correlation between symptoms and vaccination was strong and statistically significant, according to investigators led by Matthew M. Davis, MD, Physician in Chief and Chief Scientific Officer, Nemours Children’s Health, Wilmington, Delaware.

“With each increase of 10 percentage points in COVID-19 vaccination coverage, the parent-reported child asthma symptoms prevalence decreased by 0.36 percentage points (P < .05),” Dr. Davis and his coinvestigators reported in a research letter published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Studies Explore Relationship of COVID and Asthma

The reduced risk of asthma symptoms with COVID-19 vaccination in children at the population level is just one of several recently published studies exploring the interaction between COVID-19 infection and asthma, but two studies that posed the same question did not reach the same conclusion.

In one, COVID-19 infection in children was not found to be a trigger for new-onset asthma, but the second found that it was. In a third study, the preponderance of evidence from a meta-analysis found that patients with asthma – whether children or adults – did not necessarily experience a more severe course of COVID-19 infection than in those without asthma.

The NSCH database study calculated state-level change in scores for patient-reported childhood asthma symptoms in the years in the years 2018-2019, which preceded the pandemic and the years 2020-2021, when the pandemic began. The hypothesis was that the proportion of the population 5 years of age or older who completed the COVID-19 primary vaccination would be inversely related to asthma symptom prevalence.

Relative to the 2018-2019 years, the mean rate of parent-reported asthma symptoms was 0.85% lower (6.93% vs 7.77%; P < .001) in 2020-2021, when the mean primary series COVID-19 vaccination rate was 72.3%.

The study was not able to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 vaccination specifically in children with asthma, because history of asthma is not captured in the NSCH data, but Dr. Davis contended that the reduction in symptomatic asthma among children with increased vaccination offers validation for the state-level findings.

“Moreover, the absence of an association of COVID-19 vaccination administered predominantly in 2021 with population-level COVID-19 mortality in 2020 serves as a negative control,” he and his colleagues wrote in their research letter.
 

Protection from Respiratory Viruses Seen for Asthma Patients

In an interview, Dr. Davis reported that these data are consistent with previous evidence that immunization against influenza also reduces risk of asthma symptoms. In a meta-analysis published in 2017, it was estimated that live vaccines reduced risk of influenza by 81% and prevented 59%-72% of asthma attacks leading to hospitalizations or emergency room visits.

“The similarity of our findings regarding COVID-19 vaccination to prior data regarding influenza vaccination underscores the importance of preventing viral illnesses in individuals with a history of asthma,” Dr. Davis said. It is not yet clear if this is true of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Because of the short time that the RSV vaccine has been available, it is too soon to conduct an analysis.

One message from this study is that “clinicians should continue to encourage COVID-19 vaccination for children because of its general benefits in preventing coronavirus-related illness and the apparent specific benefits for children with a history of asthma,” he said.

While vaccination appears to reduce asthmatic symptoms related to COVID-19 infection, one study suggests that COVID-19 does not trigger new-onset asthma. In a retrospective study published in Pediatrics, no association between COVID-19 infection and new-onset asthma could be made in an analysis of 27,423 children (ages, 1-16 years) from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) Care Network.

Across all the pediatric age groups evaluated, the consistent finding was “SARS-CoV-2 positivity does not confer an additional risk for asthma diagnosis at least within the first 18 months after a [polymerase chain reaction] test,” concluded the investigators, led by David A. Hill, MD, PhD, Division of Allergy and Immunology, CHOP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
 

Risk of Asthma Doubled After COVID-19 Infection

However, the opposite conclusion was reached by investigators evaluating data from two cohorts of children ages 5-18 drawn from the TriNetX database, a global health research network with data on more than 250 million individuals. Cohort 1 included more than 250,000 children. These children had never received COVID-19 vaccination. The 50,000 patients in cohort 2 had all received COVID19 vaccination.

To compare the impact of COVID-19 infection on new-onset asthma, the patients who were infected with COVID-19 were compared with those who were not infected after propensity score matching over 18 months of follow-up.

In cohort 1, the rate of new onset asthma was more than twofold greater among those with COVID-19 infection (4.7% vs 2.0%). The hazard ratio (HR) of 2.25 had tight confidence intervals (95% CI, 2.158-2.367).

In cohort 2, the risk of new-onset asthma at 18 months among those who had a COVID-19 infection relative to those without was even greater (8.3% vs 3.1%). The relative risk approached a 3-fold increase (HR 2.745; 95% CI, 2.521-2.99).

The conclusion of these investigators, led by Chia-Chi Lung, PhD, Department of Public Health, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung City, Taiwan, was that there is “a critical need for ongoing monitoring and customized healthcare strategies to mitigate the long-term respiratory impacts of COVID-19 in children.”

These health risks might not be as significant as once feared. In the recently published study from Environmental Health Insights, the goal of a meta-analysis was to determine if patients with asthma relative to those without asthma face a higher risk of serious disease from COVID-19 infection. The meta-analysis included studies of children and adults. The answer, according an in-depth analysis of 21 articles in a “scoping review,” was a qualified no.

Of the 21 articles, 4 concluded that asthma is a risk factor for serious COVID-19 infection, but 17 did not, according to Chukwudi S. Ubah, PhD, Department of Public Health, Brody School of Medicine, East Caroline University, Greenville, North Carolina.
 

None of These Questions are Fully Resolved

However, given the disparity in the results and the fact that many of the studies included in this analysis had small sample sizes, Dr. Ubah called for larger studies and studies with better controls. He noted, for example, that the studies did not consistently evaluate mitigating factors, such as used of inhaled or oral corticosteroids, which might affect risk of the severity of a COVID-19 infection.

Rather, “our findings pointed out that the type of medication prescribed for asthma may have implications for the severity of COVID-19 infection in these patients,” Dr. Ubah said in an interview.

Overall, the data do not support a major interaction between asthma and COVID-19, even if the data are not conclusive. Each of the senior authors of these studies called for larger and better investigations to further explore whether COVID-19 infection and preexisting asthma interact. So far, the data indicate that if COVID-19 infection poses a risk of precipitating new-onset asthma or inducing a more severe infection in children with asthma, it is low, but the degree of risk, if any, remains unresolved in subgroups defined by asthma treatment or asthma severity.

Dr. Davis, Dr. Hill, Dr. Lung, and Dr. Ubah reported no potential conflicts of interest. None of these studies received funding from commercial interests.

In one of several recently published studies on the relationship between COVID-19 infection and asthma, asthma symptoms in children declined as the proportion of the US population vaccinated against COVID-19 increased, according to data drawn from the National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH).

The inverse correlation between symptoms and vaccination was strong and statistically significant, according to investigators led by Matthew M. Davis, MD, Physician in Chief and Chief Scientific Officer, Nemours Children’s Health, Wilmington, Delaware.

“With each increase of 10 percentage points in COVID-19 vaccination coverage, the parent-reported child asthma symptoms prevalence decreased by 0.36 percentage points (P < .05),” Dr. Davis and his coinvestigators reported in a research letter published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Studies Explore Relationship of COVID and Asthma

The reduced risk of asthma symptoms with COVID-19 vaccination in children at the population level is just one of several recently published studies exploring the interaction between COVID-19 infection and asthma, but two studies that posed the same question did not reach the same conclusion.

In one, COVID-19 infection in children was not found to be a trigger for new-onset asthma, but the second found that it was. In a third study, the preponderance of evidence from a meta-analysis found that patients with asthma – whether children or adults – did not necessarily experience a more severe course of COVID-19 infection than in those without asthma.

The NSCH database study calculated state-level change in scores for patient-reported childhood asthma symptoms in the years in the years 2018-2019, which preceded the pandemic and the years 2020-2021, when the pandemic began. The hypothesis was that the proportion of the population 5 years of age or older who completed the COVID-19 primary vaccination would be inversely related to asthma symptom prevalence.

Relative to the 2018-2019 years, the mean rate of parent-reported asthma symptoms was 0.85% lower (6.93% vs 7.77%; P < .001) in 2020-2021, when the mean primary series COVID-19 vaccination rate was 72.3%.

The study was not able to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 vaccination specifically in children with asthma, because history of asthma is not captured in the NSCH data, but Dr. Davis contended that the reduction in symptomatic asthma among children with increased vaccination offers validation for the state-level findings.

“Moreover, the absence of an association of COVID-19 vaccination administered predominantly in 2021 with population-level COVID-19 mortality in 2020 serves as a negative control,” he and his colleagues wrote in their research letter.
 

Protection from Respiratory Viruses Seen for Asthma Patients

In an interview, Dr. Davis reported that these data are consistent with previous evidence that immunization against influenza also reduces risk of asthma symptoms. In a meta-analysis published in 2017, it was estimated that live vaccines reduced risk of influenza by 81% and prevented 59%-72% of asthma attacks leading to hospitalizations or emergency room visits.

“The similarity of our findings regarding COVID-19 vaccination to prior data regarding influenza vaccination underscores the importance of preventing viral illnesses in individuals with a history of asthma,” Dr. Davis said. It is not yet clear if this is true of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Because of the short time that the RSV vaccine has been available, it is too soon to conduct an analysis.

One message from this study is that “clinicians should continue to encourage COVID-19 vaccination for children because of its general benefits in preventing coronavirus-related illness and the apparent specific benefits for children with a history of asthma,” he said.

While vaccination appears to reduce asthmatic symptoms related to COVID-19 infection, one study suggests that COVID-19 does not trigger new-onset asthma. In a retrospective study published in Pediatrics, no association between COVID-19 infection and new-onset asthma could be made in an analysis of 27,423 children (ages, 1-16 years) from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) Care Network.

Across all the pediatric age groups evaluated, the consistent finding was “SARS-CoV-2 positivity does not confer an additional risk for asthma diagnosis at least within the first 18 months after a [polymerase chain reaction] test,” concluded the investigators, led by David A. Hill, MD, PhD, Division of Allergy and Immunology, CHOP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
 

Risk of Asthma Doubled After COVID-19 Infection

However, the opposite conclusion was reached by investigators evaluating data from two cohorts of children ages 5-18 drawn from the TriNetX database, a global health research network with data on more than 250 million individuals. Cohort 1 included more than 250,000 children. These children had never received COVID-19 vaccination. The 50,000 patients in cohort 2 had all received COVID19 vaccination.

To compare the impact of COVID-19 infection on new-onset asthma, the patients who were infected with COVID-19 were compared with those who were not infected after propensity score matching over 18 months of follow-up.

In cohort 1, the rate of new onset asthma was more than twofold greater among those with COVID-19 infection (4.7% vs 2.0%). The hazard ratio (HR) of 2.25 had tight confidence intervals (95% CI, 2.158-2.367).

In cohort 2, the risk of new-onset asthma at 18 months among those who had a COVID-19 infection relative to those without was even greater (8.3% vs 3.1%). The relative risk approached a 3-fold increase (HR 2.745; 95% CI, 2.521-2.99).

The conclusion of these investigators, led by Chia-Chi Lung, PhD, Department of Public Health, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung City, Taiwan, was that there is “a critical need for ongoing monitoring and customized healthcare strategies to mitigate the long-term respiratory impacts of COVID-19 in children.”

These health risks might not be as significant as once feared. In the recently published study from Environmental Health Insights, the goal of a meta-analysis was to determine if patients with asthma relative to those without asthma face a higher risk of serious disease from COVID-19 infection. The meta-analysis included studies of children and adults. The answer, according an in-depth analysis of 21 articles in a “scoping review,” was a qualified no.

Of the 21 articles, 4 concluded that asthma is a risk factor for serious COVID-19 infection, but 17 did not, according to Chukwudi S. Ubah, PhD, Department of Public Health, Brody School of Medicine, East Caroline University, Greenville, North Carolina.
 

None of These Questions are Fully Resolved

However, given the disparity in the results and the fact that many of the studies included in this analysis had small sample sizes, Dr. Ubah called for larger studies and studies with better controls. He noted, for example, that the studies did not consistently evaluate mitigating factors, such as used of inhaled or oral corticosteroids, which might affect risk of the severity of a COVID-19 infection.

Rather, “our findings pointed out that the type of medication prescribed for asthma may have implications for the severity of COVID-19 infection in these patients,” Dr. Ubah said in an interview.

Overall, the data do not support a major interaction between asthma and COVID-19, even if the data are not conclusive. Each of the senior authors of these studies called for larger and better investigations to further explore whether COVID-19 infection and preexisting asthma interact. So far, the data indicate that if COVID-19 infection poses a risk of precipitating new-onset asthma or inducing a more severe infection in children with asthma, it is low, but the degree of risk, if any, remains unresolved in subgroups defined by asthma treatment or asthma severity.

Dr. Davis, Dr. Hill, Dr. Lung, and Dr. Ubah reported no potential conflicts of interest. None of these studies received funding from commercial interests.

In one of several recently published studies on the relationship between COVID-19 infection and asthma, asthma symptoms in children declined as the proportion of the US population vaccinated against COVID-19 increased, according to data drawn from the National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH).

The inverse correlation between symptoms and vaccination was strong and statistically significant, according to investigators led by Matthew M. Davis, MD, Physician in Chief and Chief Scientific Officer, Nemours Children’s Health, Wilmington, Delaware.

“With each increase of 10 percentage points in COVID-19 vaccination coverage, the parent-reported child asthma symptoms prevalence decreased by 0.36 percentage points (P < .05),” Dr. Davis and his coinvestigators reported in a research letter published in JAMA Network Open.
 

Studies Explore Relationship of COVID and Asthma

The reduced risk of asthma symptoms with COVID-19 vaccination in children at the population level is just one of several recently published studies exploring the interaction between COVID-19 infection and asthma, but two studies that posed the same question did not reach the same conclusion.

In one, COVID-19 infection in children was not found to be a trigger for new-onset asthma, but the second found that it was. In a third study, the preponderance of evidence from a meta-analysis found that patients with asthma – whether children or adults – did not necessarily experience a more severe course of COVID-19 infection than in those without asthma.

The NSCH database study calculated state-level change in scores for patient-reported childhood asthma symptoms in the years in the years 2018-2019, which preceded the pandemic and the years 2020-2021, when the pandemic began. The hypothesis was that the proportion of the population 5 years of age or older who completed the COVID-19 primary vaccination would be inversely related to asthma symptom prevalence.

Relative to the 2018-2019 years, the mean rate of parent-reported asthma symptoms was 0.85% lower (6.93% vs 7.77%; P < .001) in 2020-2021, when the mean primary series COVID-19 vaccination rate was 72.3%.

The study was not able to evaluate the impact of COVID-19 vaccination specifically in children with asthma, because history of asthma is not captured in the NSCH data, but Dr. Davis contended that the reduction in symptomatic asthma among children with increased vaccination offers validation for the state-level findings.

“Moreover, the absence of an association of COVID-19 vaccination administered predominantly in 2021 with population-level COVID-19 mortality in 2020 serves as a negative control,” he and his colleagues wrote in their research letter.
 

Protection from Respiratory Viruses Seen for Asthma Patients

In an interview, Dr. Davis reported that these data are consistent with previous evidence that immunization against influenza also reduces risk of asthma symptoms. In a meta-analysis published in 2017, it was estimated that live vaccines reduced risk of influenza by 81% and prevented 59%-72% of asthma attacks leading to hospitalizations or emergency room visits.

“The similarity of our findings regarding COVID-19 vaccination to prior data regarding influenza vaccination underscores the importance of preventing viral illnesses in individuals with a history of asthma,” Dr. Davis said. It is not yet clear if this is true of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV). Because of the short time that the RSV vaccine has been available, it is too soon to conduct an analysis.

One message from this study is that “clinicians should continue to encourage COVID-19 vaccination for children because of its general benefits in preventing coronavirus-related illness and the apparent specific benefits for children with a history of asthma,” he said.

While vaccination appears to reduce asthmatic symptoms related to COVID-19 infection, one study suggests that COVID-19 does not trigger new-onset asthma. In a retrospective study published in Pediatrics, no association between COVID-19 infection and new-onset asthma could be made in an analysis of 27,423 children (ages, 1-16 years) from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) Care Network.

Across all the pediatric age groups evaluated, the consistent finding was “SARS-CoV-2 positivity does not confer an additional risk for asthma diagnosis at least within the first 18 months after a [polymerase chain reaction] test,” concluded the investigators, led by David A. Hill, MD, PhD, Division of Allergy and Immunology, CHOP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
 

Risk of Asthma Doubled After COVID-19 Infection

However, the opposite conclusion was reached by investigators evaluating data from two cohorts of children ages 5-18 drawn from the TriNetX database, a global health research network with data on more than 250 million individuals. Cohort 1 included more than 250,000 children. These children had never received COVID-19 vaccination. The 50,000 patients in cohort 2 had all received COVID19 vaccination.

To compare the impact of COVID-19 infection on new-onset asthma, the patients who were infected with COVID-19 were compared with those who were not infected after propensity score matching over 18 months of follow-up.

In cohort 1, the rate of new onset asthma was more than twofold greater among those with COVID-19 infection (4.7% vs 2.0%). The hazard ratio (HR) of 2.25 had tight confidence intervals (95% CI, 2.158-2.367).

In cohort 2, the risk of new-onset asthma at 18 months among those who had a COVID-19 infection relative to those without was even greater (8.3% vs 3.1%). The relative risk approached a 3-fold increase (HR 2.745; 95% CI, 2.521-2.99).

The conclusion of these investigators, led by Chia-Chi Lung, PhD, Department of Public Health, Chung Shan Medical University, Taichung City, Taiwan, was that there is “a critical need for ongoing monitoring and customized healthcare strategies to mitigate the long-term respiratory impacts of COVID-19 in children.”

These health risks might not be as significant as once feared. In the recently published study from Environmental Health Insights, the goal of a meta-analysis was to determine if patients with asthma relative to those without asthma face a higher risk of serious disease from COVID-19 infection. The meta-analysis included studies of children and adults. The answer, according an in-depth analysis of 21 articles in a “scoping review,” was a qualified no.

Of the 21 articles, 4 concluded that asthma is a risk factor for serious COVID-19 infection, but 17 did not, according to Chukwudi S. Ubah, PhD, Department of Public Health, Brody School of Medicine, East Caroline University, Greenville, North Carolina.
 

None of These Questions are Fully Resolved

However, given the disparity in the results and the fact that many of the studies included in this analysis had small sample sizes, Dr. Ubah called for larger studies and studies with better controls. He noted, for example, that the studies did not consistently evaluate mitigating factors, such as used of inhaled or oral corticosteroids, which might affect risk of the severity of a COVID-19 infection.

Rather, “our findings pointed out that the type of medication prescribed for asthma may have implications for the severity of COVID-19 infection in these patients,” Dr. Ubah said in an interview.

Overall, the data do not support a major interaction between asthma and COVID-19, even if the data are not conclusive. Each of the senior authors of these studies called for larger and better investigations to further explore whether COVID-19 infection and preexisting asthma interact. So far, the data indicate that if COVID-19 infection poses a risk of precipitating new-onset asthma or inducing a more severe infection in children with asthma, it is low, but the degree of risk, if any, remains unresolved in subgroups defined by asthma treatment or asthma severity.

Dr. Davis, Dr. Hill, Dr. Lung, and Dr. Ubah reported no potential conflicts of interest. None of these studies received funding from commercial interests.

TOPLINE:

Compared with the general population, patients with urticaria had a 49% higher risk of developing cancer in the first year following diagnosis, which decreased to 6% in subsequent years, in a cohort study using Danish healthcare databases.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from Danish healthcare registries and compared the incident cancer risk between patients with urticaria and the risk in the general population.
• They identified 87,507 patients (58% women) with a primary or secondary first-time hospital outpatient clinic, emergency room, or inpatient diagnosis of urticaria between 1980 and 2022, who were followed for a median of 10.1 years.
• Incident cancers, including nonmelanoma skin cancer, were identified using the Danish Cancer Registry and classified by the extent of spread at the time of diagnosis.
• This study computed the absolute cancer risk within the first year of an urticaria diagnosis and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), with 95% CIs standardized to Danish national cancer rates.

TAKEAWAY:

• For the first year of follow-up, the absolute risk for all cancer types was 0.7%, and it was 29.5% for subsequent years. The overall SIR for all types of cancer was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.06-1.11), which was based on 7788 observed cancer cases compared with 7161 cases expected over the entire follow-up period.
• Within the first year of follow-up, 588 patients with urticaria were diagnosed with cancer, for an SIR of 1.49 (95% CI, 1.38-1.62) for all cancer types.
• After the first year, the SIR for all cancer sites decreased and stabilized at 1.06 (95% CI, 1.04-1.09), with 7200 observed cancer cases.
• The risk was highest for hematological cancers in the first year, particularly Hodgkin lymphoma (SIR, 5.35; 95% CI, 2.56-9.85).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that urticaria may be a marker of occult cancer and that it is associated with a slightly increased long-term cancer risk,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sissel B.T. Sørensen, departments of dermatology and rheumatology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. It was published online on June 27, 2024, in the British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is limited by its observational design and reliance on registry data, which may be subject to misclassification or incomplete information. In addition, the study could not assess individual patient factors such as lifestyle or genetic predispositions that may influence cancer risk, and the results may not be generalizable to other populations. Finally, the exact biologic mechanisms linking urticaria and cancer remain unclear, warranting further investigation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Compared with the general population, patients with urticaria had a 49% higher risk of developing cancer in the first year following diagnosis, which decreased to 6% in subsequent years, in a cohort study using Danish healthcare databases.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from Danish healthcare registries and compared the incident cancer risk between patients with urticaria and the risk in the general population.
• They identified 87,507 patients (58% women) with a primary or secondary first-time hospital outpatient clinic, emergency room, or inpatient diagnosis of urticaria between 1980 and 2022, who were followed for a median of 10.1 years.
• Incident cancers, including nonmelanoma skin cancer, were identified using the Danish Cancer Registry and classified by the extent of spread at the time of diagnosis.
• This study computed the absolute cancer risk within the first year of an urticaria diagnosis and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), with 95% CIs standardized to Danish national cancer rates.

TAKEAWAY:

• For the first year of follow-up, the absolute risk for all cancer types was 0.7%, and it was 29.5% for subsequent years. The overall SIR for all types of cancer was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.06-1.11), which was based on 7788 observed cancer cases compared with 7161 cases expected over the entire follow-up period.
• Within the first year of follow-up, 588 patients with urticaria were diagnosed with cancer, for an SIR of 1.49 (95% CI, 1.38-1.62) for all cancer types.
• After the first year, the SIR for all cancer sites decreased and stabilized at 1.06 (95% CI, 1.04-1.09), with 7200 observed cancer cases.
• The risk was highest for hematological cancers in the first year, particularly Hodgkin lymphoma (SIR, 5.35; 95% CI, 2.56-9.85).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that urticaria may be a marker of occult cancer and that it is associated with a slightly increased long-term cancer risk,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sissel B.T. Sørensen, departments of dermatology and rheumatology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. It was published online on June 27, 2024, in the British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is limited by its observational design and reliance on registry data, which may be subject to misclassification or incomplete information. In addition, the study could not assess individual patient factors such as lifestyle or genetic predispositions that may influence cancer risk, and the results may not be generalizable to other populations. Finally, the exact biologic mechanisms linking urticaria and cancer remain unclear, warranting further investigation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Compared with the general population, patients with urticaria had a 49% higher risk of developing cancer in the first year following diagnosis, which decreased to 6% in subsequent years, in a cohort study using Danish healthcare databases.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study using data from Danish healthcare registries and compared the incident cancer risk between patients with urticaria and the risk in the general population.
• They identified 87,507 patients (58% women) with a primary or secondary first-time hospital outpatient clinic, emergency room, or inpatient diagnosis of urticaria between 1980 and 2022, who were followed for a median of 10.1 years.
• Incident cancers, including nonmelanoma skin cancer, were identified using the Danish Cancer Registry and classified by the extent of spread at the time of diagnosis.
• This study computed the absolute cancer risk within the first year of an urticaria diagnosis and standardized incidence ratios (SIRs), with 95% CIs standardized to Danish national cancer rates.

TAKEAWAY:

• For the first year of follow-up, the absolute risk for all cancer types was 0.7%, and it was 29.5% for subsequent years. The overall SIR for all types of cancer was 1.09 (95% CI, 1.06-1.11), which was based on 7788 observed cancer cases compared with 7161 cases expected over the entire follow-up period.
• Within the first year of follow-up, 588 patients with urticaria were diagnosed with cancer, for an SIR of 1.49 (95% CI, 1.38-1.62) for all cancer types.
• After the first year, the SIR for all cancer sites decreased and stabilized at 1.06 (95% CI, 1.04-1.09), with 7200 observed cancer cases.
• The risk was highest for hematological cancers in the first year, particularly Hodgkin lymphoma (SIR, 5.35; 95% CI, 2.56-9.85).

IN PRACTICE:

“Our study suggests that urticaria may be a marker of occult cancer and that it is associated with a slightly increased long-term cancer risk,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Sissel B.T. Sørensen, departments of dermatology and rheumatology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, Denmark. It was published online on June 27, 2024, in the British Journal of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study is limited by its observational design and reliance on registry data, which may be subject to misclassification or incomplete information. In addition, the study could not assess individual patient factors such as lifestyle or genetic predispositions that may influence cancer risk, and the results may not be generalizable to other populations. Finally, the exact biologic mechanisms linking urticaria and cancer remain unclear, warranting further investigation.

DISCLOSURES:

The study did not receive any funding. The authors reported that they had no relevant conflicts of interest.

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

On any given day, oncologist Mark Lewis, MD, feels like he’s seesawing between two eras of technology. 

One minute, he’s working on sequencing a tumor genome. The next, he’s sifting through pages of disorganized data from a device that has been around for decades: the fax machine. 

“If two doctors’ offices aren’t on the same electronic medical record, one of the main ways to transfer records is still by fax,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah. “I can go from cutting-edge innovation to relying on, at best, 1980s information technology. It just boggles my mind.”

Dr. Lewis, who has posted about his frustration with fax machines, is far from alone. Oncologists are among the many specialists across the country at the mercy of telecopiers. 

According to a 2021 report by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, fax and mail continue to be the most common methods for hospitals and health systems to exchange care record summaries. In 2019, nearly 8 in 10 hospitals used mail or fax to send and receive health information, the report found. 

Fax machines are still commonplace across the healthcare spectrum, said Robert Havasy, MS, senior director for informatics strategy at the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Inertia, cost, and more pressing priorities for hospitals and medical institutions contribute to the technology sticking around, he explained. 

“Post-COVID, my guess is we’re still at over 50% of healthcare practices using fax for some reason, on a daily basis,” Mr. Havasy said in an interview. “A lot of hospitals just don’t have the time, the money, or the staff to fix that problem because there’s always something a little higher up the priority chain they need to focus on.” 

If, for instance, “you’re going to do a process redesign to reduce hospital total acquired infections, your fax machine replacement might be 10th or 12th on the list. It just never gets up to 1 or 2 because it’s ‘not that much of a problem,’ ” he added.

Or is it?

Administrators may not view fax machines as a top concern, but clinicians who deal with the machines daily see it differently. 

“What worries me is we’re taking records out of an electronic storehouse [and] converting them to a paper medium,” Dr. Lewis said. “And then we are scanning into another electronic storehouse. The more steps, the more can be lost.”

And when information is lost, patient care can be compromised. 

Slower Workflows, Care Concerns

Although there are no published data on fax machine use in oncology specifically, this outdated technology does come into play in a variety of ways along the cancer care continuum. 

Radiation oncologist David R. Penberthy, MD, said patients often seek his cancer center’s expertise for second opinions, and that requires collecting patient records from many different practices. 

“Ideally, it would come electronically, but sometimes it does come by fax,” said Dr. Penberthy, program director of radiation oncology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville. “The quality of the fax is not always the best. Sometimes it’s literally a fax of a fax. You’re reading something that’s very difficult to read.” 

Orders for new tests are also typically sent and received via fax temporarily while IT teams work to integrate them into the electronic health record (EHR), Dr. Penberthy said. 

Insurers and third-party laboratories often send test results back by fax as well.

“Even if I haven’t actually sent my patient out of our institution, this crucial result may only be entered back into the record as a scanned document from a fax, which is not great because it can get lost in the other results that are reported electronically,” Dr. Lewis said. The risk here is that an ordering physician won’t see these results, which can lead to delayed or overlooked care for patients, he explained.

“To me, it’s like a blind spot,” Dr. Lewis said. “Every time we use a fax, I see it actually as an opportunity for oversight and missed opportunity to collect data.”

Dr. Penberthy said faxing can slow things down at his practice, particularly if he faxes a document to another office but receives no confirmation and has to track down what happened. 

As for cybersecurity, data that are in transit during faxing are generally considered secure and compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), said Mr. Havasy of HIMSS. However, the Privacy Rule also requires that data remain secure while at rest, which isn’t always possible, he added. 

“That’s where faxes fall down, because generally fax machines are in public, if you will, or open areas in a hospital,” he said. “They just sit on a desk. I don’t know that the next nurse who comes up and looks through that stack was the nurse who was treating the patient.” 

Important decisions or results can also be missed when sent by fax, creating headaches for physicians and care problems for patients. 

Dr. Lewis recently experienced an insurance-related fax mishap over Memorial Day weekend. He believed his patient had access to the antinausea medication he had prescribed. When Dr. Lewis happened to check the fax machine over the weekend, he found a coverage denial for the medication from the insurer but, at that point, had no recourse to appeal because it was a long holiday weekend. 

“Had the denial been sent by an electronic means that was quicker and more readily available, it would have been possible to appeal before the holiday weekend,” he said. 

Hematologist Aaron Goodman, MD, encountered a similar problem after an insurer denied coverage of an expensive cancer drug for a patient and faxed over its reason for the denial. Dr. Goodman was not directly notified that the information arrived and didn’t learn about the denial for a week, he said. 

“There’s no ‘ding’ in my inbox if something is faxed over and scanned,” said Dr. Goodman, associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego Health. “Once I realized it was denied, I was able to rectify it, but it wasted a week of a patient not getting a drug that I felt would be beneficial for them.”

Broader Health Policy Impacts

The use of outdated technology, such as fax machines, also creates ripple effects that burden the health system, health policy experts say. 

Duplicate testing and unnecessary care are top impacts, said Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of clinical informatics and digital transformation at the University of California, San Francisco.

Studies show that 20%-30% of the $65 billion spent annually on lab tests is used on unnecessary duplicate tests, and another estimated $30 billion is spent each year on unnecessary duplicate medical imaging. These duplicate tests may be mitigated if hospitals adopt certified EHR technology, research shows.

Still, without EHR interoperability between institutions, new providers may be unaware that tests or past labs for patients exist, leading to repeat tests, said Dr. Adler-Milstein, who researches health IT policy with a focus on EHRs. Patients can sometimes fill in the gaps, but not always. 

“Fax machines only help close information gaps if the clinician is aware of where to seek out the information and there is someone at the other organization to locate and transmit the information in a timely manner,” Dr. Adler-Milstein said. 

Old technology and poor interoperability also greatly affect data collection for disease surveillance and monitoring, said Janet Hamilton, MPH, executive director for the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. This issue was keenly demonstrated during the pandemic, Ms. Hamilton said. 

“It was tragic, quite honestly,” she said. “There was such an immense amount of data that needed to be moved quickly, and that’s when computers are at their best.”

But, she said, “we didn’t have the level of systems in place to do it well.”

Specifically, the lack of electronic case reporting in place during the pandemic — where diagnoses are documented in the record and then immediately sent to the public health system — led to reports that were delayed, not made, or had missing or incomplete information, such as patients’ race and ethnicity or other health conditions, Ms. Hamilton said. 

Incomplete or missing data hampered the ability of public health officials and researchers to understand how the virus might affect different patients.

“If you had a chronic condition like cancer, you were less likely to have a positive outcome with COVID,” Ms. Hamilton said. “But because electronic case reporting was not in place, we didn’t get some of those additional pieces of information. We didn’t have people’s underlying oncology status to then say, ‘Here are individuals with these types of characteristics, and these are the things that happen if they also have a cancer.’” 

Slow, but Steady, Improvements

Efforts at the state and federal levels have targeted improved health information exchange, but progress takes time, Dr. Adler-Milstein said.

Most states have some form of health information exchange, such as statewide exchanges, regional health information organizations, or clinical data registries. Maryland is often held up as a notable example for its health information exchange, Dr. Adler-Milstein noted.

According to Maryland law, all hospitals under the jurisdiction of the Maryland Health Care Commission are required to electronically connect to the state-designated health information exchange. In 2012, Maryland became the first state to connect all its 46 acute care hospitals in the sharing of real-time data. 

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act provided federal-enhanced Medicaid matching funds to states through 2021 to support efforts to advance electronic exchange. Nearly all states used these funds, and most have identified other sources to sustain the efforts, according to a recent US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. However, GAO found that small and rural providers are less likely to have the financial and technological resources to participate in or maintain electronic exchange capabilities.

Nationally, several recent initiatives have targeted health data interoperability, including for cancer care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Data Modernization Initiative is a multiyear, multi–billion-dollar effort to improve data sharing across the federal and state public health landscape. 

Meanwhile, in March 2024, the Biden-Harris administration launched United States Core Data for Interoperability Plus Cancer. The program will define a recommended minimum set of cancer-related data to be included in a patient’s EHR to enhance data exchange for research and clinical care. 

EHR vendors are also key to improving the landscape, said Dr. Adler-Milstein. Vendors such as Epic have developed strong sharing capabilities for transmitting health information from site to site, but of course, that only helps if providers have Epic, she said. 

“That’s where these national frameworks should help, because we don’t want it to break down by what EHR vendor you have,” she said. “It’s a patchwork. You can go to some places and hear success stories because they have Epic or a state health information exchange, but it’s very heterogeneous. In some places, they have nothing and are using a fax machine.”

Mr. Havasy believes fax machines will ultimately go extinct, particularly as a younger, more digitally savvy generation enters the healthcare workforce. He also foresees that the growing use of artificial intelligence will help eradicate the outdated technology. 

But, Ms. Hamilton noted, “unless we have consistent, ongoing, sustained funding, it is very hard to move off [an older] technology that can work. That’s one of the biggest barriers.” 

“Public health is about protecting the lives of every single person everywhere,” Ms. Hamilton said, “but when we don’t have the data that comes into the system, we can’t achieve our mission.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On any given day, oncologist Mark Lewis, MD, feels like he’s seesawing between two eras of technology. 

One minute, he’s working on sequencing a tumor genome. The next, he’s sifting through pages of disorganized data from a device that has been around for decades: the fax machine. 

“If two doctors’ offices aren’t on the same electronic medical record, one of the main ways to transfer records is still by fax,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah. “I can go from cutting-edge innovation to relying on, at best, 1980s information technology. It just boggles my mind.”

Dr. Lewis, who has posted about his frustration with fax machines, is far from alone. Oncologists are among the many specialists across the country at the mercy of telecopiers. 

According to a 2021 report by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, fax and mail continue to be the most common methods for hospitals and health systems to exchange care record summaries. In 2019, nearly 8 in 10 hospitals used mail or fax to send and receive health information, the report found. 

Fax machines are still commonplace across the healthcare spectrum, said Robert Havasy, MS, senior director for informatics strategy at the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Inertia, cost, and more pressing priorities for hospitals and medical institutions contribute to the technology sticking around, he explained. 

“Post-COVID, my guess is we’re still at over 50% of healthcare practices using fax for some reason, on a daily basis,” Mr. Havasy said in an interview. “A lot of hospitals just don’t have the time, the money, or the staff to fix that problem because there’s always something a little higher up the priority chain they need to focus on.” 

If, for instance, “you’re going to do a process redesign to reduce hospital total acquired infections, your fax machine replacement might be 10th or 12th on the list. It just never gets up to 1 or 2 because it’s ‘not that much of a problem,’ ” he added.

Or is it?

Administrators may not view fax machines as a top concern, but clinicians who deal with the machines daily see it differently. 

“What worries me is we’re taking records out of an electronic storehouse [and] converting them to a paper medium,” Dr. Lewis said. “And then we are scanning into another electronic storehouse. The more steps, the more can be lost.”

And when information is lost, patient care can be compromised. 

Slower Workflows, Care Concerns

Although there are no published data on fax machine use in oncology specifically, this outdated technology does come into play in a variety of ways along the cancer care continuum. 

Radiation oncologist David R. Penberthy, MD, said patients often seek his cancer center’s expertise for second opinions, and that requires collecting patient records from many different practices. 

“Ideally, it would come electronically, but sometimes it does come by fax,” said Dr. Penberthy, program director of radiation oncology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville. “The quality of the fax is not always the best. Sometimes it’s literally a fax of a fax. You’re reading something that’s very difficult to read.” 

Orders for new tests are also typically sent and received via fax temporarily while IT teams work to integrate them into the electronic health record (EHR), Dr. Penberthy said. 

Insurers and third-party laboratories often send test results back by fax as well.

“Even if I haven’t actually sent my patient out of our institution, this crucial result may only be entered back into the record as a scanned document from a fax, which is not great because it can get lost in the other results that are reported electronically,” Dr. Lewis said. The risk here is that an ordering physician won’t see these results, which can lead to delayed or overlooked care for patients, he explained.

“To me, it’s like a blind spot,” Dr. Lewis said. “Every time we use a fax, I see it actually as an opportunity for oversight and missed opportunity to collect data.”

Dr. Penberthy said faxing can slow things down at his practice, particularly if he faxes a document to another office but receives no confirmation and has to track down what happened. 

As for cybersecurity, data that are in transit during faxing are generally considered secure and compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), said Mr. Havasy of HIMSS. However, the Privacy Rule also requires that data remain secure while at rest, which isn’t always possible, he added. 

“That’s where faxes fall down, because generally fax machines are in public, if you will, or open areas in a hospital,” he said. “They just sit on a desk. I don’t know that the next nurse who comes up and looks through that stack was the nurse who was treating the patient.” 

Important decisions or results can also be missed when sent by fax, creating headaches for physicians and care problems for patients. 

Dr. Lewis recently experienced an insurance-related fax mishap over Memorial Day weekend. He believed his patient had access to the antinausea medication he had prescribed. When Dr. Lewis happened to check the fax machine over the weekend, he found a coverage denial for the medication from the insurer but, at that point, had no recourse to appeal because it was a long holiday weekend. 

“Had the denial been sent by an electronic means that was quicker and more readily available, it would have been possible to appeal before the holiday weekend,” he said. 

Hematologist Aaron Goodman, MD, encountered a similar problem after an insurer denied coverage of an expensive cancer drug for a patient and faxed over its reason for the denial. Dr. Goodman was not directly notified that the information arrived and didn’t learn about the denial for a week, he said. 

“There’s no ‘ding’ in my inbox if something is faxed over and scanned,” said Dr. Goodman, associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego Health. “Once I realized it was denied, I was able to rectify it, but it wasted a week of a patient not getting a drug that I felt would be beneficial for them.”

Broader Health Policy Impacts

The use of outdated technology, such as fax machines, also creates ripple effects that burden the health system, health policy experts say. 

Duplicate testing and unnecessary care are top impacts, said Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of clinical informatics and digital transformation at the University of California, San Francisco.

Studies show that 20%-30% of the $65 billion spent annually on lab tests is used on unnecessary duplicate tests, and another estimated $30 billion is spent each year on unnecessary duplicate medical imaging. These duplicate tests may be mitigated if hospitals adopt certified EHR technology, research shows.

Still, without EHR interoperability between institutions, new providers may be unaware that tests or past labs for patients exist, leading to repeat tests, said Dr. Adler-Milstein, who researches health IT policy with a focus on EHRs. Patients can sometimes fill in the gaps, but not always. 

“Fax machines only help close information gaps if the clinician is aware of where to seek out the information and there is someone at the other organization to locate and transmit the information in a timely manner,” Dr. Adler-Milstein said. 

Old technology and poor interoperability also greatly affect data collection for disease surveillance and monitoring, said Janet Hamilton, MPH, executive director for the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. This issue was keenly demonstrated during the pandemic, Ms. Hamilton said. 

“It was tragic, quite honestly,” she said. “There was such an immense amount of data that needed to be moved quickly, and that’s when computers are at their best.”

But, she said, “we didn’t have the level of systems in place to do it well.”

Specifically, the lack of electronic case reporting in place during the pandemic — where diagnoses are documented in the record and then immediately sent to the public health system — led to reports that were delayed, not made, or had missing or incomplete information, such as patients’ race and ethnicity or other health conditions, Ms. Hamilton said. 

Incomplete or missing data hampered the ability of public health officials and researchers to understand how the virus might affect different patients.

“If you had a chronic condition like cancer, you were less likely to have a positive outcome with COVID,” Ms. Hamilton said. “But because electronic case reporting was not in place, we didn’t get some of those additional pieces of information. We didn’t have people’s underlying oncology status to then say, ‘Here are individuals with these types of characteristics, and these are the things that happen if they also have a cancer.’” 

Slow, but Steady, Improvements

Efforts at the state and federal levels have targeted improved health information exchange, but progress takes time, Dr. Adler-Milstein said.

Most states have some form of health information exchange, such as statewide exchanges, regional health information organizations, or clinical data registries. Maryland is often held up as a notable example for its health information exchange, Dr. Adler-Milstein noted.

According to Maryland law, all hospitals under the jurisdiction of the Maryland Health Care Commission are required to electronically connect to the state-designated health information exchange. In 2012, Maryland became the first state to connect all its 46 acute care hospitals in the sharing of real-time data. 

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act provided federal-enhanced Medicaid matching funds to states through 2021 to support efforts to advance electronic exchange. Nearly all states used these funds, and most have identified other sources to sustain the efforts, according to a recent US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. However, GAO found that small and rural providers are less likely to have the financial and technological resources to participate in or maintain electronic exchange capabilities.

Nationally, several recent initiatives have targeted health data interoperability, including for cancer care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Data Modernization Initiative is a multiyear, multi–billion-dollar effort to improve data sharing across the federal and state public health landscape. 

Meanwhile, in March 2024, the Biden-Harris administration launched United States Core Data for Interoperability Plus Cancer. The program will define a recommended minimum set of cancer-related data to be included in a patient’s EHR to enhance data exchange for research and clinical care. 

EHR vendors are also key to improving the landscape, said Dr. Adler-Milstein. Vendors such as Epic have developed strong sharing capabilities for transmitting health information from site to site, but of course, that only helps if providers have Epic, she said. 

“That’s where these national frameworks should help, because we don’t want it to break down by what EHR vendor you have,” she said. “It’s a patchwork. You can go to some places and hear success stories because they have Epic or a state health information exchange, but it’s very heterogeneous. In some places, they have nothing and are using a fax machine.”

Mr. Havasy believes fax machines will ultimately go extinct, particularly as a younger, more digitally savvy generation enters the healthcare workforce. He also foresees that the growing use of artificial intelligence will help eradicate the outdated technology. 

But, Ms. Hamilton noted, “unless we have consistent, ongoing, sustained funding, it is very hard to move off [an older] technology that can work. That’s one of the biggest barriers.” 

“Public health is about protecting the lives of every single person everywhere,” Ms. Hamilton said, “but when we don’t have the data that comes into the system, we can’t achieve our mission.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On any given day, oncologist Mark Lewis, MD, feels like he’s seesawing between two eras of technology. 

One minute, he’s working on sequencing a tumor genome. The next, he’s sifting through pages of disorganized data from a device that has been around for decades: the fax machine. 

“If two doctors’ offices aren’t on the same electronic medical record, one of the main ways to transfer records is still by fax,” said Dr. Lewis, director of gastrointestinal oncology at Intermountain Healthcare in Murray, Utah. “I can go from cutting-edge innovation to relying on, at best, 1980s information technology. It just boggles my mind.”

Dr. Lewis, who has posted about his frustration with fax machines, is far from alone. Oncologists are among the many specialists across the country at the mercy of telecopiers. 

According to a 2021 report by the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, fax and mail continue to be the most common methods for hospitals and health systems to exchange care record summaries. In 2019, nearly 8 in 10 hospitals used mail or fax to send and receive health information, the report found. 

Fax machines are still commonplace across the healthcare spectrum, said Robert Havasy, MS, senior director for informatics strategy at the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society (HIMSS). Inertia, cost, and more pressing priorities for hospitals and medical institutions contribute to the technology sticking around, he explained. 

“Post-COVID, my guess is we’re still at over 50% of healthcare practices using fax for some reason, on a daily basis,” Mr. Havasy said in an interview. “A lot of hospitals just don’t have the time, the money, or the staff to fix that problem because there’s always something a little higher up the priority chain they need to focus on.” 

If, for instance, “you’re going to do a process redesign to reduce hospital total acquired infections, your fax machine replacement might be 10th or 12th on the list. It just never gets up to 1 or 2 because it’s ‘not that much of a problem,’ ” he added.

Or is it?

Administrators may not view fax machines as a top concern, but clinicians who deal with the machines daily see it differently. 

“What worries me is we’re taking records out of an electronic storehouse [and] converting them to a paper medium,” Dr. Lewis said. “And then we are scanning into another electronic storehouse. The more steps, the more can be lost.”

And when information is lost, patient care can be compromised. 

Slower Workflows, Care Concerns

Although there are no published data on fax machine use in oncology specifically, this outdated technology does come into play in a variety of ways along the cancer care continuum. 

Radiation oncologist David R. Penberthy, MD, said patients often seek his cancer center’s expertise for second opinions, and that requires collecting patient records from many different practices. 

“Ideally, it would come electronically, but sometimes it does come by fax,” said Dr. Penberthy, program director of radiation oncology at the University of Virginia School of Medicine in Charlottesville. “The quality of the fax is not always the best. Sometimes it’s literally a fax of a fax. You’re reading something that’s very difficult to read.” 

Orders for new tests are also typically sent and received via fax temporarily while IT teams work to integrate them into the electronic health record (EHR), Dr. Penberthy said. 

Insurers and third-party laboratories often send test results back by fax as well.

“Even if I haven’t actually sent my patient out of our institution, this crucial result may only be entered back into the record as a scanned document from a fax, which is not great because it can get lost in the other results that are reported electronically,” Dr. Lewis said. The risk here is that an ordering physician won’t see these results, which can lead to delayed or overlooked care for patients, he explained.

“To me, it’s like a blind spot,” Dr. Lewis said. “Every time we use a fax, I see it actually as an opportunity for oversight and missed opportunity to collect data.”

Dr. Penberthy said faxing can slow things down at his practice, particularly if he faxes a document to another office but receives no confirmation and has to track down what happened. 

As for cybersecurity, data that are in transit during faxing are generally considered secure and compliant with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), said Mr. Havasy of HIMSS. However, the Privacy Rule also requires that data remain secure while at rest, which isn’t always possible, he added. 

“That’s where faxes fall down, because generally fax machines are in public, if you will, or open areas in a hospital,” he said. “They just sit on a desk. I don’t know that the next nurse who comes up and looks through that stack was the nurse who was treating the patient.” 

Important decisions or results can also be missed when sent by fax, creating headaches for physicians and care problems for patients. 

Dr. Lewis recently experienced an insurance-related fax mishap over Memorial Day weekend. He believed his patient had access to the antinausea medication he had prescribed. When Dr. Lewis happened to check the fax machine over the weekend, he found a coverage denial for the medication from the insurer but, at that point, had no recourse to appeal because it was a long holiday weekend. 

“Had the denial been sent by an electronic means that was quicker and more readily available, it would have been possible to appeal before the holiday weekend,” he said. 

Hematologist Aaron Goodman, MD, encountered a similar problem after an insurer denied coverage of an expensive cancer drug for a patient and faxed over its reason for the denial. Dr. Goodman was not directly notified that the information arrived and didn’t learn about the denial for a week, he said. 

“There’s no ‘ding’ in my inbox if something is faxed over and scanned,” said Dr. Goodman, associate professor of medicine at UC San Diego Health. “Once I realized it was denied, I was able to rectify it, but it wasted a week of a patient not getting a drug that I felt would be beneficial for them.”

Broader Health Policy Impacts

The use of outdated technology, such as fax machines, also creates ripple effects that burden the health system, health policy experts say. 

Duplicate testing and unnecessary care are top impacts, said Julia Adler-Milstein, PhD, professor of medicine and chief of the division of clinical informatics and digital transformation at the University of California, San Francisco.

Studies show that 20%-30% of the $65 billion spent annually on lab tests is used on unnecessary duplicate tests, and another estimated $30 billion is spent each year on unnecessary duplicate medical imaging. These duplicate tests may be mitigated if hospitals adopt certified EHR technology, research shows.

Still, without EHR interoperability between institutions, new providers may be unaware that tests or past labs for patients exist, leading to repeat tests, said Dr. Adler-Milstein, who researches health IT policy with a focus on EHRs. Patients can sometimes fill in the gaps, but not always. 

“Fax machines only help close information gaps if the clinician is aware of where to seek out the information and there is someone at the other organization to locate and transmit the information in a timely manner,” Dr. Adler-Milstein said. 

Old technology and poor interoperability also greatly affect data collection for disease surveillance and monitoring, said Janet Hamilton, MPH, executive director for the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists. This issue was keenly demonstrated during the pandemic, Ms. Hamilton said. 

“It was tragic, quite honestly,” she said. “There was such an immense amount of data that needed to be moved quickly, and that’s when computers are at their best.”

But, she said, “we didn’t have the level of systems in place to do it well.”

Specifically, the lack of electronic case reporting in place during the pandemic — where diagnoses are documented in the record and then immediately sent to the public health system — led to reports that were delayed, not made, or had missing or incomplete information, such as patients’ race and ethnicity or other health conditions, Ms. Hamilton said. 

Incomplete or missing data hampered the ability of public health officials and researchers to understand how the virus might affect different patients.

“If you had a chronic condition like cancer, you were less likely to have a positive outcome with COVID,” Ms. Hamilton said. “But because electronic case reporting was not in place, we didn’t get some of those additional pieces of information. We didn’t have people’s underlying oncology status to then say, ‘Here are individuals with these types of characteristics, and these are the things that happen if they also have a cancer.’” 

Slow, but Steady, Improvements

Efforts at the state and federal levels have targeted improved health information exchange, but progress takes time, Dr. Adler-Milstein said.

Most states have some form of health information exchange, such as statewide exchanges, regional health information organizations, or clinical data registries. Maryland is often held up as a notable example for its health information exchange, Dr. Adler-Milstein noted.

According to Maryland law, all hospitals under the jurisdiction of the Maryland Health Care Commission are required to electronically connect to the state-designated health information exchange. In 2012, Maryland became the first state to connect all its 46 acute care hospitals in the sharing of real-time data. 

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act provided federal-enhanced Medicaid matching funds to states through 2021 to support efforts to advance electronic exchange. Nearly all states used these funds, and most have identified other sources to sustain the efforts, according to a recent US Government Accountability Office (GAO) report. However, GAO found that small and rural providers are less likely to have the financial and technological resources to participate in or maintain electronic exchange capabilities.

Nationally, several recent initiatives have targeted health data interoperability, including for cancer care. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Data Modernization Initiative is a multiyear, multi–billion-dollar effort to improve data sharing across the federal and state public health landscape. 

Meanwhile, in March 2024, the Biden-Harris administration launched United States Core Data for Interoperability Plus Cancer. The program will define a recommended minimum set of cancer-related data to be included in a patient’s EHR to enhance data exchange for research and clinical care. 

EHR vendors are also key to improving the landscape, said Dr. Adler-Milstein. Vendors such as Epic have developed strong sharing capabilities for transmitting health information from site to site, but of course, that only helps if providers have Epic, she said. 

“That’s where these national frameworks should help, because we don’t want it to break down by what EHR vendor you have,” she said. “It’s a patchwork. You can go to some places and hear success stories because they have Epic or a state health information exchange, but it’s very heterogeneous. In some places, they have nothing and are using a fax machine.”

Mr. Havasy believes fax machines will ultimately go extinct, particularly as a younger, more digitally savvy generation enters the healthcare workforce. He also foresees that the growing use of artificial intelligence will help eradicate the outdated technology. 

But, Ms. Hamilton noted, “unless we have consistent, ongoing, sustained funding, it is very hard to move off [an older] technology that can work. That’s one of the biggest barriers.” 

“Public health is about protecting the lives of every single person everywhere,” Ms. Hamilton said, “but when we don’t have the data that comes into the system, we can’t achieve our mission.”
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Results from the latest survey by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) showed that numerous critical systemic anticancer therapies, primarily generic drugs, are currently in shortage.

Nearly 90% of the 28 NCCN member centers who responded to the survey, conducted between May 28 and June 11, said they were experiencing a shortage of at least one drug.

“Many drugs that are currently in shortage form the backbones of effective multiagent regimens across both curative and palliative treatment settings,” NCCN’s CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, said in an interview.

The good news is that carboplatin and cisplatin shortages have fallen dramatically since 2023. At the peak of the shortage in 2023, 93% of centers surveyed reported experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and 70% were experiencing a shortage of cisplatin, whereas in 2024, only 11% reported a carboplatin shortage and 7% reported a cisplatin shortage.

“Thankfully, the shortages for carboplatin and cisplatin are mostly resolved at this time,” Dr. Denlinger said.

However, all three NCCN surveys conducted in the past year, including the most recent one, have found shortages of various chemotherapies and supportive care medications, which suggests this is an ongoing issue affecting a significant spectrum of generic drugs.

“The acute crisis associated with the shortage of carboplatin and cisplatin was a singular event that brought the issue into the national spotlight,” but it’s “important to note that the current broad drug shortages found on this survey are not new,” said Dr. Denlinger.

In the latest survey, 89% of NCCN centers continue to report shortages of one or more drugs, and 75% said they are experiencing shortages of two or more drugs.

Overall, 57% of centers are short on vinblastine, 46% are short on etoposide, and 43% are short on topotecan. Other common chemotherapy and supportive care agents in short supply include dacarbazine (18% of centers) as well as 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and methotrexate (14% of centers).

In 2023, however, shortages of methotrexate and 5-FU were worse, with 67% of centers reporting shortages of methotrexate and 26% of 5-FU.

In the current survey, 75% of NCCN centers also noted they were aware of drug shortages within community practices in their area, and more than one in four centers reported treatment delays requiring additional prior authorization.

Cancer drug shortages impact not only routine treatments but also clinical trials. The recent survey found that 43% of respondents said drug shortages disrupted clinical trials at their center. The biggest issues centers flagged included greater administrative burdens, lower patient enrollment, and fewer open trials.

How are centers dealing with ongoing supply issues?

Top mitigation strategies include reducing waste, limiting use of current stock, and adjusting the timing and dosage within evidence-based ranges.

“The current situation underscores the need for sustainable, long-term solutions that ensure a stable supply of high-quality cancer medications,” Alyssa Schatz, MSW, NCCN senior director of policy and advocacy, said in a news release.

Three-quarters (75%) of survey respondents said they would like to see economic incentives put in place to encourage the high-quality manufacturing of medications, especially generic versions that are often in short supply. Nearly two-thirds (64%) cited a need for a broader buffer stock payment, and the same percentage would like to see more information on user experiences with various generic suppliers to help hospitals contract with those engaging in high-quality practices.

The NCCN also continues to work with federal regulators, agencies, and lawmakers to implement long-term solutions to cancer drug shortages.

“The federal government has a key role to play in addressing this issue,” Ms. Schatz said. “Establishing economic incentives, such as tax breaks or manufacturing grants for generic drugmakers, will help support a robust and resilient supply chain — ultimately safeguarding care for people with cancer across the country.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Results from the latest survey by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) showed that numerous critical systemic anticancer therapies, primarily generic drugs, are currently in shortage.

Nearly 90% of the 28 NCCN member centers who responded to the survey, conducted between May 28 and June 11, said they were experiencing a shortage of at least one drug.

“Many drugs that are currently in shortage form the backbones of effective multiagent regimens across both curative and palliative treatment settings,” NCCN’s CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, said in an interview.

The good news is that carboplatin and cisplatin shortages have fallen dramatically since 2023. At the peak of the shortage in 2023, 93% of centers surveyed reported experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and 70% were experiencing a shortage of cisplatin, whereas in 2024, only 11% reported a carboplatin shortage and 7% reported a cisplatin shortage.

“Thankfully, the shortages for carboplatin and cisplatin are mostly resolved at this time,” Dr. Denlinger said.

However, all three NCCN surveys conducted in the past year, including the most recent one, have found shortages of various chemotherapies and supportive care medications, which suggests this is an ongoing issue affecting a significant spectrum of generic drugs.

“The acute crisis associated with the shortage of carboplatin and cisplatin was a singular event that brought the issue into the national spotlight,” but it’s “important to note that the current broad drug shortages found on this survey are not new,” said Dr. Denlinger.

In the latest survey, 89% of NCCN centers continue to report shortages of one or more drugs, and 75% said they are experiencing shortages of two or more drugs.

Overall, 57% of centers are short on vinblastine, 46% are short on etoposide, and 43% are short on topotecan. Other common chemotherapy and supportive care agents in short supply include dacarbazine (18% of centers) as well as 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and methotrexate (14% of centers).

In 2023, however, shortages of methotrexate and 5-FU were worse, with 67% of centers reporting shortages of methotrexate and 26% of 5-FU.

In the current survey, 75% of NCCN centers also noted they were aware of drug shortages within community practices in their area, and more than one in four centers reported treatment delays requiring additional prior authorization.

Cancer drug shortages impact not only routine treatments but also clinical trials. The recent survey found that 43% of respondents said drug shortages disrupted clinical trials at their center. The biggest issues centers flagged included greater administrative burdens, lower patient enrollment, and fewer open trials.

How are centers dealing with ongoing supply issues?

Top mitigation strategies include reducing waste, limiting use of current stock, and adjusting the timing and dosage within evidence-based ranges.

“The current situation underscores the need for sustainable, long-term solutions that ensure a stable supply of high-quality cancer medications,” Alyssa Schatz, MSW, NCCN senior director of policy and advocacy, said in a news release.

Three-quarters (75%) of survey respondents said they would like to see economic incentives put in place to encourage the high-quality manufacturing of medications, especially generic versions that are often in short supply. Nearly two-thirds (64%) cited a need for a broader buffer stock payment, and the same percentage would like to see more information on user experiences with various generic suppliers to help hospitals contract with those engaging in high-quality practices.

The NCCN also continues to work with federal regulators, agencies, and lawmakers to implement long-term solutions to cancer drug shortages.

“The federal government has a key role to play in addressing this issue,” Ms. Schatz said. “Establishing economic incentives, such as tax breaks or manufacturing grants for generic drugmakers, will help support a robust and resilient supply chain — ultimately safeguarding care for people with cancer across the country.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Results from the latest survey by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) showed that numerous critical systemic anticancer therapies, primarily generic drugs, are currently in shortage.

Nearly 90% of the 28 NCCN member centers who responded to the survey, conducted between May 28 and June 11, said they were experiencing a shortage of at least one drug.

“Many drugs that are currently in shortage form the backbones of effective multiagent regimens across both curative and palliative treatment settings,” NCCN’s CEO Crystal S. Denlinger, MD, said in an interview.

The good news is that carboplatin and cisplatin shortages have fallen dramatically since 2023. At the peak of the shortage in 2023, 93% of centers surveyed reported experiencing a shortage of carboplatin and 70% were experiencing a shortage of cisplatin, whereas in 2024, only 11% reported a carboplatin shortage and 7% reported a cisplatin shortage.

“Thankfully, the shortages for carboplatin and cisplatin are mostly resolved at this time,” Dr. Denlinger said.

However, all three NCCN surveys conducted in the past year, including the most recent one, have found shortages of various chemotherapies and supportive care medications, which suggests this is an ongoing issue affecting a significant spectrum of generic drugs.

“The acute crisis associated with the shortage of carboplatin and cisplatin was a singular event that brought the issue into the national spotlight,” but it’s “important to note that the current broad drug shortages found on this survey are not new,” said Dr. Denlinger.

In the latest survey, 89% of NCCN centers continue to report shortages of one or more drugs, and 75% said they are experiencing shortages of two or more drugs.

Overall, 57% of centers are short on vinblastine, 46% are short on etoposide, and 43% are short on topotecan. Other common chemotherapy and supportive care agents in short supply include dacarbazine (18% of centers) as well as 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and methotrexate (14% of centers).

In 2023, however, shortages of methotrexate and 5-FU were worse, with 67% of centers reporting shortages of methotrexate and 26% of 5-FU.

In the current survey, 75% of NCCN centers also noted they were aware of drug shortages within community practices in their area, and more than one in four centers reported treatment delays requiring additional prior authorization.

Cancer drug shortages impact not only routine treatments but also clinical trials. The recent survey found that 43% of respondents said drug shortages disrupted clinical trials at their center. The biggest issues centers flagged included greater administrative burdens, lower patient enrollment, and fewer open trials.

How are centers dealing with ongoing supply issues?

Top mitigation strategies include reducing waste, limiting use of current stock, and adjusting the timing and dosage within evidence-based ranges.

“The current situation underscores the need for sustainable, long-term solutions that ensure a stable supply of high-quality cancer medications,” Alyssa Schatz, MSW, NCCN senior director of policy and advocacy, said in a news release.

Three-quarters (75%) of survey respondents said they would like to see economic incentives put in place to encourage the high-quality manufacturing of medications, especially generic versions that are often in short supply. Nearly two-thirds (64%) cited a need for a broader buffer stock payment, and the same percentage would like to see more information on user experiences with various generic suppliers to help hospitals contract with those engaging in high-quality practices.

The NCCN also continues to work with federal regulators, agencies, and lawmakers to implement long-term solutions to cancer drug shortages.

“The federal government has a key role to play in addressing this issue,” Ms. Schatz said. “Establishing economic incentives, such as tax breaks or manufacturing grants for generic drugmakers, will help support a robust and resilient supply chain — ultimately safeguarding care for people with cancer across the country.”

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Medicaid acceptance among pediatric dermatologists varies significantly by practice type and region, with the highest rate among academic practices.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified 352 actively practicing board-certified pediatric dermatologists using the Society for Pediatric Dermatology database and determined Medicaid acceptance status.
• They collected physician and practice characteristics from the US Census American Community Survey data and a web search.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 275 (78.1%) board-certified pediatric dermatologists accepted Medicaid.
• Academic practices had the highest Medicaid acceptance rate (98.7%), while private practices had the lowest (43.1%), a significant difference (P < .001).
• Acceptance rates were significantly higher in the Midwest (90.9%) than in the Northeast (71.8%) or West (71.4%; P = .005). Regional differences persisted after controlling for practice type: Midwest practice locations had greater odds of Medicaid acceptance than those in the Northeast (odds ratio [OR], 5.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.76-15.65) or West (OR, 5.26; 95% CI, 1.88-14.66).
• Practices in counties with lower median household incomes and greater densities of pediatric dermatologists were associated with higher Medicaid acceptance (P = .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“While most pediatric dermatologists accept Medicaid, this study revealed differential access to care based on practice type, geographic location, and density of pediatric dermatologists per county,” the authors wrote. More research is needed on “the impact on health outcomes when specialty services are unavailable” and on “the role of administrative and reimbursement barriers limiting Medicaid acceptance among pediatric dermatologists,” they added.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Madeleine Tessier-Kay, MPH, Department of Dermatology, at the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington, Connecticut. It was published online in Pediatric Dermatology.
 

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include potential incomplete capture of board-certified physicians, as not all board-certified pediatric dermatologists may be members of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, and potential inaccurate capture of physician characteristics and Medicaid acceptance status.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not disclosed. One author was a consultant for AbbVie. Other authors declared no competing interests.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Medicaid acceptance among pediatric dermatologists varies significantly by practice type and region, with the highest rate among academic practices.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified 352 actively practicing board-certified pediatric dermatologists using the Society for Pediatric Dermatology database and determined Medicaid acceptance status.
• They collected physician and practice characteristics from the US Census American Community Survey data and a web search.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 275 (78.1%) board-certified pediatric dermatologists accepted Medicaid.
• Academic practices had the highest Medicaid acceptance rate (98.7%), while private practices had the lowest (43.1%), a significant difference (P < .001).
• Acceptance rates were significantly higher in the Midwest (90.9%) than in the Northeast (71.8%) or West (71.4%; P = .005). Regional differences persisted after controlling for practice type: Midwest practice locations had greater odds of Medicaid acceptance than those in the Northeast (odds ratio [OR], 5.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.76-15.65) or West (OR, 5.26; 95% CI, 1.88-14.66).
• Practices in counties with lower median household incomes and greater densities of pediatric dermatologists were associated with higher Medicaid acceptance (P = .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“While most pediatric dermatologists accept Medicaid, this study revealed differential access to care based on practice type, geographic location, and density of pediatric dermatologists per county,” the authors wrote. More research is needed on “the impact on health outcomes when specialty services are unavailable” and on “the role of administrative and reimbursement barriers limiting Medicaid acceptance among pediatric dermatologists,” they added.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Madeleine Tessier-Kay, MPH, Department of Dermatology, at the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington, Connecticut. It was published online in Pediatric Dermatology.
 

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include potential incomplete capture of board-certified physicians, as not all board-certified pediatric dermatologists may be members of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, and potential inaccurate capture of physician characteristics and Medicaid acceptance status.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not disclosed. One author was a consultant for AbbVie. Other authors declared no competing interests.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Medicaid acceptance among pediatric dermatologists varies significantly by practice type and region, with the highest rate among academic practices.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers identified 352 actively practicing board-certified pediatric dermatologists using the Society for Pediatric Dermatology database and determined Medicaid acceptance status.
• They collected physician and practice characteristics from the US Census American Community Survey data and a web search.

TAKEAWAY:

• A total of 275 (78.1%) board-certified pediatric dermatologists accepted Medicaid.
• Academic practices had the highest Medicaid acceptance rate (98.7%), while private practices had the lowest (43.1%), a significant difference (P < .001).
• Acceptance rates were significantly higher in the Midwest (90.9%) than in the Northeast (71.8%) or West (71.4%; P = .005). Regional differences persisted after controlling for practice type: Midwest practice locations had greater odds of Medicaid acceptance than those in the Northeast (odds ratio [OR], 5.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.76-15.65) or West (OR, 5.26; 95% CI, 1.88-14.66).
• Practices in counties with lower median household incomes and greater densities of pediatric dermatologists were associated with higher Medicaid acceptance (P = .001).

IN PRACTICE:

“While most pediatric dermatologists accept Medicaid, this study revealed differential access to care based on practice type, geographic location, and density of pediatric dermatologists per county,” the authors wrote. More research is needed on “the impact on health outcomes when specialty services are unavailable” and on “the role of administrative and reimbursement barriers limiting Medicaid acceptance among pediatric dermatologists,” they added.
 

SOURCE:

The study was led by Madeleine Tessier-Kay, MPH, Department of Dermatology, at the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington, Connecticut. It was published online in Pediatric Dermatology.
 

LIMITATIONS:

Limitations include potential incomplete capture of board-certified physicians, as not all board-certified pediatric dermatologists may be members of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology, and potential inaccurate capture of physician characteristics and Medicaid acceptance status.
 

DISCLOSURES:

The study funding source was not disclosed. One author was a consultant for AbbVie. Other authors declared no competing interests.
 

This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.