Pediatrics

A defined exercise program significantly improved cardiometabolic health and body composition in children with overweight and obesity, but no effect was seen on mental health, based on data from 92 children.

Childhood obesity is associated with negative health outcomes including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and mental health disorders, and exercise is considered essential to treatment, wrote Jairo H. Migueles, PhD, of the University of Granada, Spain, and colleagues. However, the effect on children with obesity and overweight of an exercise program on physical and mental health, including within-individual changes, has not been well studied, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 36 girls and 56 boys with overweight or obesity who were randomized to a 20-week exercise program with aerobic and resistance elements, or waitlisted to serve as controls. The participants ranged in age from 8 to 11 years with a mean age of 10 years. The data were collected between Nov. 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, as part of a parallel-group randomized clinical trial. The exercise program consisted of three to five 90-minute exercise sessions per week for 20 weeks, and the control children continued their usual routines.

The main cardiometabolic outcomes measured in the study were divided into three categories: body composition, physical fitness, and traditional risk factors (waist circumference, blood lipid levels, glucose levels, insulin levels, and blood pressure).

A cardiometabolic risk score was defined by z score. The researchers also added cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) to the cardiometabolic risk score. Mental health was assessed using composite standardized scores for psychological well-being and poor mental health.

After 20 weeks, cardiometabolic risk scores decreased by approximately 0.38 standard deviations in the exercise group compared with the control group. In addition, specific measures of cardiometabolic health improved significantly from baseline in the exercise group compared with control children for low-density lipoprotein (change of –7.00 mg/dL), body mass index (–5.9 kg/m²), fat mass index (−0.67), and visceral adipose tissue (31.44 g).

Cardiorespiratory fitness improved by 2.75 laps in the exercise group compared with control children. In addition, significantly more children in the exercise group showed meaningful changes (defined as individual changes of at least 0.2 SDs) compared with control children in measures of fat mass index (37 vs. 17, P < .001) and CRF performance (30 vs. 17, P = .03).

However, no significant effects appeared on mental health outcomes in exercisers, the researchers noted.

The reduction in cardiometabolic score was attributable mainly to improvements in cardiovascular fitness, blood lipid levels, and total and visceral adiposity, the researchers wrote in their discussion. The lack of changes in mental health measures may be a result of the healthy mental state of the children at the study outset, they said. “The null effect on mental health outcomes needs to be further investigated, including, among other things, whether the instruments are sensitive enough to detect changes and whether there is a ceiling effect in young children who might be mentally healthy overall,” they wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small sample size and lack of blinding for some evaluators. However, the results show the potential of exercise programs to affect meaningful change and improve cardiometabolic health in overweight and obese children, although more research is needed to explore the effects of larger-scale and longer-lasting public health interventions combining exercise and other health behaviors such as diet, the researchers concluded.
 

Bottom line: Exercise works

The increasing rates of overweight and obesity in children in the United States have “significant downstream consequences that include increased risk of metabolic disease, including diabetes and hypertension, as well as increased rates of anxiety and depression,” Neil Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Therefore, the effect of interventions such as exercise training on outcomes is important, he said. 

The current study findings are “what you would hope for and expect – improvement in cardiometabolic parameters and fitness,” said Dr. Skolnik. “It was encouraging to see the effect of this relatively short duration of intervention has a clear positive effect on weight, BMI, and cardiometabolic parameters,” he said. “The real benefit, of course, comes from sustaining these habits over a long period of time.”

The lack of improvement in mental health is not surprising given the small study population “who did not have a high rate of mental health problems to begin with,” Dr. Skolnik added.

Barriers to promoting exercise programs for obese and overweight children in primary care are many, Dr. Skolnik said, including “having the motivation and funding to create programs like this so they are readily available to youth.”

However, the key message from the current study is simple and straightforward, according to Dr. Skolnik. “Exercise works! It works to improve fitness, cardiometabolic parameters, and weight control,” he said.

“There is always room for more research,” Dr. Skolnik added. The questions now are not about whether exercise benefits health; they are about figuring out how to implement the known benefits of exercise into daily living for all children, athletes and nonathletes alike, he said. “We need to find nonjudgmental ways to encourage exercise as a part of routine daily healthy living, up there with brushing teeth every day,” he emphasized.

The study was supported by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and El Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) and by the MCIN (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación) / AEI (Agencia Estatal de Investigación. The researchers and Dr. Skolnik had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Skolnik serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

A defined exercise program significantly improved cardiometabolic health and body composition in children with overweight and obesity, but no effect was seen on mental health, based on data from 92 children.

Childhood obesity is associated with negative health outcomes including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and mental health disorders, and exercise is considered essential to treatment, wrote Jairo H. Migueles, PhD, of the University of Granada, Spain, and colleagues. However, the effect on children with obesity and overweight of an exercise program on physical and mental health, including within-individual changes, has not been well studied, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 36 girls and 56 boys with overweight or obesity who were randomized to a 20-week exercise program with aerobic and resistance elements, or waitlisted to serve as controls. The participants ranged in age from 8 to 11 years with a mean age of 10 years. The data were collected between Nov. 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, as part of a parallel-group randomized clinical trial. The exercise program consisted of three to five 90-minute exercise sessions per week for 20 weeks, and the control children continued their usual routines.

The main cardiometabolic outcomes measured in the study were divided into three categories: body composition, physical fitness, and traditional risk factors (waist circumference, blood lipid levels, glucose levels, insulin levels, and blood pressure).

A cardiometabolic risk score was defined by z score. The researchers also added cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) to the cardiometabolic risk score. Mental health was assessed using composite standardized scores for psychological well-being and poor mental health.

After 20 weeks, cardiometabolic risk scores decreased by approximately 0.38 standard deviations in the exercise group compared with the control group. In addition, specific measures of cardiometabolic health improved significantly from baseline in the exercise group compared with control children for low-density lipoprotein (change of –7.00 mg/dL), body mass index (–5.9 kg/m²), fat mass index (−0.67), and visceral adipose tissue (31.44 g).

Cardiorespiratory fitness improved by 2.75 laps in the exercise group compared with control children. In addition, significantly more children in the exercise group showed meaningful changes (defined as individual changes of at least 0.2 SDs) compared with control children in measures of fat mass index (37 vs. 17, P < .001) and CRF performance (30 vs. 17, P = .03).

However, no significant effects appeared on mental health outcomes in exercisers, the researchers noted.

The reduction in cardiometabolic score was attributable mainly to improvements in cardiovascular fitness, blood lipid levels, and total and visceral adiposity, the researchers wrote in their discussion. The lack of changes in mental health measures may be a result of the healthy mental state of the children at the study outset, they said. “The null effect on mental health outcomes needs to be further investigated, including, among other things, whether the instruments are sensitive enough to detect changes and whether there is a ceiling effect in young children who might be mentally healthy overall,” they wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small sample size and lack of blinding for some evaluators. However, the results show the potential of exercise programs to affect meaningful change and improve cardiometabolic health in overweight and obese children, although more research is needed to explore the effects of larger-scale and longer-lasting public health interventions combining exercise and other health behaviors such as diet, the researchers concluded.
 

Bottom line: Exercise works

The increasing rates of overweight and obesity in children in the United States have “significant downstream consequences that include increased risk of metabolic disease, including diabetes and hypertension, as well as increased rates of anxiety and depression,” Neil Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Therefore, the effect of interventions such as exercise training on outcomes is important, he said. 

The current study findings are “what you would hope for and expect – improvement in cardiometabolic parameters and fitness,” said Dr. Skolnik. “It was encouraging to see the effect of this relatively short duration of intervention has a clear positive effect on weight, BMI, and cardiometabolic parameters,” he said. “The real benefit, of course, comes from sustaining these habits over a long period of time.”

The lack of improvement in mental health is not surprising given the small study population “who did not have a high rate of mental health problems to begin with,” Dr. Skolnik added.

Barriers to promoting exercise programs for obese and overweight children in primary care are many, Dr. Skolnik said, including “having the motivation and funding to create programs like this so they are readily available to youth.”

However, the key message from the current study is simple and straightforward, according to Dr. Skolnik. “Exercise works! It works to improve fitness, cardiometabolic parameters, and weight control,” he said.

“There is always room for more research,” Dr. Skolnik added. The questions now are not about whether exercise benefits health; they are about figuring out how to implement the known benefits of exercise into daily living for all children, athletes and nonathletes alike, he said. “We need to find nonjudgmental ways to encourage exercise as a part of routine daily healthy living, up there with brushing teeth every day,” he emphasized.

The study was supported by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and El Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) and by the MCIN (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación) / AEI (Agencia Estatal de Investigación. The researchers and Dr. Skolnik had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Skolnik serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

A defined exercise program significantly improved cardiometabolic health and body composition in children with overweight and obesity, but no effect was seen on mental health, based on data from 92 children.

Childhood obesity is associated with negative health outcomes including type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and mental health disorders, and exercise is considered essential to treatment, wrote Jairo H. Migueles, PhD, of the University of Granada, Spain, and colleagues. However, the effect on children with obesity and overweight of an exercise program on physical and mental health, including within-individual changes, has not been well studied, they said.

In a study published in JAMA Network Open, the researchers reviewed data from 36 girls and 56 boys with overweight or obesity who were randomized to a 20-week exercise program with aerobic and resistance elements, or waitlisted to serve as controls. The participants ranged in age from 8 to 11 years with a mean age of 10 years. The data were collected between Nov. 1, 2014, and June 30, 2016, as part of a parallel-group randomized clinical trial. The exercise program consisted of three to five 90-minute exercise sessions per week for 20 weeks, and the control children continued their usual routines.

The main cardiometabolic outcomes measured in the study were divided into three categories: body composition, physical fitness, and traditional risk factors (waist circumference, blood lipid levels, glucose levels, insulin levels, and blood pressure).

A cardiometabolic risk score was defined by z score. The researchers also added cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) to the cardiometabolic risk score. Mental health was assessed using composite standardized scores for psychological well-being and poor mental health.

After 20 weeks, cardiometabolic risk scores decreased by approximately 0.38 standard deviations in the exercise group compared with the control group. In addition, specific measures of cardiometabolic health improved significantly from baseline in the exercise group compared with control children for low-density lipoprotein (change of –7.00 mg/dL), body mass index (–5.9 kg/m²), fat mass index (−0.67), and visceral adipose tissue (31.44 g).

Cardiorespiratory fitness improved by 2.75 laps in the exercise group compared with control children. In addition, significantly more children in the exercise group showed meaningful changes (defined as individual changes of at least 0.2 SDs) compared with control children in measures of fat mass index (37 vs. 17, P < .001) and CRF performance (30 vs. 17, P = .03).

However, no significant effects appeared on mental health outcomes in exercisers, the researchers noted.

The reduction in cardiometabolic score was attributable mainly to improvements in cardiovascular fitness, blood lipid levels, and total and visceral adiposity, the researchers wrote in their discussion. The lack of changes in mental health measures may be a result of the healthy mental state of the children at the study outset, they said. “The null effect on mental health outcomes needs to be further investigated, including, among other things, whether the instruments are sensitive enough to detect changes and whether there is a ceiling effect in young children who might be mentally healthy overall,” they wrote.

The findings were limited by several factors, including the relatively small sample size and lack of blinding for some evaluators. However, the results show the potential of exercise programs to affect meaningful change and improve cardiometabolic health in overweight and obese children, although more research is needed to explore the effects of larger-scale and longer-lasting public health interventions combining exercise and other health behaviors such as diet, the researchers concluded.
 

Bottom line: Exercise works

The increasing rates of overweight and obesity in children in the United States have “significant downstream consequences that include increased risk of metabolic disease, including diabetes and hypertension, as well as increased rates of anxiety and depression,” Neil Skolnik, MD, professor of family and community medicine at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, said in an interview.

Therefore, the effect of interventions such as exercise training on outcomes is important, he said. 

The current study findings are “what you would hope for and expect – improvement in cardiometabolic parameters and fitness,” said Dr. Skolnik. “It was encouraging to see the effect of this relatively short duration of intervention has a clear positive effect on weight, BMI, and cardiometabolic parameters,” he said. “The real benefit, of course, comes from sustaining these habits over a long period of time.”

The lack of improvement in mental health is not surprising given the small study population “who did not have a high rate of mental health problems to begin with,” Dr. Skolnik added.

Barriers to promoting exercise programs for obese and overweight children in primary care are many, Dr. Skolnik said, including “having the motivation and funding to create programs like this so they are readily available to youth.”

However, the key message from the current study is simple and straightforward, according to Dr. Skolnik. “Exercise works! It works to improve fitness, cardiometabolic parameters, and weight control,” he said.

“There is always room for more research,” Dr. Skolnik added. The questions now are not about whether exercise benefits health; they are about figuring out how to implement the known benefits of exercise into daily living for all children, athletes and nonathletes alike, he said. “We need to find nonjudgmental ways to encourage exercise as a part of routine daily healthy living, up there with brushing teeth every day,” he emphasized.

The study was supported by grants from the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness and El Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER) and by the MCIN (Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación) / AEI (Agencia Estatal de Investigación. The researchers and Dr. Skolnik had no financial conflicts to disclose. Dr. Skolnik serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

Optimism about new opportunities to treat alopecia areata can be derived not only from a recently approved Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor in older children but promising results with the monoclonal antibody dupilumab alone or in combination with additional treatments, such as minoxidil or corticosteroids, in children with AA and concomitant atopy.

It was only a little over a year ago that the JAK inhibitor baricitinib became the first systemic therapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration for AA in adults. In June 2023, the JAK inhibitor ritlecitinib was approved for severe AA in patients as young as 12 years of age, but there is accumulating evidence that dupilumab, which binds to the interleukin-4 receptor, might be an option for even younger children with AA.

Of those who have worked with dupilumab for controlling AA in children, Brittany Craiglow, MD, an adjunct associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., updated a case series at the recent MedscapeLive! Annual Women’s and Pediatric Dermatology Seminar in Baltimore. A series of six children with AA treated with dupilumab was published 2 years ago in JAAD Case Reports.

Even in 2021, her case series was not the first report of benefit from dupilumab in children with AA, but instead contributed to a “growing body of literature” supporting the potential benefit in the setting of concomitant atopy, Dr. Craiglow, one of the authors of the series, said in an interview.

Of the six patients in that series, five had improvement and four had complete regrowth with dupilumab, whether as a monotherapy or in combination with other agents. The children ranged in age from 7 to 12 years. The age range at the time of AA onset was 3-11 years. All had atopic dermatitis (AD) and most had additional atopic conditions, such as food allergies or asthma.

Since publication, Dr. Craiglow has successfully treated many more patients with dupilumab, either as monotherapy or in combination with oral minoxidil, corticosteroids, and/or a topical JAK inhibitor. Dupilumab, which is approved for the treatment of AD in children as young as 6 months of age, has been well tolerated.

“Oral minoxidil is often a great adjuvant treatment in patients with AA and should be used unless there are contraindications,” based on the initial and subsequent experience treating AA with dupilumab, said Dr. Craiglow.

“Topical steroids can be used in combination with dupilumab and minoxidil, but in general dupilumab should not be combined with an oral JAK inhibitor,” she added.

Now, with the approval of ritlecitinib, Dr. Craiglow said this JAK inhibitor will become a first-line therapy in children 12 years or older with severe, persistent AA, but she considers a trial of dupilumab reasonable in younger children, given the controlled studies of safety for atopic diseases.

“I would say that dupilumab could be considered in the following clinical scenarios: children under 12 with AA and concomitant atopy, such as atopic dermatitis, asthma, allergies, and/or elevated IgE; and children over the age of 12 with concomitant atopy who either have a contraindication to a JAK inhibitor or whose families have reservations about or are unwilling to take one,” Dr. Craiglow said.

In older children, she believes that dupilumab has “a much lower chance of being effective” than an oral JAK inhibitor like ritlecitinib, but it circumvents the potential safety issues of JAK inhibitors that have been observed in adults.

With ritlecitinib providing an on-label option for AA in older children, Dr. Craiglow suggested it might be easier to obtain third-party coverage for dupilumab as an alternative to a JAK inhibitor for AA in patients younger than 12, particularly when there is an indication for a concomitant atopic condition and a rationale, such as a concern about relative safety.

Two years ago, when Dr. Craiglow and her coinvestigator published their six-patient case series, a second case series was published about the same time by investigators at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. This series of 16 pediatric patients with AA on dupilumab was more heterogeneous, but four of six patients with active disease and more than 4 months of follow-up had improvement in AA, including total regrowth. The improvement was concentrated in patients with moderate to severe AD at the time of treatment.

Based on this series, the authors, led by Leslie Castelo-Soccio, MD, PhD, who is now an attending physician in the Dermatology Branch of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Bethesda, Md., concluded that dupilumab “may be a therapeutic option for AA” when traditional therapies have failed, “especially in patients with concurrent AD or asthma, for which the benefits of dupilumab are clear.”

When contacted about where this therapy might fit on the basis of her case series and the update on Dr. Craiglow’s experience, Dr. Castelo-Soccio, like Dr. Craiglow, stressed the importance of employing this therapy selectively.

“I do think that dupilumab is a reasonable option for AA in children with atopy and IgE levels greater than 200 IU/mL, especially if treatment is for atopic dermatitis or asthma as well,” she said.

Many clinicians, including Dr. Craiglow, have experience with oral JAK inhibitors in children younger than 12. Indeed, a recently published case study associated oral abrocitinib, a JAK inhibitor approved for moderate to severe AD in patients ages 12 and older, with hair regrowth in an 11-year-old child who had persistent AA for more than 6 years despite numerous conventional therapies.

However, the advantage of dupilumab in younger children is the greater evidence of safety, providing a level of reassurance for a treatment that is commonly used for severe atopic diseases but does not have a specific indication for AA, according to Dr. Craiglow.

Dr. Craiglow disclosed being a speaker for AbbVie and a speaker and consultant for Eli Lilly, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Castelo-Soccio had no disclosures.

Optimism about new opportunities to treat alopecia areata can be derived not only from a recently approved Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor in older children but promising results with the monoclonal antibody dupilumab alone or in combination with additional treatments, such as minoxidil or corticosteroids, in children with AA and concomitant atopy.

It was only a little over a year ago that the JAK inhibitor baricitinib became the first systemic therapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration for AA in adults. In June 2023, the JAK inhibitor ritlecitinib was approved for severe AA in patients as young as 12 years of age, but there is accumulating evidence that dupilumab, which binds to the interleukin-4 receptor, might be an option for even younger children with AA.

Of those who have worked with dupilumab for controlling AA in children, Brittany Craiglow, MD, an adjunct associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., updated a case series at the recent MedscapeLive! Annual Women’s and Pediatric Dermatology Seminar in Baltimore. A series of six children with AA treated with dupilumab was published 2 years ago in JAAD Case Reports.

Even in 2021, her case series was not the first report of benefit from dupilumab in children with AA, but instead contributed to a “growing body of literature” supporting the potential benefit in the setting of concomitant atopy, Dr. Craiglow, one of the authors of the series, said in an interview.

Of the six patients in that series, five had improvement and four had complete regrowth with dupilumab, whether as a monotherapy or in combination with other agents. The children ranged in age from 7 to 12 years. The age range at the time of AA onset was 3-11 years. All had atopic dermatitis (AD) and most had additional atopic conditions, such as food allergies or asthma.

Since publication, Dr. Craiglow has successfully treated many more patients with dupilumab, either as monotherapy or in combination with oral minoxidil, corticosteroids, and/or a topical JAK inhibitor. Dupilumab, which is approved for the treatment of AD in children as young as 6 months of age, has been well tolerated.

“Oral minoxidil is often a great adjuvant treatment in patients with AA and should be used unless there are contraindications,” based on the initial and subsequent experience treating AA with dupilumab, said Dr. Craiglow.

“Topical steroids can be used in combination with dupilumab and minoxidil, but in general dupilumab should not be combined with an oral JAK inhibitor,” she added.

Now, with the approval of ritlecitinib, Dr. Craiglow said this JAK inhibitor will become a first-line therapy in children 12 years or older with severe, persistent AA, but she considers a trial of dupilumab reasonable in younger children, given the controlled studies of safety for atopic diseases.

“I would say that dupilumab could be considered in the following clinical scenarios: children under 12 with AA and concomitant atopy, such as atopic dermatitis, asthma, allergies, and/or elevated IgE; and children over the age of 12 with concomitant atopy who either have a contraindication to a JAK inhibitor or whose families have reservations about or are unwilling to take one,” Dr. Craiglow said.

In older children, she believes that dupilumab has “a much lower chance of being effective” than an oral JAK inhibitor like ritlecitinib, but it circumvents the potential safety issues of JAK inhibitors that have been observed in adults.

With ritlecitinib providing an on-label option for AA in older children, Dr. Craiglow suggested it might be easier to obtain third-party coverage for dupilumab as an alternative to a JAK inhibitor for AA in patients younger than 12, particularly when there is an indication for a concomitant atopic condition and a rationale, such as a concern about relative safety.

Two years ago, when Dr. Craiglow and her coinvestigator published their six-patient case series, a second case series was published about the same time by investigators at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. This series of 16 pediatric patients with AA on dupilumab was more heterogeneous, but four of six patients with active disease and more than 4 months of follow-up had improvement in AA, including total regrowth. The improvement was concentrated in patients with moderate to severe AD at the time of treatment.

Based on this series, the authors, led by Leslie Castelo-Soccio, MD, PhD, who is now an attending physician in the Dermatology Branch of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Bethesda, Md., concluded that dupilumab “may be a therapeutic option for AA” when traditional therapies have failed, “especially in patients with concurrent AD or asthma, for which the benefits of dupilumab are clear.”

When contacted about where this therapy might fit on the basis of her case series and the update on Dr. Craiglow’s experience, Dr. Castelo-Soccio, like Dr. Craiglow, stressed the importance of employing this therapy selectively.

“I do think that dupilumab is a reasonable option for AA in children with atopy and IgE levels greater than 200 IU/mL, especially if treatment is for atopic dermatitis or asthma as well,” she said.

Many clinicians, including Dr. Craiglow, have experience with oral JAK inhibitors in children younger than 12. Indeed, a recently published case study associated oral abrocitinib, a JAK inhibitor approved for moderate to severe AD in patients ages 12 and older, with hair regrowth in an 11-year-old child who had persistent AA for more than 6 years despite numerous conventional therapies.

However, the advantage of dupilumab in younger children is the greater evidence of safety, providing a level of reassurance for a treatment that is commonly used for severe atopic diseases but does not have a specific indication for AA, according to Dr. Craiglow.

Dr. Craiglow disclosed being a speaker for AbbVie and a speaker and consultant for Eli Lilly, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Castelo-Soccio had no disclosures.

Optimism about new opportunities to treat alopecia areata can be derived not only from a recently approved Janus kinase (JAK) inhibitor in older children but promising results with the monoclonal antibody dupilumab alone or in combination with additional treatments, such as minoxidil or corticosteroids, in children with AA and concomitant atopy.

It was only a little over a year ago that the JAK inhibitor baricitinib became the first systemic therapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration for AA in adults. In June 2023, the JAK inhibitor ritlecitinib was approved for severe AA in patients as young as 12 years of age, but there is accumulating evidence that dupilumab, which binds to the interleukin-4 receptor, might be an option for even younger children with AA.

Of those who have worked with dupilumab for controlling AA in children, Brittany Craiglow, MD, an adjunct associate professor of dermatology at Yale University, New Haven, Conn., updated a case series at the recent MedscapeLive! Annual Women’s and Pediatric Dermatology Seminar in Baltimore. A series of six children with AA treated with dupilumab was published 2 years ago in JAAD Case Reports.

Even in 2021, her case series was not the first report of benefit from dupilumab in children with AA, but instead contributed to a “growing body of literature” supporting the potential benefit in the setting of concomitant atopy, Dr. Craiglow, one of the authors of the series, said in an interview.

Of the six patients in that series, five had improvement and four had complete regrowth with dupilumab, whether as a monotherapy or in combination with other agents. The children ranged in age from 7 to 12 years. The age range at the time of AA onset was 3-11 years. All had atopic dermatitis (AD) and most had additional atopic conditions, such as food allergies or asthma.

Since publication, Dr. Craiglow has successfully treated many more patients with dupilumab, either as monotherapy or in combination with oral minoxidil, corticosteroids, and/or a topical JAK inhibitor. Dupilumab, which is approved for the treatment of AD in children as young as 6 months of age, has been well tolerated.

“Oral minoxidil is often a great adjuvant treatment in patients with AA and should be used unless there are contraindications,” based on the initial and subsequent experience treating AA with dupilumab, said Dr. Craiglow.

“Topical steroids can be used in combination with dupilumab and minoxidil, but in general dupilumab should not be combined with an oral JAK inhibitor,” she added.

Now, with the approval of ritlecitinib, Dr. Craiglow said this JAK inhibitor will become a first-line therapy in children 12 years or older with severe, persistent AA, but she considers a trial of dupilumab reasonable in younger children, given the controlled studies of safety for atopic diseases.

“I would say that dupilumab could be considered in the following clinical scenarios: children under 12 with AA and concomitant atopy, such as atopic dermatitis, asthma, allergies, and/or elevated IgE; and children over the age of 12 with concomitant atopy who either have a contraindication to a JAK inhibitor or whose families have reservations about or are unwilling to take one,” Dr. Craiglow said.

In older children, she believes that dupilumab has “a much lower chance of being effective” than an oral JAK inhibitor like ritlecitinib, but it circumvents the potential safety issues of JAK inhibitors that have been observed in adults.

With ritlecitinib providing an on-label option for AA in older children, Dr. Craiglow suggested it might be easier to obtain third-party coverage for dupilumab as an alternative to a JAK inhibitor for AA in patients younger than 12, particularly when there is an indication for a concomitant atopic condition and a rationale, such as a concern about relative safety.

Two years ago, when Dr. Craiglow and her coinvestigator published their six-patient case series, a second case series was published about the same time by investigators at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology. This series of 16 pediatric patients with AA on dupilumab was more heterogeneous, but four of six patients with active disease and more than 4 months of follow-up had improvement in AA, including total regrowth. The improvement was concentrated in patients with moderate to severe AD at the time of treatment.

Based on this series, the authors, led by Leslie Castelo-Soccio, MD, PhD, who is now an attending physician in the Dermatology Branch of the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases, Bethesda, Md., concluded that dupilumab “may be a therapeutic option for AA” when traditional therapies have failed, “especially in patients with concurrent AD or asthma, for which the benefits of dupilumab are clear.”

When contacted about where this therapy might fit on the basis of her case series and the update on Dr. Craiglow’s experience, Dr. Castelo-Soccio, like Dr. Craiglow, stressed the importance of employing this therapy selectively.

“I do think that dupilumab is a reasonable option for AA in children with atopy and IgE levels greater than 200 IU/mL, especially if treatment is for atopic dermatitis or asthma as well,” she said.

Many clinicians, including Dr. Craiglow, have experience with oral JAK inhibitors in children younger than 12. Indeed, a recently published case study associated oral abrocitinib, a JAK inhibitor approved for moderate to severe AD in patients ages 12 and older, with hair regrowth in an 11-year-old child who had persistent AA for more than 6 years despite numerous conventional therapies.

However, the advantage of dupilumab in younger children is the greater evidence of safety, providing a level of reassurance for a treatment that is commonly used for severe atopic diseases but does not have a specific indication for AA, according to Dr. Craiglow.

Dr. Craiglow disclosed being a speaker for AbbVie and a speaker and consultant for Eli Lilly, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme. Dr. Castelo-Soccio had no disclosures.

A new practice guideline is setting a standard for doctors who use lasers to treat cutaneous vascular anomalies.

Poor treatment has been an issue in this field because no uniform guidelines existed to inform practice, according to a press release from the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

The laser treatment settings can vary based on the type and location of the birthmark and also the patient’s skin type, which has resulted in an inconsistent approach from clinicians, according to the release.

“For decades, I have observed adverse outcomes from the improper laser treatment of vascular birthmarks,” Linda Rozell-Shannon, PhD, president and founder of the Vascular Birthmarks Foundation said in a statement from ASLMS. “As a result of these guidelines, patient outcomes will be improved.”

The guideline, published on the ASLMS website along with supporting videos, was jointly developed by ASLMS, VBF, and an international group of clinicians, marking the first consensus guideline on laser treatments for cutaneous vascular anomalies. It details 32 best practice directives for various scenarios, including advice on safety considerations, additional testing, and when to refer.

“It is important to realize that just because someone is board certified does not mean they are skilled in treating all conditions or using all lasers,” Paul Friedman, MD, a dermatologist in Houston, and former president of ASLMS, said in the ASLMS statement.

Vascular birthmarks are a common condition affecting up to 14% of children, according to VBF. Most are hemangiomas, a buildup of blood vessels that usually appears at birth or within a month after birth. Laser therapy reduces the size and color of the anomalies.

Support for this initiative was provided by Candela Medical.

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

A new practice guideline is setting a standard for doctors who use lasers to treat cutaneous vascular anomalies.

Poor treatment has been an issue in this field because no uniform guidelines existed to inform practice, according to a press release from the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

The laser treatment settings can vary based on the type and location of the birthmark and also the patient’s skin type, which has resulted in an inconsistent approach from clinicians, according to the release.

“For decades, I have observed adverse outcomes from the improper laser treatment of vascular birthmarks,” Linda Rozell-Shannon, PhD, president and founder of the Vascular Birthmarks Foundation said in a statement from ASLMS. “As a result of these guidelines, patient outcomes will be improved.”

The guideline, published on the ASLMS website along with supporting videos, was jointly developed by ASLMS, VBF, and an international group of clinicians, marking the first consensus guideline on laser treatments for cutaneous vascular anomalies. It details 32 best practice directives for various scenarios, including advice on safety considerations, additional testing, and when to refer.

“It is important to realize that just because someone is board certified does not mean they are skilled in treating all conditions or using all lasers,” Paul Friedman, MD, a dermatologist in Houston, and former president of ASLMS, said in the ASLMS statement.

Vascular birthmarks are a common condition affecting up to 14% of children, according to VBF. Most are hemangiomas, a buildup of blood vessels that usually appears at birth or within a month after birth. Laser therapy reduces the size and color of the anomalies.

Support for this initiative was provided by Candela Medical.

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

A new practice guideline is setting a standard for doctors who use lasers to treat cutaneous vascular anomalies.

Poor treatment has been an issue in this field because no uniform guidelines existed to inform practice, according to a press release from the American Society for Laser Medicine and Surgery.

The laser treatment settings can vary based on the type and location of the birthmark and also the patient’s skin type, which has resulted in an inconsistent approach from clinicians, according to the release.

“For decades, I have observed adverse outcomes from the improper laser treatment of vascular birthmarks,” Linda Rozell-Shannon, PhD, president and founder of the Vascular Birthmarks Foundation said in a statement from ASLMS. “As a result of these guidelines, patient outcomes will be improved.”

The guideline, published on the ASLMS website along with supporting videos, was jointly developed by ASLMS, VBF, and an international group of clinicians, marking the first consensus guideline on laser treatments for cutaneous vascular anomalies. It details 32 best practice directives for various scenarios, including advice on safety considerations, additional testing, and when to refer.

“It is important to realize that just because someone is board certified does not mean they are skilled in treating all conditions or using all lasers,” Paul Friedman, MD, a dermatologist in Houston, and former president of ASLMS, said in the ASLMS statement.

Vascular birthmarks are a common condition affecting up to 14% of children, according to VBF. Most are hemangiomas, a buildup of blood vessels that usually appears at birth or within a month after birth. Laser therapy reduces the size and color of the anomalies.

Support for this initiative was provided by Candela Medical.

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

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – Epidermolysis bullosa (EB), a heterogeneous congenital condition of skin fragility, received its first U.S. Food and Drug Association–approved gene therapy only a few months ago, but accelerated progress across multiple treatment strategies predicts additional important and perhaps dramatic further progress, according to a prominent EB researcher.

Not only are recent developments in EB “exciting,” the progress on multiple fronts for control of disease or its symptoms suggests “we are on the cusp of a new era,” Jemima Mellerio, BSc, MD, a consultant dermatologist, St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, London, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Published clinical studies of cell therapies and gene therapies date back at least 15 years, according to a review by Dr. Mellerio on why developments are starting to move so quickly. The difference now is that many obstacles to routine use of these options are being resolved so that viable strategies have reached or are reaching phase 3 trials.

In addition to cell therapies and gene therapies, Dr. Mellerio discussed progress in three additional areas: gene editing, protein therapy, and drug repurposing.

Summarizing progress in each, she described improvement in levels of collagen VII, an important deficit in most types of EB, that were achieved with fibroblast injections that improved levels of collagen VII and anchoring fibrils in a study published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. Injection of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) have been associated with reduced pain and itch in a series of studies, one of the earliest of which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Since that time, there have been several approaches using MSC.

Of these approaches, intravenous injection of ABCB5+ MSCs might be the first to gain regulatory approval. According to Dr. Mellerio, there is an ongoing phase 3 crossover trial evaluating this approach, which followed several earlier phase studies that demonstrated adequate safety and tolerability while reducing severity scores, relieving pain and itch, and improving wound closure in patients with EB.

In 2006, correction of junctional EB (JEB) was achieved by transplantation of genetically modified epidermal cells to replace the LAMB3 gene, thereby restoring production of laminin 332, which is an essential component of the dermal-epidermal junction, according to Dr. Mellerio, citing a study in Nature Medicine.

The next attempt with this approach did not take place until 2015, resurrected to save the life of a 7-year-old Syrian boy – to generate epidermal sheets that eventually covered 80% of his body. The success is supporting further work on this approach but has also been an inspiration to other gene therapies, including a topical gene therapy recently approved in the United States.

Topically applied beremagene geperpavec (Vyjuvek, formerly known as B-VEC) was approved by the FDA in May for treating wounds in patients 6 months of age and older, with recessive or dominant dystrophic EB, on the basis of a phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, but others are coming. Dr. Mellerio also described a recently completed phase 3 trial with introduction of ex vivo gene-corrected keratinocytes, which has been associated with long-term improvements among patients with recessive dystrophic EB (RDEB). The responses in early phase studies included wound healing and reduction in pain and itch.

Perhaps less advanced but still promising, protein therapy, gene editing, and repurposing of existing therapies are all approaches that are moving forward. Many are supported by at least some clinical data, according to Dr. Mellerio.

As an example of protein therapy, a completed phase I/II trial associated recombinant human collagen with wound healing and pain reduction in RDEB. This study provided proof of principle for a therapy that could be applied topically or intravenously. Further development is anticipated.

Multiple platforms for gene editing have been described with the goal of simply excising pathogenic mutations or antisense oligonucleotides for sustained or permanent control of EB expression. Clinical evidence is limited, but Dr. Mellerio suggested that the theoretical potential for eliminating the source of abnormal transcription is the restoration of functional proteins essential for reversing skin fragility.

In some cases, existing drugs have the same potential. Dr. Mellerio described efforts to use an aminoglycoside to circumvent nonsense mutations that produce messenger RNA decay and impaired production of the proteins that prevent EB. In a pilot study evaluating topical gentamicin in RDEB, there were substantial improvements at 1 month and 3 months in several measures of skin fragility and encouraged studies that are now ongoing in both RDEB and JEB.

More than promising, a multinational randomized phase 3 study with birch bark extract recently published in the British Journal of Dermatology, associated treatment with this topical gel, known as Oleogel-S10, with higher rates of complete wound closure at 45 days (41.3% vs. 28.9% in the control vehicle arm) and a low risk of adverse events.

“This therapy is now approved in Europe and the United Kingdom, although, unfortunately, it is not yet available in the United States,” Dr. Mellerio noted.

Importantly, none of these therapies are necessarily effective across subtypes of EB, which often have different underlying pathogenic mechanisms, she said. However, the growing sophistication with which the pathophysiology of these subtypes is understood makes the numerous treatments in the pipeline “exciting.”

“We are at a point where we can really start to think of personalized medicine in EB,” Dr. Mellerio said. With the clinical advances already available and those expected, she suggested the recently approved treatment options are just the beginning. She expects the treatment landscape to evolve quickly over the next few years.

This does not appear to be a personal opinion. Another prominent researcher in EB, M. Peter Marinkovich, MD, director of the Stanford Bullous Disease and Psoriasis Clinics at Stanford (Calif.) University, is seeing the same real-world promise of therapies that have been in gestation for a decade or more.

“Dr. Mellerio is right. This is an exciting time for EB patients,” Dr. Marinkovich said in an interview. While the approval of B-VEC, the first gene therapy for EB, is the proof, Dr. Marinkovich, the lead author of the NEJM paper on B-VEC, noted that “many other potential EB therapies are being studied right now.” Based on promise in earlier clinical studies with many of these agents, he, like Dr. Mellerio, expects progress in real-world treatments for EB to accelerate.

Dr. Mellerio reported financial relationships with Amryt Pharma and Krystal Biotech. Dr. Marinkovich receives research support from Abeona Therapeutics, Castle Creek Pharmaceuticals, Krystal Biotech, Phoenix Tissue Repair, and WINGS Therapeutics.

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

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – Epidermolysis bullosa (EB), a heterogeneous congenital condition of skin fragility, received its first U.S. Food and Drug Association–approved gene therapy only a few months ago, but accelerated progress across multiple treatment strategies predicts additional important and perhaps dramatic further progress, according to a prominent EB researcher.

Not only are recent developments in EB “exciting,” the progress on multiple fronts for control of disease or its symptoms suggests “we are on the cusp of a new era,” Jemima Mellerio, BSc, MD, a consultant dermatologist, St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, London, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Published clinical studies of cell therapies and gene therapies date back at least 15 years, according to a review by Dr. Mellerio on why developments are starting to move so quickly. The difference now is that many obstacles to routine use of these options are being resolved so that viable strategies have reached or are reaching phase 3 trials.

In addition to cell therapies and gene therapies, Dr. Mellerio discussed progress in three additional areas: gene editing, protein therapy, and drug repurposing.

Summarizing progress in each, she described improvement in levels of collagen VII, an important deficit in most types of EB, that were achieved with fibroblast injections that improved levels of collagen VII and anchoring fibrils in a study published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. Injection of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) have been associated with reduced pain and itch in a series of studies, one of the earliest of which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Since that time, there have been several approaches using MSC.

Of these approaches, intravenous injection of ABCB5+ MSCs might be the first to gain regulatory approval. According to Dr. Mellerio, there is an ongoing phase 3 crossover trial evaluating this approach, which followed several earlier phase studies that demonstrated adequate safety and tolerability while reducing severity scores, relieving pain and itch, and improving wound closure in patients with EB.

In 2006, correction of junctional EB (JEB) was achieved by transplantation of genetically modified epidermal cells to replace the LAMB3 gene, thereby restoring production of laminin 332, which is an essential component of the dermal-epidermal junction, according to Dr. Mellerio, citing a study in Nature Medicine.

The next attempt with this approach did not take place until 2015, resurrected to save the life of a 7-year-old Syrian boy – to generate epidermal sheets that eventually covered 80% of his body. The success is supporting further work on this approach but has also been an inspiration to other gene therapies, including a topical gene therapy recently approved in the United States.

Topically applied beremagene geperpavec (Vyjuvek, formerly known as B-VEC) was approved by the FDA in May for treating wounds in patients 6 months of age and older, with recessive or dominant dystrophic EB, on the basis of a phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, but others are coming. Dr. Mellerio also described a recently completed phase 3 trial with introduction of ex vivo gene-corrected keratinocytes, which has been associated with long-term improvements among patients with recessive dystrophic EB (RDEB). The responses in early phase studies included wound healing and reduction in pain and itch.

Perhaps less advanced but still promising, protein therapy, gene editing, and repurposing of existing therapies are all approaches that are moving forward. Many are supported by at least some clinical data, according to Dr. Mellerio.

As an example of protein therapy, a completed phase I/II trial associated recombinant human collagen with wound healing and pain reduction in RDEB. This study provided proof of principle for a therapy that could be applied topically or intravenously. Further development is anticipated.

Multiple platforms for gene editing have been described with the goal of simply excising pathogenic mutations or antisense oligonucleotides for sustained or permanent control of EB expression. Clinical evidence is limited, but Dr. Mellerio suggested that the theoretical potential for eliminating the source of abnormal transcription is the restoration of functional proteins essential for reversing skin fragility.

In some cases, existing drugs have the same potential. Dr. Mellerio described efforts to use an aminoglycoside to circumvent nonsense mutations that produce messenger RNA decay and impaired production of the proteins that prevent EB. In a pilot study evaluating topical gentamicin in RDEB, there were substantial improvements at 1 month and 3 months in several measures of skin fragility and encouraged studies that are now ongoing in both RDEB and JEB.

More than promising, a multinational randomized phase 3 study with birch bark extract recently published in the British Journal of Dermatology, associated treatment with this topical gel, known as Oleogel-S10, with higher rates of complete wound closure at 45 days (41.3% vs. 28.9% in the control vehicle arm) and a low risk of adverse events.

“This therapy is now approved in Europe and the United Kingdom, although, unfortunately, it is not yet available in the United States,” Dr. Mellerio noted.

Importantly, none of these therapies are necessarily effective across subtypes of EB, which often have different underlying pathogenic mechanisms, she said. However, the growing sophistication with which the pathophysiology of these subtypes is understood makes the numerous treatments in the pipeline “exciting.”

“We are at a point where we can really start to think of personalized medicine in EB,” Dr. Mellerio said. With the clinical advances already available and those expected, she suggested the recently approved treatment options are just the beginning. She expects the treatment landscape to evolve quickly over the next few years.

This does not appear to be a personal opinion. Another prominent researcher in EB, M. Peter Marinkovich, MD, director of the Stanford Bullous Disease and Psoriasis Clinics at Stanford (Calif.) University, is seeing the same real-world promise of therapies that have been in gestation for a decade or more.

“Dr. Mellerio is right. This is an exciting time for EB patients,” Dr. Marinkovich said in an interview. While the approval of B-VEC, the first gene therapy for EB, is the proof, Dr. Marinkovich, the lead author of the NEJM paper on B-VEC, noted that “many other potential EB therapies are being studied right now.” Based on promise in earlier clinical studies with many of these agents, he, like Dr. Mellerio, expects progress in real-world treatments for EB to accelerate.

Dr. Mellerio reported financial relationships with Amryt Pharma and Krystal Biotech. Dr. Marinkovich receives research support from Abeona Therapeutics, Castle Creek Pharmaceuticals, Krystal Biotech, Phoenix Tissue Repair, and WINGS Therapeutics.

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

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – Epidermolysis bullosa (EB), a heterogeneous congenital condition of skin fragility, received its first U.S. Food and Drug Association–approved gene therapy only a few months ago, but accelerated progress across multiple treatment strategies predicts additional important and perhaps dramatic further progress, according to a prominent EB researcher.

Not only are recent developments in EB “exciting,” the progress on multiple fronts for control of disease or its symptoms suggests “we are on the cusp of a new era,” Jemima Mellerio, BSc, MD, a consultant dermatologist, St. John’s Institute of Dermatology, London, said at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

Published clinical studies of cell therapies and gene therapies date back at least 15 years, according to a review by Dr. Mellerio on why developments are starting to move so quickly. The difference now is that many obstacles to routine use of these options are being resolved so that viable strategies have reached or are reaching phase 3 trials.

In addition to cell therapies and gene therapies, Dr. Mellerio discussed progress in three additional areas: gene editing, protein therapy, and drug repurposing.

Summarizing progress in each, she described improvement in levels of collagen VII, an important deficit in most types of EB, that were achieved with fibroblast injections that improved levels of collagen VII and anchoring fibrils in a study published in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology. Injection of mesenchymal stromal cells (MSC) have been associated with reduced pain and itch in a series of studies, one of the earliest of which was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Since that time, there have been several approaches using MSC.

Of these approaches, intravenous injection of ABCB5+ MSCs might be the first to gain regulatory approval. According to Dr. Mellerio, there is an ongoing phase 3 crossover trial evaluating this approach, which followed several earlier phase studies that demonstrated adequate safety and tolerability while reducing severity scores, relieving pain and itch, and improving wound closure in patients with EB.

In 2006, correction of junctional EB (JEB) was achieved by transplantation of genetically modified epidermal cells to replace the LAMB3 gene, thereby restoring production of laminin 332, which is an essential component of the dermal-epidermal junction, according to Dr. Mellerio, citing a study in Nature Medicine.

The next attempt with this approach did not take place until 2015, resurrected to save the life of a 7-year-old Syrian boy – to generate epidermal sheets that eventually covered 80% of his body. The success is supporting further work on this approach but has also been an inspiration to other gene therapies, including a topical gene therapy recently approved in the United States.

Topically applied beremagene geperpavec (Vyjuvek, formerly known as B-VEC) was approved by the FDA in May for treating wounds in patients 6 months of age and older, with recessive or dominant dystrophic EB, on the basis of a phase 3 trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine, but others are coming. Dr. Mellerio also described a recently completed phase 3 trial with introduction of ex vivo gene-corrected keratinocytes, which has been associated with long-term improvements among patients with recessive dystrophic EB (RDEB). The responses in early phase studies included wound healing and reduction in pain and itch.

Perhaps less advanced but still promising, protein therapy, gene editing, and repurposing of existing therapies are all approaches that are moving forward. Many are supported by at least some clinical data, according to Dr. Mellerio.

As an example of protein therapy, a completed phase I/II trial associated recombinant human collagen with wound healing and pain reduction in RDEB. This study provided proof of principle for a therapy that could be applied topically or intravenously. Further development is anticipated.

Multiple platforms for gene editing have been described with the goal of simply excising pathogenic mutations or antisense oligonucleotides for sustained or permanent control of EB expression. Clinical evidence is limited, but Dr. Mellerio suggested that the theoretical potential for eliminating the source of abnormal transcription is the restoration of functional proteins essential for reversing skin fragility.

In some cases, existing drugs have the same potential. Dr. Mellerio described efforts to use an aminoglycoside to circumvent nonsense mutations that produce messenger RNA decay and impaired production of the proteins that prevent EB. In a pilot study evaluating topical gentamicin in RDEB, there were substantial improvements at 1 month and 3 months in several measures of skin fragility and encouraged studies that are now ongoing in both RDEB and JEB.

More than promising, a multinational randomized phase 3 study with birch bark extract recently published in the British Journal of Dermatology, associated treatment with this topical gel, known as Oleogel-S10, with higher rates of complete wound closure at 45 days (41.3% vs. 28.9% in the control vehicle arm) and a low risk of adverse events.

“This therapy is now approved in Europe and the United Kingdom, although, unfortunately, it is not yet available in the United States,” Dr. Mellerio noted.

Importantly, none of these therapies are necessarily effective across subtypes of EB, which often have different underlying pathogenic mechanisms, she said. However, the growing sophistication with which the pathophysiology of these subtypes is understood makes the numerous treatments in the pipeline “exciting.”

“We are at a point where we can really start to think of personalized medicine in EB,” Dr. Mellerio said. With the clinical advances already available and those expected, she suggested the recently approved treatment options are just the beginning. She expects the treatment landscape to evolve quickly over the next few years.

This does not appear to be a personal opinion. Another prominent researcher in EB, M. Peter Marinkovich, MD, director of the Stanford Bullous Disease and Psoriasis Clinics at Stanford (Calif.) University, is seeing the same real-world promise of therapies that have been in gestation for a decade or more.

“Dr. Mellerio is right. This is an exciting time for EB patients,” Dr. Marinkovich said in an interview. While the approval of B-VEC, the first gene therapy for EB, is the proof, Dr. Marinkovich, the lead author of the NEJM paper on B-VEC, noted that “many other potential EB therapies are being studied right now.” Based on promise in earlier clinical studies with many of these agents, he, like Dr. Mellerio, expects progress in real-world treatments for EB to accelerate.

Dr. Mellerio reported financial relationships with Amryt Pharma and Krystal Biotech. Dr. Marinkovich receives research support from Abeona Therapeutics, Castle Creek Pharmaceuticals, Krystal Biotech, Phoenix Tissue Repair, and WINGS Therapeutics.

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

Testing children with acute sinusitis symptoms for specific bacteria may dramatically decrease unnecessary antibiotic use, new research suggests.

The study, published in JAMA, found that children with positive nasopharyngeal tests for one or more of Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, or Moraxella catarrhalis had better resolution of symptoms with antibiotics than those without these bacteria.

If antibiotic use was limited to children with H. influenzae or S. pneumoniae in their nasopharynx at the time of diagnosis, antibiotic use would decrease by 53%, according to the study authors.

Sinusitis is common in children, and symptoms are similar with uncomplicated viral upper respiratory infections.

“We have not had a good way to predict which children will benefit from antibiotics,” said Nader Shaikh, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and clinical and translational science at the University of Pittsburgh, and the lead study author. “When a child comes in with a sore throat, we test for strep. If the test is positive, we prescribe antibiotics.”

Dr. Shaikh and his colleagues found that the same approach – swabbing the nose and testing for various bacteria – worked for children with sinusitis.

“Children who tested negative for bacteria did not benefit from antibiotics,” Dr. Shaikh said.

In the double-blind clinical trial, Dr. Shaikh and his colleagues randomized 510 children between ages 2 and 11 with acute sinusitis at six academic primary care offices over a 6-year period. Almost two-thirds of participants were between ages 2 and 5, around half were male, and around half were White. All participants had an initial score of nine or higher on the validated Pediatric Rhinosinusitis Symptom Scale (PRSS).

For 10 days, 254 children received oral amoxicillin (90 mg/kg/day) and clavulanate (6.4mg/kg/day) and 256 received placebo.

In children receiving antibiotics, symptoms resolved over a median of 7 days, compared with 9 days for those given placebo (P = .003).

Children without detected nasopharyngeal pathogens did not benefit from antibiotics as much as those with the pathogens, the researchers found. Among those with pathogens, the mean symptom burden score was 1.95 points lower in the group that received antibiotics, compared with the group that received placebo. For those without pathogens, there was a 0.88-point difference between the antibiotic and placebo groups (P = .02).

The researchers also took nasal swabs at the first and final study visits and tested for S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, and M. catarrhalis. During that time, parents or caregivers used the PRSS to assess their child’s symptoms, and they recorded the nasal discharge color. Nasal discharge color, Dr. Shaikh and colleagues found, was not linked with antibiotic effect.
 

Welcome findings

Pediatricians and primary care providers face a significant clinical dilemma when they consider using antibiotics with upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), according to John H. Greinwald Jr., MD, professor in the department of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

“These findings certainly make sense because most respiratory infections in children are viral,” Dr. Greinwald said. “The investigators follow the appropriate clinical guidelines for considering antibiotic use in patients with URTIs, which include URTI symptoms lasting longer than 10 days or symptoms initially getting better, then worsening again day 6 through 10.”

Not only is antibiotic resistance a major public health concern, but the drugs can have side effects such as diarrhea, and their long-term effects on the microbiome are unknown.

“Differentiating who has acute sinusitis from who has a viral infection is difficult for primary care providers,” said Eelam A. Adil, MD, MBA, assistant professor of otolaryngology at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

The findings may help clinicians be more selective with antibiotic prescriptions, according to Jacob G. Eide, MD, a head and neck surgeon at Henry Ford Health in Detroit.

“However, we do not want to deny antibiotics when they are beneficial,” Dr. Eide said. “And the difficulty and costs involved in developing the tests need to be considered.”

Dr. Shaikh and his team are studying ways to bring nasal testing into clinical practice, potentially utilizing commercially available molecular testing and rapid antigen tests that work like COVID-19 at-home tests. They are also exploring if other biomarkers in nasal discharge may indicate the presence of bacteria.

All study authors as well as outside experts reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

Testing children with acute sinusitis symptoms for specific bacteria may dramatically decrease unnecessary antibiotic use, new research suggests.

The study, published in JAMA, found that children with positive nasopharyngeal tests for one or more of Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, or Moraxella catarrhalis had better resolution of symptoms with antibiotics than those without these bacteria.

If antibiotic use was limited to children with H. influenzae or S. pneumoniae in their nasopharynx at the time of diagnosis, antibiotic use would decrease by 53%, according to the study authors.

Sinusitis is common in children, and symptoms are similar with uncomplicated viral upper respiratory infections.

“We have not had a good way to predict which children will benefit from antibiotics,” said Nader Shaikh, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and clinical and translational science at the University of Pittsburgh, and the lead study author. “When a child comes in with a sore throat, we test for strep. If the test is positive, we prescribe antibiotics.”

Dr. Shaikh and his colleagues found that the same approach – swabbing the nose and testing for various bacteria – worked for children with sinusitis.

“Children who tested negative for bacteria did not benefit from antibiotics,” Dr. Shaikh said.

In the double-blind clinical trial, Dr. Shaikh and his colleagues randomized 510 children between ages 2 and 11 with acute sinusitis at six academic primary care offices over a 6-year period. Almost two-thirds of participants were between ages 2 and 5, around half were male, and around half were White. All participants had an initial score of nine or higher on the validated Pediatric Rhinosinusitis Symptom Scale (PRSS).

For 10 days, 254 children received oral amoxicillin (90 mg/kg/day) and clavulanate (6.4mg/kg/day) and 256 received placebo.

In children receiving antibiotics, symptoms resolved over a median of 7 days, compared with 9 days for those given placebo (P = .003).

Children without detected nasopharyngeal pathogens did not benefit from antibiotics as much as those with the pathogens, the researchers found. Among those with pathogens, the mean symptom burden score was 1.95 points lower in the group that received antibiotics, compared with the group that received placebo. For those without pathogens, there was a 0.88-point difference between the antibiotic and placebo groups (P = .02).

The researchers also took nasal swabs at the first and final study visits and tested for S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, and M. catarrhalis. During that time, parents or caregivers used the PRSS to assess their child’s symptoms, and they recorded the nasal discharge color. Nasal discharge color, Dr. Shaikh and colleagues found, was not linked with antibiotic effect.
 

Welcome findings

Pediatricians and primary care providers face a significant clinical dilemma when they consider using antibiotics with upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), according to John H. Greinwald Jr., MD, professor in the department of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

“These findings certainly make sense because most respiratory infections in children are viral,” Dr. Greinwald said. “The investigators follow the appropriate clinical guidelines for considering antibiotic use in patients with URTIs, which include URTI symptoms lasting longer than 10 days or symptoms initially getting better, then worsening again day 6 through 10.”

Not only is antibiotic resistance a major public health concern, but the drugs can have side effects such as diarrhea, and their long-term effects on the microbiome are unknown.

“Differentiating who has acute sinusitis from who has a viral infection is difficult for primary care providers,” said Eelam A. Adil, MD, MBA, assistant professor of otolaryngology at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

The findings may help clinicians be more selective with antibiotic prescriptions, according to Jacob G. Eide, MD, a head and neck surgeon at Henry Ford Health in Detroit.

“However, we do not want to deny antibiotics when they are beneficial,” Dr. Eide said. “And the difficulty and costs involved in developing the tests need to be considered.”

Dr. Shaikh and his team are studying ways to bring nasal testing into clinical practice, potentially utilizing commercially available molecular testing and rapid antigen tests that work like COVID-19 at-home tests. They are also exploring if other biomarkers in nasal discharge may indicate the presence of bacteria.

All study authors as well as outside experts reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

Testing children with acute sinusitis symptoms for specific bacteria may dramatically decrease unnecessary antibiotic use, new research suggests.

The study, published in JAMA, found that children with positive nasopharyngeal tests for one or more of Haemophilus influenzae, Streptococcus pneumoniae, or Moraxella catarrhalis had better resolution of symptoms with antibiotics than those without these bacteria.

If antibiotic use was limited to children with H. influenzae or S. pneumoniae in their nasopharynx at the time of diagnosis, antibiotic use would decrease by 53%, according to the study authors.

Sinusitis is common in children, and symptoms are similar with uncomplicated viral upper respiratory infections.

“We have not had a good way to predict which children will benefit from antibiotics,” said Nader Shaikh, MD, MPH, professor of pediatrics and clinical and translational science at the University of Pittsburgh, and the lead study author. “When a child comes in with a sore throat, we test for strep. If the test is positive, we prescribe antibiotics.”

Dr. Shaikh and his colleagues found that the same approach – swabbing the nose and testing for various bacteria – worked for children with sinusitis.

“Children who tested negative for bacteria did not benefit from antibiotics,” Dr. Shaikh said.

In the double-blind clinical trial, Dr. Shaikh and his colleagues randomized 510 children between ages 2 and 11 with acute sinusitis at six academic primary care offices over a 6-year period. Almost two-thirds of participants were between ages 2 and 5, around half were male, and around half were White. All participants had an initial score of nine or higher on the validated Pediatric Rhinosinusitis Symptom Scale (PRSS).

For 10 days, 254 children received oral amoxicillin (90 mg/kg/day) and clavulanate (6.4mg/kg/day) and 256 received placebo.

In children receiving antibiotics, symptoms resolved over a median of 7 days, compared with 9 days for those given placebo (P = .003).

Children without detected nasopharyngeal pathogens did not benefit from antibiotics as much as those with the pathogens, the researchers found. Among those with pathogens, the mean symptom burden score was 1.95 points lower in the group that received antibiotics, compared with the group that received placebo. For those without pathogens, there was a 0.88-point difference between the antibiotic and placebo groups (P = .02).

The researchers also took nasal swabs at the first and final study visits and tested for S. pneumoniae, H. influenzae, and M. catarrhalis. During that time, parents or caregivers used the PRSS to assess their child’s symptoms, and they recorded the nasal discharge color. Nasal discharge color, Dr. Shaikh and colleagues found, was not linked with antibiotic effect.
 

Welcome findings

Pediatricians and primary care providers face a significant clinical dilemma when they consider using antibiotics with upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs), according to John H. Greinwald Jr., MD, professor in the department of pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center.

“These findings certainly make sense because most respiratory infections in children are viral,” Dr. Greinwald said. “The investigators follow the appropriate clinical guidelines for considering antibiotic use in patients with URTIs, which include URTI symptoms lasting longer than 10 days or symptoms initially getting better, then worsening again day 6 through 10.”

Not only is antibiotic resistance a major public health concern, but the drugs can have side effects such as diarrhea, and their long-term effects on the microbiome are unknown.

“Differentiating who has acute sinusitis from who has a viral infection is difficult for primary care providers,” said Eelam A. Adil, MD, MBA, assistant professor of otolaryngology at Harvard Medical School in Boston.

The findings may help clinicians be more selective with antibiotic prescriptions, according to Jacob G. Eide, MD, a head and neck surgeon at Henry Ford Health in Detroit.

“However, we do not want to deny antibiotics when they are beneficial,” Dr. Eide said. “And the difficulty and costs involved in developing the tests need to be considered.”

Dr. Shaikh and his team are studying ways to bring nasal testing into clinical practice, potentially utilizing commercially available molecular testing and rapid antigen tests that work like COVID-19 at-home tests. They are also exploring if other biomarkers in nasal discharge may indicate the presence of bacteria.

All study authors as well as outside experts reported no relevant financial relationships. The study was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

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

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – TikTok, typical of several forms of social media, has been intentionally repositioned to rival Google as a primary source of information, meaning that health care professionals, including those who provide dermatologic care to children, should be thinking about how to get on board to counter myths, erroneous facts, and fake news, warned an expert at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

“If we don’t get involved, we are basically letting misinformation win. We need to be there,” said Angelo Landriscina, MD, director of dermatology at a Mount Sinai Doctors Clinic in New York.

Most of the content currently available on medical topics, including dermatology and pediatric dermatology, is not created by health care professionals, Dr. Landriscina noted. Not surprisingly, given that much of the content is based on personal opinion from individuals who have no expertise in medical care, he described the information as being of “low quality” when not fully erroneous.

Dr. Landriscina has been active on social media, including TikTok, for several years. Most of his posts involve responses to misinformation. When he sets the record straight on the basis of existing evidence, he often supports his counterargument with references.

He acknowledged that when he became involved in social media he faced criticism from colleagues about participating on an entertainment platform that many considered unworthy of providing objective information. If that was ever true, he argued, it is no longer the case.

“TikTok has adopted a new strategy. The goal is to unseat Google as a search tool, and it’s working,” he said. He explained that many people now use TikTok and other social media sites as their primary source of information on essentially every topic, from where to eat to whether to be screened for cancer.

The particular problem with TikTok – one of the most popular social media outlets – is that there is no mechanism for vetting the source of information. YouTube, by contrast, now requires some sort of validation for anyone who claims to have a medical degree or any other verifiable qualification, according to Dr. Landriscina. TikTok, like many other platforms, has no such requirement.

“Anyone can buy a pair of scrubs [implying expertise] and then post a video,” Dr. Landriscina said.

Even if information from one content provider is more valid than information from others, the TikTok algorithm is specifically designed to emphasize content that has the potential for going viral, which means it favors videos that are provocative over those that are not.

“The algorithm favors any content that is more controversial, more surprising, and keeps viewers engaged,” Dr. Landriscina pointed out.

This does not mean that objective and factual information is ignored, but the algorithm is indifferent to the validity of information, meaning that it allows videos to be posted without regard to whether the content is true, untrue, purposefully misleading, or utter nonsense. For that reason, it is often easier to attract attention by responding to a post that has already gone viral. Information that is clear and digestible can attract viewers and therefore is distributed more widely with the TikTok algorithm.
 

Parents are on Tiktok too

There is a misperception that the TikTok audience is younger, according to Dr. Landriscina. While peak use in the United States fell among people between the ages of 25 and 34 years in 2022, he said the number of users falls off relatively slowly with subsequent 10-year increments in age. In 2022, there were nearly 20 million users in the peak 10-year age range, but 7.5 million users were 55 years of age or older.

“Pediatric dermatologists should recognize that it is not just kids who are looking for information about their skin diseases, but also their parents,” Dr. Landriscina said.

The top three dermatology topics searched on TikTok in a recent period were acne, alopecia, and cysts. But top searches are very fluid and are extremely hard to quantify, because the basis of the algorithm, which is a proprietary secret, is not only unknown but produces different results for every user.

“The second you touch the app, it changes,” Dr. Landriscina said. He explained that an inquiry about any subject, including those that are medically related, yields content that is different, or at least ordered differently, “depending on how you behaved on the app in the past.”

The phenomenon that drives social media predates this technology. Dr. Landriscina cited a study in 1956 that described the “parasocial interaction theory.” The theory was based on the observation that those who consume media, such as television, which was relatively new in 1956, believed that they had a personal relationship with media figures.

“The users begin to trust influencers as a source, like a friend providing them advice,” Dr. Landriscina said. As an example, he suggested that a fan of the television show Friends who follows actor Jennifer Aniston on social media platforms may begin to think of her as a trusted source of information on any topic, including those for which she may not have expertise.

The reason that he urges medical professionals to become active on TikTok and other social media platforms is that they have a potentially critical role in responding to information that is not just wrong but harmful.

On TikTok and other social media platforms, “there is a lot of interest in content about dermatologic conditions in children. There is a real need for accurate information,” he said,

In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, Dr. Landriscina’s message was not uniformly embraced. One risk, according to an audience member, is that medical professionals will begin to express their own personal opinions rather than rely on evidence, with the result that they will “just add to the sea of misinformation.”

However, this opinion appeared to be the minority view. Most of those who commented took a “that-ship-has-sailed” stance, recognizing the irreversible ascendancy of social media.

“Whether you like it or not, social media is here to stay. We cannot fight it. Rather, we need to embrace it in a responsible way,” said Dakara R. Wright, MD, a dermatologist at the Mid-Atlantic Kaiser Permanente Group, Halethorpe, Md. She, like others, reported that she has come to recognize that social media is a major source of medical information for her patients.

“We need to be a presence on these platforms for the benefit of our patients and their parents,” she said. She acknowledged that she has not been active in posting on social media in the past but said that she has been speaking with administrators in her organization about how to become involved in a responsible way that can be useful to patients.

Candrice R. Heath, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, has been active on social media for several years, posting content on her own account, which is not related to her academic affiliation. She posts for many reasons, not least of which is drawing attention to her expertise.

Like Dr. Landriscina, she recognizes that users of these platforms are guided by the content to make decisions about health care. She also agreed that physicians should not ignore this phenomenon.

Tips on providing content

Given the fact that the algorithm is intended to produce posts that go viral, Dr. Landriscina urged clinicians to make their content easy to watch. He said it is not necessary to overthink content beyond providing accurate information, but he advised that videos be made with attention to adequate lighting and other simple factors to promote visual quality. He said that accurate information is not necessarily dull.

“Some facts can actually be surprising to patients,” he said. He noted that a calm, coherent video can be particularly effective in attracting an audience when it is in reaction to information that has gone viral but is misleading or patently incorrect.

Dr. Landriscina has been an influencer associated with multiple social media platforms, including TikTok. He has in the past been paid for consulting work for TikTok. Dr. Wright and Dr. Heath reported no potential conflicts of interest.

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

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – TikTok, typical of several forms of social media, has been intentionally repositioned to rival Google as a primary source of information, meaning that health care professionals, including those who provide dermatologic care to children, should be thinking about how to get on board to counter myths, erroneous facts, and fake news, warned an expert at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

“If we don’t get involved, we are basically letting misinformation win. We need to be there,” said Angelo Landriscina, MD, director of dermatology at a Mount Sinai Doctors Clinic in New York.

Most of the content currently available on medical topics, including dermatology and pediatric dermatology, is not created by health care professionals, Dr. Landriscina noted. Not surprisingly, given that much of the content is based on personal opinion from individuals who have no expertise in medical care, he described the information as being of “low quality” when not fully erroneous.

Dr. Landriscina has been active on social media, including TikTok, for several years. Most of his posts involve responses to misinformation. When he sets the record straight on the basis of existing evidence, he often supports his counterargument with references.

He acknowledged that when he became involved in social media he faced criticism from colleagues about participating on an entertainment platform that many considered unworthy of providing objective information. If that was ever true, he argued, it is no longer the case.

“TikTok has adopted a new strategy. The goal is to unseat Google as a search tool, and it’s working,” he said. He explained that many people now use TikTok and other social media sites as their primary source of information on essentially every topic, from where to eat to whether to be screened for cancer.

The particular problem with TikTok – one of the most popular social media outlets – is that there is no mechanism for vetting the source of information. YouTube, by contrast, now requires some sort of validation for anyone who claims to have a medical degree or any other verifiable qualification, according to Dr. Landriscina. TikTok, like many other platforms, has no such requirement.

“Anyone can buy a pair of scrubs [implying expertise] and then post a video,” Dr. Landriscina said.

Even if information from one content provider is more valid than information from others, the TikTok algorithm is specifically designed to emphasize content that has the potential for going viral, which means it favors videos that are provocative over those that are not.

“The algorithm favors any content that is more controversial, more surprising, and keeps viewers engaged,” Dr. Landriscina pointed out.

This does not mean that objective and factual information is ignored, but the algorithm is indifferent to the validity of information, meaning that it allows videos to be posted without regard to whether the content is true, untrue, purposefully misleading, or utter nonsense. For that reason, it is often easier to attract attention by responding to a post that has already gone viral. Information that is clear and digestible can attract viewers and therefore is distributed more widely with the TikTok algorithm.
 

Parents are on Tiktok too

There is a misperception that the TikTok audience is younger, according to Dr. Landriscina. While peak use in the United States fell among people between the ages of 25 and 34 years in 2022, he said the number of users falls off relatively slowly with subsequent 10-year increments in age. In 2022, there were nearly 20 million users in the peak 10-year age range, but 7.5 million users were 55 years of age or older.

“Pediatric dermatologists should recognize that it is not just kids who are looking for information about their skin diseases, but also their parents,” Dr. Landriscina said.

The top three dermatology topics searched on TikTok in a recent period were acne, alopecia, and cysts. But top searches are very fluid and are extremely hard to quantify, because the basis of the algorithm, which is a proprietary secret, is not only unknown but produces different results for every user.

“The second you touch the app, it changes,” Dr. Landriscina said. He explained that an inquiry about any subject, including those that are medically related, yields content that is different, or at least ordered differently, “depending on how you behaved on the app in the past.”

The phenomenon that drives social media predates this technology. Dr. Landriscina cited a study in 1956 that described the “parasocial interaction theory.” The theory was based on the observation that those who consume media, such as television, which was relatively new in 1956, believed that they had a personal relationship with media figures.

“The users begin to trust influencers as a source, like a friend providing them advice,” Dr. Landriscina said. As an example, he suggested that a fan of the television show Friends who follows actor Jennifer Aniston on social media platforms may begin to think of her as a trusted source of information on any topic, including those for which she may not have expertise.

The reason that he urges medical professionals to become active on TikTok and other social media platforms is that they have a potentially critical role in responding to information that is not just wrong but harmful.

On TikTok and other social media platforms, “there is a lot of interest in content about dermatologic conditions in children. There is a real need for accurate information,” he said,

In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, Dr. Landriscina’s message was not uniformly embraced. One risk, according to an audience member, is that medical professionals will begin to express their own personal opinions rather than rely on evidence, with the result that they will “just add to the sea of misinformation.”

However, this opinion appeared to be the minority view. Most of those who commented took a “that-ship-has-sailed” stance, recognizing the irreversible ascendancy of social media.

“Whether you like it or not, social media is here to stay. We cannot fight it. Rather, we need to embrace it in a responsible way,” said Dakara R. Wright, MD, a dermatologist at the Mid-Atlantic Kaiser Permanente Group, Halethorpe, Md. She, like others, reported that she has come to recognize that social media is a major source of medical information for her patients.

“We need to be a presence on these platforms for the benefit of our patients and their parents,” she said. She acknowledged that she has not been active in posting on social media in the past but said that she has been speaking with administrators in her organization about how to become involved in a responsible way that can be useful to patients.

Candrice R. Heath, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, has been active on social media for several years, posting content on her own account, which is not related to her academic affiliation. She posts for many reasons, not least of which is drawing attention to her expertise.

Like Dr. Landriscina, she recognizes that users of these platforms are guided by the content to make decisions about health care. She also agreed that physicians should not ignore this phenomenon.

Tips on providing content

Given the fact that the algorithm is intended to produce posts that go viral, Dr. Landriscina urged clinicians to make their content easy to watch. He said it is not necessary to overthink content beyond providing accurate information, but he advised that videos be made with attention to adequate lighting and other simple factors to promote visual quality. He said that accurate information is not necessarily dull.

“Some facts can actually be surprising to patients,” he said. He noted that a calm, coherent video can be particularly effective in attracting an audience when it is in reaction to information that has gone viral but is misleading or patently incorrect.

Dr. Landriscina has been an influencer associated with multiple social media platforms, including TikTok. He has in the past been paid for consulting work for TikTok. Dr. Wright and Dr. Heath reported no potential conflicts of interest.

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

ASHEVILLE, N.C. – TikTok, typical of several forms of social media, has been intentionally repositioned to rival Google as a primary source of information, meaning that health care professionals, including those who provide dermatologic care to children, should be thinking about how to get on board to counter myths, erroneous facts, and fake news, warned an expert at the annual meeting of the Society for Pediatric Dermatology.

“If we don’t get involved, we are basically letting misinformation win. We need to be there,” said Angelo Landriscina, MD, director of dermatology at a Mount Sinai Doctors Clinic in New York.

Most of the content currently available on medical topics, including dermatology and pediatric dermatology, is not created by health care professionals, Dr. Landriscina noted. Not surprisingly, given that much of the content is based on personal opinion from individuals who have no expertise in medical care, he described the information as being of “low quality” when not fully erroneous.

Dr. Landriscina has been active on social media, including TikTok, for several years. Most of his posts involve responses to misinformation. When he sets the record straight on the basis of existing evidence, he often supports his counterargument with references.

He acknowledged that when he became involved in social media he faced criticism from colleagues about participating on an entertainment platform that many considered unworthy of providing objective information. If that was ever true, he argued, it is no longer the case.

“TikTok has adopted a new strategy. The goal is to unseat Google as a search tool, and it’s working,” he said. He explained that many people now use TikTok and other social media sites as their primary source of information on essentially every topic, from where to eat to whether to be screened for cancer.

The particular problem with TikTok – one of the most popular social media outlets – is that there is no mechanism for vetting the source of information. YouTube, by contrast, now requires some sort of validation for anyone who claims to have a medical degree or any other verifiable qualification, according to Dr. Landriscina. TikTok, like many other platforms, has no such requirement.

“Anyone can buy a pair of scrubs [implying expertise] and then post a video,” Dr. Landriscina said.

Even if information from one content provider is more valid than information from others, the TikTok algorithm is specifically designed to emphasize content that has the potential for going viral, which means it favors videos that are provocative over those that are not.

“The algorithm favors any content that is more controversial, more surprising, and keeps viewers engaged,” Dr. Landriscina pointed out.

This does not mean that objective and factual information is ignored, but the algorithm is indifferent to the validity of information, meaning that it allows videos to be posted without regard to whether the content is true, untrue, purposefully misleading, or utter nonsense. For that reason, it is often easier to attract attention by responding to a post that has already gone viral. Information that is clear and digestible can attract viewers and therefore is distributed more widely with the TikTok algorithm.
 

Parents are on Tiktok too

There is a misperception that the TikTok audience is younger, according to Dr. Landriscina. While peak use in the United States fell among people between the ages of 25 and 34 years in 2022, he said the number of users falls off relatively slowly with subsequent 10-year increments in age. In 2022, there were nearly 20 million users in the peak 10-year age range, but 7.5 million users were 55 years of age or older.

“Pediatric dermatologists should recognize that it is not just kids who are looking for information about their skin diseases, but also their parents,” Dr. Landriscina said.

The top three dermatology topics searched on TikTok in a recent period were acne, alopecia, and cysts. But top searches are very fluid and are extremely hard to quantify, because the basis of the algorithm, which is a proprietary secret, is not only unknown but produces different results for every user.

“The second you touch the app, it changes,” Dr. Landriscina said. He explained that an inquiry about any subject, including those that are medically related, yields content that is different, or at least ordered differently, “depending on how you behaved on the app in the past.”

The phenomenon that drives social media predates this technology. Dr. Landriscina cited a study in 1956 that described the “parasocial interaction theory.” The theory was based on the observation that those who consume media, such as television, which was relatively new in 1956, believed that they had a personal relationship with media figures.

“The users begin to trust influencers as a source, like a friend providing them advice,” Dr. Landriscina said. As an example, he suggested that a fan of the television show Friends who follows actor Jennifer Aniston on social media platforms may begin to think of her as a trusted source of information on any topic, including those for which she may not have expertise.

The reason that he urges medical professionals to become active on TikTok and other social media platforms is that they have a potentially critical role in responding to information that is not just wrong but harmful.

On TikTok and other social media platforms, “there is a lot of interest in content about dermatologic conditions in children. There is a real need for accurate information,” he said,

In the question-and-answer session following his presentation, Dr. Landriscina’s message was not uniformly embraced. One risk, according to an audience member, is that medical professionals will begin to express their own personal opinions rather than rely on evidence, with the result that they will “just add to the sea of misinformation.”

However, this opinion appeared to be the minority view. Most of those who commented took a “that-ship-has-sailed” stance, recognizing the irreversible ascendancy of social media.

“Whether you like it or not, social media is here to stay. We cannot fight it. Rather, we need to embrace it in a responsible way,” said Dakara R. Wright, MD, a dermatologist at the Mid-Atlantic Kaiser Permanente Group, Halethorpe, Md. She, like others, reported that she has come to recognize that social media is a major source of medical information for her patients.

“We need to be a presence on these platforms for the benefit of our patients and their parents,” she said. She acknowledged that she has not been active in posting on social media in the past but said that she has been speaking with administrators in her organization about how to become involved in a responsible way that can be useful to patients.

Candrice R. Heath, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Temple University, Philadelphia, has been active on social media for several years, posting content on her own account, which is not related to her academic affiliation. She posts for many reasons, not least of which is drawing attention to her expertise.

Like Dr. Landriscina, she recognizes that users of these platforms are guided by the content to make decisions about health care. She also agreed that physicians should not ignore this phenomenon.

Tips on providing content

Given the fact that the algorithm is intended to produce posts that go viral, Dr. Landriscina urged clinicians to make their content easy to watch. He said it is not necessary to overthink content beyond providing accurate information, but he advised that videos be made with attention to adequate lighting and other simple factors to promote visual quality. He said that accurate information is not necessarily dull.

“Some facts can actually be surprising to patients,” he said. He noted that a calm, coherent video can be particularly effective in attracting an audience when it is in reaction to information that has gone viral but is misleading or patently incorrect.

Dr. Landriscina has been an influencer associated with multiple social media platforms, including TikTok. He has in the past been paid for consulting work for TikTok. Dr. Wright and Dr. Heath reported no potential conflicts of interest.

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

TOPLINE

A new American Academy of Pediatrics study reveals that 17.2% of toddlers started but did not finish at least one recommended early childhood vaccine series.

METHODOLOGY

• Examined data collected in 2019 from the National Immunization Survey – Child.
• 16,365 children ages 19-35 months were included.
• Vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, pneumococcal infections, Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella were included.

TAKEAWAY

• 72.9% of toddlers completed the seven-vaccine series.
• 17.2% initiated but did not complete one or more of a multidose vaccine series.
• The strongest association with not completing the vaccine series was moving across state lines and not having insurance.
• Children with more siblings at home were less likely to complete a vaccine series.

IN PRACTICE

The study suggests that the “children experienced structural barriers to vaccination,” and the authors urge an “increased focus on strategies to encourage multidose series completion ... to optimize protection from preventable diseases and achieve vaccination coverage goals.”

SOURCE

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and published online July 25 in Pediatrics. Sarah Y. Michels, an epidemiology specialist from the University of Montana in Missoula, was the lead author.

LIMITATIONS

Though the researchers studied the risk factors for series noncompletion, they did not have information on the specific reasons why children were missing vaccine doses. Children whose parents chose to participate in the National Immunization Survey – Child may have had higher vaccination coverage than children whose parents declined participation.

DISCLOSURES

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE

A new American Academy of Pediatrics study reveals that 17.2% of toddlers started but did not finish at least one recommended early childhood vaccine series.

METHODOLOGY

• Examined data collected in 2019 from the National Immunization Survey – Child.
• 16,365 children ages 19-35 months were included.
• Vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, pneumococcal infections, Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella were included.

TAKEAWAY

• 72.9% of toddlers completed the seven-vaccine series.
• 17.2% initiated but did not complete one or more of a multidose vaccine series.
• The strongest association with not completing the vaccine series was moving across state lines and not having insurance.
• Children with more siblings at home were less likely to complete a vaccine series.

IN PRACTICE

The study suggests that the “children experienced structural barriers to vaccination,” and the authors urge an “increased focus on strategies to encourage multidose series completion ... to optimize protection from preventable diseases and achieve vaccination coverage goals.”

SOURCE

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and published online July 25 in Pediatrics. Sarah Y. Michels, an epidemiology specialist from the University of Montana in Missoula, was the lead author.

LIMITATIONS

Though the researchers studied the risk factors for series noncompletion, they did not have information on the specific reasons why children were missing vaccine doses. Children whose parents chose to participate in the National Immunization Survey – Child may have had higher vaccination coverage than children whose parents declined participation.

DISCLOSURES

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

TOPLINE

A new American Academy of Pediatrics study reveals that 17.2% of toddlers started but did not finish at least one recommended early childhood vaccine series.

METHODOLOGY

• Examined data collected in 2019 from the National Immunization Survey – Child.
• 16,365 children ages 19-35 months were included.
• Vaccines for diphtheria, tetanus, acellular pertussis, pneumococcal infections, Haemophilus influenzae type b, hepatitis B, polio, measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella were included.

TAKEAWAY

• 72.9% of toddlers completed the seven-vaccine series.
• 17.2% initiated but did not complete one or more of a multidose vaccine series.
• The strongest association with not completing the vaccine series was moving across state lines and not having insurance.
• Children with more siblings at home were less likely to complete a vaccine series.

IN PRACTICE

The study suggests that the “children experienced structural barriers to vaccination,” and the authors urge an “increased focus on strategies to encourage multidose series completion ... to optimize protection from preventable diseases and achieve vaccination coverage goals.”

SOURCE

The study was funded by the National Institutes of Health and published online July 25 in Pediatrics. Sarah Y. Michels, an epidemiology specialist from the University of Montana in Missoula, was the lead author.

LIMITATIONS

Though the researchers studied the risk factors for series noncompletion, they did not have information on the specific reasons why children were missing vaccine doses. Children whose parents chose to participate in the National Immunization Survey – Child may have had higher vaccination coverage than children whose parents declined participation.

DISCLOSURES

The authors have reported no relevant financial relationships.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonstimulant treatment options

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Paradigm shift’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Real-world study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonstimulant treatment options

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Paradigm shift’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Real-world study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nonstimulant treatment options

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Paradigm shift’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Real-world study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The product will be marketed as Ycanth.

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

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

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

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

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

The product will be marketed as Ycanth.

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

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

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

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

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

The product will be marketed as Ycanth.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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