MDedge Dermatology

Misinformation and outdated protocols contribute to the suboptimal management of anaphylaxis by patients and healthcare professionals, based on data from two new studies presented at the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Annual Scientific Meeting.

Anaphylaxis can strike suddenly, and many patients and caregivers at risk do not know which symptoms to treat with epinephrine, said Joni Chow, DO, of Baylor College of Medicine, San Antonio, Texas, in her presentation at the meeting.

“Early identification of anaphylaxis and early intervention with epinephrine are critical for improving patient outcomes,” Chow said in an interview.

“Many allergic reactions occur in community settings, where written action plans serve to instruct patients and caregivers on how to recognize and respond to these emergencies,” she said. “Currently, anaphylaxis action plans are developed based on the consensus of healthcare professionals, with limited information available on the preferences of patients and caregivers,” she noted. However, even with action plans, many patients and families struggle to recognize and manage severe allergic reactions effectively, she added.

In response to this issue, Chow and colleagues created a survey designed to assess the understanding of anaphylaxis recognition and management by patients and caregivers and to identify their preferences regarding the elements included in the action plans.

In the study, Chow and colleagues surveyed 96 patients and caregivers in an allergy clinic waiting room. The majority (95%) of the patients were prescribed epinephrine. Although 73% said they were comfortable identifying signs of anaphylaxis, only 14% said they were likely to use epinephrine as a first-line treatment.

The most common reason given for avoiding epinephrine was uncertainty over which symptoms to treat (40.6%), followed by hesitancy to visit an emergency department (24%), hesitancy to call 911 (17.7%), uncertainty about how to use epinephrine auto-injectors (11.5%), and fear of needles (5.2%).

Although 85% of the respondents understood that antihistamine use does not prevent the need for epinephrine in cases of anaphylactic reactions, 23.7% said they would use an antihistamine as the first treatment in these cases.

For patients with rash and wheezing after a suspected allergen exposure, approximately two thirds (64.5%) of the respondents said they would inject epinephrine and 10.8% would drive to the emergency room before taking any action, Chow said in her presentation.

The relatively low impact of fear of needles was unexpected, as fear of needles is considered a significant deterrent to epinephrine use, Chow told this news organization. “However, our respondents were more inclined to acknowledge a reluctance to escalate to emergency response as the major barrier to treatment,” she said.

The survey also asked patients what features of an anaphylaxis action plan would be most helpful. A majority of respondents (93%) rated a section for the management of mild (non-anaphylactic) allergic reaction symptoms as somewhat or very important. Visual aids for injection of epinephrine and visuals of anaphylaxis symptoms also ranked as somewhat or very important for 87.6% and 81% of respondents, respectively.

The study highlights the importance of educating allergy patients on recognizing and treating anaphylaxis and demonstrates that visuals were preferred in this survey population, Chow said. “Most patients and caregivers from our surveyed population report knowing how to treat anaphylaxis, but many would not use epinephrine as the first treatment,” she noted.

“The study focused on a single community clinic, and it would be beneficial to gather feedback from patients and caregivers representing a wider variety of educational, cultural, social, and socioeconomic backgrounds,” Chow told this news organization. “Additionally, input from other stakeholders, such as school nurses, would enhance knowledge,” she said.
 

Clinical Anaphylaxis Protocols Fall Short

A second study presented at the meeting showed the need to improve anaphylaxis education for clinicians.

Discrepancies in anaphylaxis management include variations in the definition and treatment of the condition, according to Carly Gunderson, DO, of Memorial Healthcare System, Pembroke Pines, Florida, who presented the study at the meeting.

“So often, we see patients in our office with a history of symptoms that meet criteria for anaphylaxis, yet when they call 911 and emergency medical services (EMS) arrive, they never receive epinephrine,” Gunderson said in an interview. “They receive antihistamines, steroids, everything except epinephrine, which is incredibly concerning given that epinephrine is always the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis,” she said.

“Because EMS providers are often the first healthcare professionals to assess patients experiencing anaphylaxis, their ability to recognize and appropriately treat anaphylaxis is essential,” Gunderson emphasized.

Gunderson and colleagues analyzed data from 30 states with mandatory Advanced Cardiac Life Support protocols to identify gaps in recognizing anaphylaxis and areas for improvement in prehospital management.

Only 15 states (50%) included gastrointestinal symptoms in the definition of anaphylaxis, 40% included neurologic manifestations, and 47% used a two-organ system definition, Gunderson noted in her presentation.

All 30 state protocols recommended diphenhydramine and epinephrine for anaphylactic reactions, 90% recommended albuterol if respiratory symptoms were present, 73% recommended intravenous fluids, and 60% recommended steroids. All but one of the state protocols listed epinephrine as the first-line recommendation for anaphylaxis; 25 states allowed epinephrine autoinjectors and 17 provided autoinjectors.

“We were shocked by how many protocols didn’t include gastrointestinal (abdominal pain, vomiting) or neurologic (lethargy, altered mental status) manifestations, when these are common presenting symptoms of anaphylaxis,” Gunderson told this news organization.

“We were also disappointed by how many protocols continue to recommend outdated interventions such as first-generation antihistamines and corticosteroids in the treatment of anaphylaxis,” she said.

Although anaphylaxis management has come a long way, the current study suggests that there is clearly room for improvement in the education of healthcare providers on how to identify and treat anaphylaxis, said Gunderson. “Most people think of anaphylaxis as the typical ‘face swelling up, throat closing’ type of reaction, which it can be, but in reality, there are so many other ways that it can present,” she said. “Healthcare providers must be aware of all of these possible manifestations so that we can treat in a timely manner to improve outcomes,” she added.

Limitations of the study included the focus only on states with mandatory or model EMS protocols, Gunderson told this news organization. As for additional research, the most important next steps are practical ones, namely, identifying ways to realistically implement necessary protocol changes, she said.
 

Real-World Data Support Need for Education

Real-world studies are important to identify current practice and opportunities for improvement, S. Shahzad Mustafa, MD, lead physician in allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at Rochester Regional Health and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, said in an interview.

“Management of anaphylaxis continues to evolve, and studies like these can help standardize evidence-based care across different medical settings, such as emergency medical services, urgent care, and emergency departments,” said Mustafa, who was not involved in either study.

The findings of the two studies were not unexpected, Mustafa said. “Heterogeneity in medical care is well recognized in numerous conditions, and anaphylaxis is no different. Patients and healthcare providers continue to have hesitation to use epinephrine and continue to overly rely on antihistamines and/or systemic steroids,” he noted.

For both studies, the takeaway message is that education is paramount to optimize anaphylaxis management, Mustafa told this news organization. “Education needs to focus on timely recognition of anaphylaxis, including atypical features such as gastrointestinal symptoms, and appropriate therapy with epinephrine,” he said.

Looking ahead, “research demonstrating differences in clinical outcomes with differing approaches to anaphylaxis may highlight the importance of early recognition and treatment with epinephrine,” said Mustafa. Management of anaphylaxis also lends itself to quality improvement studies, he added.

Neither of the studies received any outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Mustafa had no disclosures related to anaphylaxis but disclosed serving on the speakers’ bureau for Genentech, GSK, AstraZeneca, Regeneron/Sanofi, and CSL Behring and received grants from Takeda.
 

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

Misinformation and outdated protocols contribute to the suboptimal management of anaphylaxis by patients and healthcare professionals, based on data from two new studies presented at the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Annual Scientific Meeting.

Anaphylaxis can strike suddenly, and many patients and caregivers at risk do not know which symptoms to treat with epinephrine, said Joni Chow, DO, of Baylor College of Medicine, San Antonio, Texas, in her presentation at the meeting.

“Early identification of anaphylaxis and early intervention with epinephrine are critical for improving patient outcomes,” Chow said in an interview.

“Many allergic reactions occur in community settings, where written action plans serve to instruct patients and caregivers on how to recognize and respond to these emergencies,” she said. “Currently, anaphylaxis action plans are developed based on the consensus of healthcare professionals, with limited information available on the preferences of patients and caregivers,” she noted. However, even with action plans, many patients and families struggle to recognize and manage severe allergic reactions effectively, she added.

In response to this issue, Chow and colleagues created a survey designed to assess the understanding of anaphylaxis recognition and management by patients and caregivers and to identify their preferences regarding the elements included in the action plans.

In the study, Chow and colleagues surveyed 96 patients and caregivers in an allergy clinic waiting room. The majority (95%) of the patients were prescribed epinephrine. Although 73% said they were comfortable identifying signs of anaphylaxis, only 14% said they were likely to use epinephrine as a first-line treatment.

The most common reason given for avoiding epinephrine was uncertainty over which symptoms to treat (40.6%), followed by hesitancy to visit an emergency department (24%), hesitancy to call 911 (17.7%), uncertainty about how to use epinephrine auto-injectors (11.5%), and fear of needles (5.2%).

Although 85% of the respondents understood that antihistamine use does not prevent the need for epinephrine in cases of anaphylactic reactions, 23.7% said they would use an antihistamine as the first treatment in these cases.

For patients with rash and wheezing after a suspected allergen exposure, approximately two thirds (64.5%) of the respondents said they would inject epinephrine and 10.8% would drive to the emergency room before taking any action, Chow said in her presentation.

The relatively low impact of fear of needles was unexpected, as fear of needles is considered a significant deterrent to epinephrine use, Chow told this news organization. “However, our respondents were more inclined to acknowledge a reluctance to escalate to emergency response as the major barrier to treatment,” she said.

The survey also asked patients what features of an anaphylaxis action plan would be most helpful. A majority of respondents (93%) rated a section for the management of mild (non-anaphylactic) allergic reaction symptoms as somewhat or very important. Visual aids for injection of epinephrine and visuals of anaphylaxis symptoms also ranked as somewhat or very important for 87.6% and 81% of respondents, respectively.

The study highlights the importance of educating allergy patients on recognizing and treating anaphylaxis and demonstrates that visuals were preferred in this survey population, Chow said. “Most patients and caregivers from our surveyed population report knowing how to treat anaphylaxis, but many would not use epinephrine as the first treatment,” she noted.

“The study focused on a single community clinic, and it would be beneficial to gather feedback from patients and caregivers representing a wider variety of educational, cultural, social, and socioeconomic backgrounds,” Chow told this news organization. “Additionally, input from other stakeholders, such as school nurses, would enhance knowledge,” she said.
 

Clinical Anaphylaxis Protocols Fall Short

A second study presented at the meeting showed the need to improve anaphylaxis education for clinicians.

Discrepancies in anaphylaxis management include variations in the definition and treatment of the condition, according to Carly Gunderson, DO, of Memorial Healthcare System, Pembroke Pines, Florida, who presented the study at the meeting.

“So often, we see patients in our office with a history of symptoms that meet criteria for anaphylaxis, yet when they call 911 and emergency medical services (EMS) arrive, they never receive epinephrine,” Gunderson said in an interview. “They receive antihistamines, steroids, everything except epinephrine, which is incredibly concerning given that epinephrine is always the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis,” she said.

“Because EMS providers are often the first healthcare professionals to assess patients experiencing anaphylaxis, their ability to recognize and appropriately treat anaphylaxis is essential,” Gunderson emphasized.

Gunderson and colleagues analyzed data from 30 states with mandatory Advanced Cardiac Life Support protocols to identify gaps in recognizing anaphylaxis and areas for improvement in prehospital management.

Only 15 states (50%) included gastrointestinal symptoms in the definition of anaphylaxis, 40% included neurologic manifestations, and 47% used a two-organ system definition, Gunderson noted in her presentation.

All 30 state protocols recommended diphenhydramine and epinephrine for anaphylactic reactions, 90% recommended albuterol if respiratory symptoms were present, 73% recommended intravenous fluids, and 60% recommended steroids. All but one of the state protocols listed epinephrine as the first-line recommendation for anaphylaxis; 25 states allowed epinephrine autoinjectors and 17 provided autoinjectors.

“We were shocked by how many protocols didn’t include gastrointestinal (abdominal pain, vomiting) or neurologic (lethargy, altered mental status) manifestations, when these are common presenting symptoms of anaphylaxis,” Gunderson told this news organization.

“We were also disappointed by how many protocols continue to recommend outdated interventions such as first-generation antihistamines and corticosteroids in the treatment of anaphylaxis,” she said.

Although anaphylaxis management has come a long way, the current study suggests that there is clearly room for improvement in the education of healthcare providers on how to identify and treat anaphylaxis, said Gunderson. “Most people think of anaphylaxis as the typical ‘face swelling up, throat closing’ type of reaction, which it can be, but in reality, there are so many other ways that it can present,” she said. “Healthcare providers must be aware of all of these possible manifestations so that we can treat in a timely manner to improve outcomes,” she added.

Limitations of the study included the focus only on states with mandatory or model EMS protocols, Gunderson told this news organization. As for additional research, the most important next steps are practical ones, namely, identifying ways to realistically implement necessary protocol changes, she said.
 

Real-World Data Support Need for Education

Real-world studies are important to identify current practice and opportunities for improvement, S. Shahzad Mustafa, MD, lead physician in allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at Rochester Regional Health and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, said in an interview.

“Management of anaphylaxis continues to evolve, and studies like these can help standardize evidence-based care across different medical settings, such as emergency medical services, urgent care, and emergency departments,” said Mustafa, who was not involved in either study.

The findings of the two studies were not unexpected, Mustafa said. “Heterogeneity in medical care is well recognized in numerous conditions, and anaphylaxis is no different. Patients and healthcare providers continue to have hesitation to use epinephrine and continue to overly rely on antihistamines and/or systemic steroids,” he noted.

For both studies, the takeaway message is that education is paramount to optimize anaphylaxis management, Mustafa told this news organization. “Education needs to focus on timely recognition of anaphylaxis, including atypical features such as gastrointestinal symptoms, and appropriate therapy with epinephrine,” he said.

Looking ahead, “research demonstrating differences in clinical outcomes with differing approaches to anaphylaxis may highlight the importance of early recognition and treatment with epinephrine,” said Mustafa. Management of anaphylaxis also lends itself to quality improvement studies, he added.

Neither of the studies received any outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Mustafa had no disclosures related to anaphylaxis but disclosed serving on the speakers’ bureau for Genentech, GSK, AstraZeneca, Regeneron/Sanofi, and CSL Behring and received grants from Takeda.
 

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

Misinformation and outdated protocols contribute to the suboptimal management of anaphylaxis by patients and healthcare professionals, based on data from two new studies presented at the American College of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology Annual Scientific Meeting.

Anaphylaxis can strike suddenly, and many patients and caregivers at risk do not know which symptoms to treat with epinephrine, said Joni Chow, DO, of Baylor College of Medicine, San Antonio, Texas, in her presentation at the meeting.

“Early identification of anaphylaxis and early intervention with epinephrine are critical for improving patient outcomes,” Chow said in an interview.

“Many allergic reactions occur in community settings, where written action plans serve to instruct patients and caregivers on how to recognize and respond to these emergencies,” she said. “Currently, anaphylaxis action plans are developed based on the consensus of healthcare professionals, with limited information available on the preferences of patients and caregivers,” she noted. However, even with action plans, many patients and families struggle to recognize and manage severe allergic reactions effectively, she added.

In response to this issue, Chow and colleagues created a survey designed to assess the understanding of anaphylaxis recognition and management by patients and caregivers and to identify their preferences regarding the elements included in the action plans.

In the study, Chow and colleagues surveyed 96 patients and caregivers in an allergy clinic waiting room. The majority (95%) of the patients were prescribed epinephrine. Although 73% said they were comfortable identifying signs of anaphylaxis, only 14% said they were likely to use epinephrine as a first-line treatment.

The most common reason given for avoiding epinephrine was uncertainty over which symptoms to treat (40.6%), followed by hesitancy to visit an emergency department (24%), hesitancy to call 911 (17.7%), uncertainty about how to use epinephrine auto-injectors (11.5%), and fear of needles (5.2%).

Although 85% of the respondents understood that antihistamine use does not prevent the need for epinephrine in cases of anaphylactic reactions, 23.7% said they would use an antihistamine as the first treatment in these cases.

For patients with rash and wheezing after a suspected allergen exposure, approximately two thirds (64.5%) of the respondents said they would inject epinephrine and 10.8% would drive to the emergency room before taking any action, Chow said in her presentation.

The relatively low impact of fear of needles was unexpected, as fear of needles is considered a significant deterrent to epinephrine use, Chow told this news organization. “However, our respondents were more inclined to acknowledge a reluctance to escalate to emergency response as the major barrier to treatment,” she said.

The survey also asked patients what features of an anaphylaxis action plan would be most helpful. A majority of respondents (93%) rated a section for the management of mild (non-anaphylactic) allergic reaction symptoms as somewhat or very important. Visual aids for injection of epinephrine and visuals of anaphylaxis symptoms also ranked as somewhat or very important for 87.6% and 81% of respondents, respectively.

The study highlights the importance of educating allergy patients on recognizing and treating anaphylaxis and demonstrates that visuals were preferred in this survey population, Chow said. “Most patients and caregivers from our surveyed population report knowing how to treat anaphylaxis, but many would not use epinephrine as the first treatment,” she noted.

“The study focused on a single community clinic, and it would be beneficial to gather feedback from patients and caregivers representing a wider variety of educational, cultural, social, and socioeconomic backgrounds,” Chow told this news organization. “Additionally, input from other stakeholders, such as school nurses, would enhance knowledge,” she said.
 

Clinical Anaphylaxis Protocols Fall Short

A second study presented at the meeting showed the need to improve anaphylaxis education for clinicians.

Discrepancies in anaphylaxis management include variations in the definition and treatment of the condition, according to Carly Gunderson, DO, of Memorial Healthcare System, Pembroke Pines, Florida, who presented the study at the meeting.

“So often, we see patients in our office with a history of symptoms that meet criteria for anaphylaxis, yet when they call 911 and emergency medical services (EMS) arrive, they never receive epinephrine,” Gunderson said in an interview. “They receive antihistamines, steroids, everything except epinephrine, which is incredibly concerning given that epinephrine is always the first-line treatment for anaphylaxis,” she said.

“Because EMS providers are often the first healthcare professionals to assess patients experiencing anaphylaxis, their ability to recognize and appropriately treat anaphylaxis is essential,” Gunderson emphasized.

Gunderson and colleagues analyzed data from 30 states with mandatory Advanced Cardiac Life Support protocols to identify gaps in recognizing anaphylaxis and areas for improvement in prehospital management.

Only 15 states (50%) included gastrointestinal symptoms in the definition of anaphylaxis, 40% included neurologic manifestations, and 47% used a two-organ system definition, Gunderson noted in her presentation.

All 30 state protocols recommended diphenhydramine and epinephrine for anaphylactic reactions, 90% recommended albuterol if respiratory symptoms were present, 73% recommended intravenous fluids, and 60% recommended steroids. All but one of the state protocols listed epinephrine as the first-line recommendation for anaphylaxis; 25 states allowed epinephrine autoinjectors and 17 provided autoinjectors.

“We were shocked by how many protocols didn’t include gastrointestinal (abdominal pain, vomiting) or neurologic (lethargy, altered mental status) manifestations, when these are common presenting symptoms of anaphylaxis,” Gunderson told this news organization.

“We were also disappointed by how many protocols continue to recommend outdated interventions such as first-generation antihistamines and corticosteroids in the treatment of anaphylaxis,” she said.

Although anaphylaxis management has come a long way, the current study suggests that there is clearly room for improvement in the education of healthcare providers on how to identify and treat anaphylaxis, said Gunderson. “Most people think of anaphylaxis as the typical ‘face swelling up, throat closing’ type of reaction, which it can be, but in reality, there are so many other ways that it can present,” she said. “Healthcare providers must be aware of all of these possible manifestations so that we can treat in a timely manner to improve outcomes,” she added.

Limitations of the study included the focus only on states with mandatory or model EMS protocols, Gunderson told this news organization. As for additional research, the most important next steps are practical ones, namely, identifying ways to realistically implement necessary protocol changes, she said.
 

Real-World Data Support Need for Education

Real-world studies are important to identify current practice and opportunities for improvement, S. Shahzad Mustafa, MD, lead physician in allergy, immunology, and rheumatology at Rochester Regional Health and clinical associate professor of medicine at the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York, said in an interview.

“Management of anaphylaxis continues to evolve, and studies like these can help standardize evidence-based care across different medical settings, such as emergency medical services, urgent care, and emergency departments,” said Mustafa, who was not involved in either study.

The findings of the two studies were not unexpected, Mustafa said. “Heterogeneity in medical care is well recognized in numerous conditions, and anaphylaxis is no different. Patients and healthcare providers continue to have hesitation to use epinephrine and continue to overly rely on antihistamines and/or systemic steroids,” he noted.

For both studies, the takeaway message is that education is paramount to optimize anaphylaxis management, Mustafa told this news organization. “Education needs to focus on timely recognition of anaphylaxis, including atypical features such as gastrointestinal symptoms, and appropriate therapy with epinephrine,” he said.

Looking ahead, “research demonstrating differences in clinical outcomes with differing approaches to anaphylaxis may highlight the importance of early recognition and treatment with epinephrine,” said Mustafa. Management of anaphylaxis also lends itself to quality improvement studies, he added.

Neither of the studies received any outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Mustafa had no disclosures related to anaphylaxis but disclosed serving on the speakers’ bureau for Genentech, GSK, AstraZeneca, Regeneron/Sanofi, and CSL Behring and received grants from Takeda.
 

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

THE DIAGNOSIS: Acral Hemorrhagic Darier Disease

Darier disease (DD), also known as keratosis follicularis, is a rare autosomal-dominant genodermatosis caused by mutations in the ATPase sarcoplasmic/endoplasmic reticulum Ca2+ transporting 2 gene (ATP2A2). This gene encodes the enzyme sarcoplasmic/endoplasmic reticulum calcium ATPase 2, which results in abnormal calcium signaling in keratinocytes and leads to dyskeratosis.¹ Darier disease commonly manifests in the second decade of life with hyperkeratotic papules coalescing into plaques, often accompanied by erosions and fissures that cause discomfort and pruritus. Darier disease also is associated with characteristic nail findings such as the classic candy cane nails and V-shaped nicking.

Acral hemorrhagic lesions are a rare manifestation of DD. Clinically, these lesions can manifest as hemorrhagic macules, papules, and/or vesicles, most commonly occurring following local trauma or retinoid use. Patients with these lesions are believed to have either specific mutations in the ATP2A2 gene that impair sarcoplasmic/endoplasmic reticulum calcium ATPase 2 function in the vascular endothelium or a mutation in the sarcoplasmic/endoplasmic reticulum calcium ATPase protein itself, leading to dysregulation of mitochondrial homeostasis from within the cell, provoking oxidative stress and causing detrimental effects on blood vessels.² Patients with this variant can present with all the features of classic DD concomitantly, with varying symptom severity or distinct clinical features during separate episodic flares, or as the sole manifestation. Other nonclassical lesions of DD include acral keratoderma, giant comedones, keloidlike vegetations, and leucodermic macules (Figure).³

Acral hemorrhagic DD may appear either in isolation or in tandem with more traditional symptoms, necessitating consideration of other possible differential diagnoses such as acrokeratosis verruciformis of Hopf (AKV), porphyria cutanea tarda, bullous lichen planus (BLP), and hemorrhagic lichen sclerosus.

Sometimes regarded as a variant of DD, AKV is an autosomal- dominant genodermatosis characterized by flat or verrucous hyperkeratotic papules on the hands and feet. In AKV, the nails also may be affected, with changes including striations, subungual hyperkeratosis, and V-shaped nicking of the distal nails. Although our patient displayed features of AKV, it has not been associated with acral hemorrhagic macules, making this diagnosis less likely than DD.⁴

Porphyria cutanea tarda, a condition caused by decreased levels of uroporphyrinogen decarboxylase, also can cause skin manifestations such as blistering as well as increased skin fragility, predominantly in sun-exposed areas.⁵ Our patient’s lack of photosensitivity and absence of other common symptoms of this disorder, such as hypertrichosis and hyperpigmentation, made porphyria cutanea tarda less likely.

Bullous lichen planus is a rare subtype of lichen planus characterized by tense bullae arising from preexisting lichen planus lesions or appearing de novo, most commonly manifesting on the oral mucosa or the legs.⁶ The bullae associated with BLP can rupture and form ulcers—a symptom that could potentially be mistaken for hemorrhagic macules like the ones observed in our patient. However, BLP typically is characterized by erythematous, violaceous, polygonal papules commonly appearing on the oral mucosa and the legs with blisters developing near or on pre-existing lichen planus lesions. These are different from the hyperkeratotic papules and leucodermic macules seen in our patient, which aligned more closely with the clinical presentation of DD.

Hemorrhagic lichen sclerosus presents with white atrophic patches and plaques and hemorrhagic bullae, which may resemble the leucodermic macules and hemorrhagic macules of DD. However, hemorrhagic lichen sclerosus most commonly involves the genital area in postmenopausal women. Extragenital manifestations of lichen sclerosus, although less common, can occur and typically manifest on the thighs, buttocks, breasts, back, chest, axillae, shoulders, and wrists.⁷ Notably, these hemorrhagic lesions typically are surrounded by hypopigmented skin and display an atrophic appearance.

Management of DD can be challenging. General measures include sun protection, heat avoidance, and friction reduction. Retinoids are considered the first-line therapy for severe DD, as they help normalize keratinocyte differentiation and reduce keratotic scaling.⁸ Topical corticosteroids can help manage inflammation and reduce the risk for secondary infections. Our patient responded well to this treatment approach, with a notable reduction in the number and severity of the hyperkeratotic plaques and resolution of the acral hemorrhagic lesions.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Acral Hemorrhagic Darier Disease

Darier disease (DD), also known as keratosis follicularis, is a rare autosomal-dominant genodermatosis caused by mutations in the ATPase sarcoplasmic/endoplasmic reticulum Ca2+ transporting 2 gene (ATP2A2). This gene encodes the enzyme sarcoplasmic/endoplasmic reticulum calcium ATPase 2, which results in abnormal calcium signaling in keratinocytes and leads to dyskeratosis.¹ Darier disease commonly manifests in the second decade of life with hyperkeratotic papules coalescing into plaques, often accompanied by erosions and fissures that cause discomfort and pruritus. Darier disease also is associated with characteristic nail findings such as the classic candy cane nails and V-shaped nicking.

Acral hemorrhagic lesions are a rare manifestation of DD. Clinically, these lesions can manifest as hemorrhagic macules, papules, and/or vesicles, most commonly occurring following local trauma or retinoid use. Patients with these lesions are believed to have either specific mutations in the ATP2A2 gene that impair sarcoplasmic/endoplasmic reticulum calcium ATPase 2 function in the vascular endothelium or a mutation in the sarcoplasmic/endoplasmic reticulum calcium ATPase protein itself, leading to dysregulation of mitochondrial homeostasis from within the cell, provoking oxidative stress and causing detrimental effects on blood vessels.² Patients with this variant can present with all the features of classic DD concomitantly, with varying symptom severity or distinct clinical features during separate episodic flares, or as the sole manifestation. Other nonclassical lesions of DD include acral keratoderma, giant comedones, keloidlike vegetations, and leucodermic macules (Figure).³

Acral hemorrhagic DD may appear either in isolation or in tandem with more traditional symptoms, necessitating consideration of other possible differential diagnoses such as acrokeratosis verruciformis of Hopf (AKV), porphyria cutanea tarda, bullous lichen planus (BLP), and hemorrhagic lichen sclerosus.

Sometimes regarded as a variant of DD, AKV is an autosomal- dominant genodermatosis characterized by flat or verrucous hyperkeratotic papules on the hands and feet. In AKV, the nails also may be affected, with changes including striations, subungual hyperkeratosis, and V-shaped nicking of the distal nails. Although our patient displayed features of AKV, it has not been associated with acral hemorrhagic macules, making this diagnosis less likely than DD.⁴

Porphyria cutanea tarda, a condition caused by decreased levels of uroporphyrinogen decarboxylase, also can cause skin manifestations such as blistering as well as increased skin fragility, predominantly in sun-exposed areas.⁵ Our patient’s lack of photosensitivity and absence of other common symptoms of this disorder, such as hypertrichosis and hyperpigmentation, made porphyria cutanea tarda less likely.

Bullous lichen planus is a rare subtype of lichen planus characterized by tense bullae arising from preexisting lichen planus lesions or appearing de novo, most commonly manifesting on the oral mucosa or the legs.⁶ The bullae associated with BLP can rupture and form ulcers—a symptom that could potentially be mistaken for hemorrhagic macules like the ones observed in our patient. However, BLP typically is characterized by erythematous, violaceous, polygonal papules commonly appearing on the oral mucosa and the legs with blisters developing near or on pre-existing lichen planus lesions. These are different from the hyperkeratotic papules and leucodermic macules seen in our patient, which aligned more closely with the clinical presentation of DD.

Hemorrhagic lichen sclerosus presents with white atrophic patches and plaques and hemorrhagic bullae, which may resemble the leucodermic macules and hemorrhagic macules of DD. However, hemorrhagic lichen sclerosus most commonly involves the genital area in postmenopausal women. Extragenital manifestations of lichen sclerosus, although less common, can occur and typically manifest on the thighs, buttocks, breasts, back, chest, axillae, shoulders, and wrists.⁷ Notably, these hemorrhagic lesions typically are surrounded by hypopigmented skin and display an atrophic appearance.

Management of DD can be challenging. General measures include sun protection, heat avoidance, and friction reduction. Retinoids are considered the first-line therapy for severe DD, as they help normalize keratinocyte differentiation and reduce keratotic scaling.⁸ Topical corticosteroids can help manage inflammation and reduce the risk for secondary infections. Our patient responded well to this treatment approach, with a notable reduction in the number and severity of the hyperkeratotic plaques and resolution of the acral hemorrhagic lesions.

THE DIAGNOSIS: Acral Hemorrhagic Darier Disease

Darier disease (DD), also known as keratosis follicularis, is a rare autosomal-dominant genodermatosis caused by mutations in the ATPase sarcoplasmic/endoplasmic reticulum Ca2+ transporting 2 gene (ATP2A2). This gene encodes the enzyme sarcoplasmic/endoplasmic reticulum calcium ATPase 2, which results in abnormal calcium signaling in keratinocytes and leads to dyskeratosis.¹ Darier disease commonly manifests in the second decade of life with hyperkeratotic papules coalescing into plaques, often accompanied by erosions and fissures that cause discomfort and pruritus. Darier disease also is associated with characteristic nail findings such as the classic candy cane nails and V-shaped nicking.

Acral hemorrhagic lesions are a rare manifestation of DD. Clinically, these lesions can manifest as hemorrhagic macules, papules, and/or vesicles, most commonly occurring following local trauma or retinoid use. Patients with these lesions are believed to have either specific mutations in the ATP2A2 gene that impair sarcoplasmic/endoplasmic reticulum calcium ATPase 2 function in the vascular endothelium or a mutation in the sarcoplasmic/endoplasmic reticulum calcium ATPase protein itself, leading to dysregulation of mitochondrial homeostasis from within the cell, provoking oxidative stress and causing detrimental effects on blood vessels.² Patients with this variant can present with all the features of classic DD concomitantly, with varying symptom severity or distinct clinical features during separate episodic flares, or as the sole manifestation. Other nonclassical lesions of DD include acral keratoderma, giant comedones, keloidlike vegetations, and leucodermic macules (Figure).³

Acral hemorrhagic DD may appear either in isolation or in tandem with more traditional symptoms, necessitating consideration of other possible differential diagnoses such as acrokeratosis verruciformis of Hopf (AKV), porphyria cutanea tarda, bullous lichen planus (BLP), and hemorrhagic lichen sclerosus.

Sometimes regarded as a variant of DD, AKV is an autosomal- dominant genodermatosis characterized by flat or verrucous hyperkeratotic papules on the hands and feet. In AKV, the nails also may be affected, with changes including striations, subungual hyperkeratosis, and V-shaped nicking of the distal nails. Although our patient displayed features of AKV, it has not been associated with acral hemorrhagic macules, making this diagnosis less likely than DD.⁴

Porphyria cutanea tarda, a condition caused by decreased levels of uroporphyrinogen decarboxylase, also can cause skin manifestations such as blistering as well as increased skin fragility, predominantly in sun-exposed areas.⁵ Our patient’s lack of photosensitivity and absence of other common symptoms of this disorder, such as hypertrichosis and hyperpigmentation, made porphyria cutanea tarda less likely.

Bullous lichen planus is a rare subtype of lichen planus characterized by tense bullae arising from preexisting lichen planus lesions or appearing de novo, most commonly manifesting on the oral mucosa or the legs.⁶ The bullae associated with BLP can rupture and form ulcers—a symptom that could potentially be mistaken for hemorrhagic macules like the ones observed in our patient. However, BLP typically is characterized by erythematous, violaceous, polygonal papules commonly appearing on the oral mucosa and the legs with blisters developing near or on pre-existing lichen planus lesions. These are different from the hyperkeratotic papules and leucodermic macules seen in our patient, which aligned more closely with the clinical presentation of DD.

Hemorrhagic lichen sclerosus presents with white atrophic patches and plaques and hemorrhagic bullae, which may resemble the leucodermic macules and hemorrhagic macules of DD. However, hemorrhagic lichen sclerosus most commonly involves the genital area in postmenopausal women. Extragenital manifestations of lichen sclerosus, although less common, can occur and typically manifest on the thighs, buttocks, breasts, back, chest, axillae, shoulders, and wrists.⁷ Notably, these hemorrhagic lesions typically are surrounded by hypopigmented skin and display an atrophic appearance.

Management of DD can be challenging. General measures include sun protection, heat avoidance, and friction reduction. Retinoids are considered the first-line therapy for severe DD, as they help normalize keratinocyte differentiation and reduce keratotic scaling.⁸ Topical corticosteroids can help manage inflammation and reduce the risk for secondary infections. Our patient responded well to this treatment approach, with a notable reduction in the number and severity of the hyperkeratotic plaques and resolution of the acral hemorrhagic lesions.

Vaccination against human papilloma virus (HPV), a group of more than 200 viruses infecting at least 50% of sexually active people over their lifetimes, has proved more than 90% effective for preventing several diseases caused by high-risk HPV types. 

Gardasil 4: 2006 

It started in 2006 with the approval of Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent, types 6, 11, 16, and 18 (Gardasil 4). Merck’s vaccine began to lower rates of cervical cancer, a major global killer of women.

“It’s fair to say the vaccine has been an American and a global public health success story in reducing rates of cervical cancer,” Paula M. Cuccaro, PhD, assistant professor of health promotion and behavioral sciences at University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, said in an interview.

How does a common virus trigger such a lethal gynecologic malignancy? “It knocks out two important cancer suppressor genes in cells,” explained Christina Annunziata,MD, PhD, a medical oncologist and senior vice president of extramural discovery science for the American Cancer Society. HPV oncoproteins are encoded by the E6 and E7 genes. As in other DNA tumor viruses, the E6 and E7 proteins functionally inactivate the tumor suppressor proteins p53 and pRB, respectively.
 

US Prevalence

Despite screening and vaccination, cervical cancer is still very much around. This year, 13,820 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and approximately 4360 women will die of it, according to the American Cancer Society. Even before the advent of Gardasil 4, incidence rates had already decreased by more than half from the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s, thanks largely to Pap smear screening programs for treatable premalignant lesions. “The US rate had dropped to about 20 per 100,000 women even before Gardasil 4,” said Annunziata. “After the introduction of the first vaccine, it decreased to 7 per 100,000, a decrease of about 30%, but it remains plateaued now at about the same level.”

Although the past decade has seen rates generally stabilize, there have been some changes in different age groups. In women ages 30-44, rates increased 1.7% each year from 2012 to 2019, while rates declined 11% each year for women ages 20-24— probably reflecting the impact of the first wave of prevention from Gardasil 4.

In one 2021 population-based study of US cancer registry data from 1999 to 2017, rates of both cervical squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma dropped. The largest declines occurred in females 15-20 years old, the age group most likely to be vaccinated against HPV but not typically screened, suggesting a vaccine-related effect.
 

Gardasil 9: 2014

With the 2014 approval of the vaccine’s second iteration, Gardasil 9, which replaced Gardasil 4 and targeted 9 HPV strains, immunization has taken broader aim. The strains covered by Gardasil 9 protect against oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers — as well as penile, anal, vulvar, and vaginal malignancies and premalignancies, and genital warts in both sexes ages 9-45. 

It may be years, however, before the impact of the newer polyvalent formulation is felt. “While the first vaccine has been successful against the prevalent strains of HPV linked to cervical cancer, it’s a little early to call it for the newer vaccine since oropharyngeal cancers tend to develop later in older men,” Cuccaro said. “But the types of HPV linked to mouth and throat cancers and covered by the newer vaccines are much less prevalent in those who are vaccinated. The strains not covered in the vaccine you see are equally present in the vaccinated and non-vaccinated.”

Angela L. Myers, MD, MPH, division director of infectious diseases and medical director of the Center for Wellbeing at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, added, “Unlike for cervical cancer, there are no screening programs for oropharyngeal lesions, so you have to wait to see rates until actual cancer develops.”

A 2023 review reported that HPV vaccination reduced levels of oropharyngeal HPV positivity in men, strengthening the case for pangender immunization. 

And in a recent phase 3 doubled-blind trial, GARDASIL 9 reduced the incidence of anogenital persistent infection caused by nine types of HPV compared with a placebo. 
 

Increasing Uptake

The current public health aim is to have 80% of young people in the targeted age group vaccinated with two doses. Today, uptake among those 9-26 years old stands at about 78% of girls and 75% of boys for the first dose, said Annunziata. “But it’s only about 61% for the two doses in the current series, and we want to improve that.” 

Some parents may still harbor fears that immunizing teens and tweens — both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society recommend immunization at age 9 — will open the door to precocious sexual activity. 

“But overall, uptake in tweens and young teens has increased because the messaging has changed,” said Myers, with the rationale now focusing on cancer prevention not sexual-infection prophylaxis. “This is similar to the hepatitis B vaccine, which used to be given to young adults and is now given to newborns to prevent cancer.” 

Cuccaro added that a proactive presentation by healthcare professionals has a significant effect on vaccine uptake and increases the odds of vaccination ninefold. “Providers should take a presumptive approach and avoid just offering the vaccine as an option. It should be included with regular childhood vaccinations,” she said. “And the advantage of starting early at age 9 is that you can spread the doses out across other regular childhood vaccinations, whereas if you start at age 11, you need to add the HPV vaccine to three other vaccines that are given at that time.” 

After age 15, three doses are necessary. “Providers should stress to parents that it’s most effective when given before young people become sexually active and exposed to HPV,” Cuccaro said. And Myers stressed that despite the vaccine’s effectiveness, routine screening for cervical premalignancies is still important. 

Despite increasing coverage, vaccination rates have some distance to go before the public health target of at least 80% uptake of the series in the targeted age group, Cuccaro cautioned.

On the global stage, barriers to immunization remain, but the World Health Organization has endorsed a campaign to eradicate cervical cancer through HPV vaccination. It has predicted that the 21st century may be the last to experience HPV-associated cancers, currently responsible for more than 300,000 annual deaths worldwide.
 

A Brief History of HPV Vaccines

• 1951. Cervical cancer patient Henrietta Lacks’ rapidly dividing cervical cells are collected by George Otto Gey at Johns Hopkins Hospital. They create the first immortal cell line (HeLa) used to study cancers and vaccines worldwide.
• 1976. Harald zur Hausen suggests that genital wart-associated HPV, not herpes simplex, is the probable cause of cervical cancer.
• 1983. HPV is confirmed as a cause of cancer.
• 1991. The first HPV vaccine is developed.
• 2002. Proof of principle and protective efficacy for the monovalent HPV 16 are shown.
• 2006. Merck’s Gardasil 4 (HPV 4) is FDA approved in girls ages 9-26 for protection against strains 6, 11, 16, and 18 — the cause of more than 70% of cervical cancer cases.
• 2009. Approval of Gardasil 4 is expanded to boys ages 9-26 for the prevention of genital warts.
• 2009. The FDA approves GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix (HPV 16 and 18) for girls and young women. The vaccine was withdrawn from the US market in 2016 following the success of Gardasil 9 but is used abroad for HPV cancer prevention.
• 2014. The 9-valent recombinant vaccine Gardasil 9 is FDA approved for protection against several low-risk, wart-causing HPV strains as well as the high-risk cancer strains targeted by HPV 4.
• 2018. The FDA expands approval to include females and males 27-45 years old.
• 2020. The FDA extends approval of Gardasil 9 to include prevention not only of cervical cancer but also, vaginal, vulvar, anal, oropharyngeal, and other head and neck cancers.

Annunziata, Cuccaro, and Myers had no competing interests to declare.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Vaccination against human papilloma virus (HPV), a group of more than 200 viruses infecting at least 50% of sexually active people over their lifetimes, has proved more than 90% effective for preventing several diseases caused by high-risk HPV types. 

Gardasil 4: 2006 

It started in 2006 with the approval of Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent, types 6, 11, 16, and 18 (Gardasil 4). Merck’s vaccine began to lower rates of cervical cancer, a major global killer of women.

“It’s fair to say the vaccine has been an American and a global public health success story in reducing rates of cervical cancer,” Paula M. Cuccaro, PhD, assistant professor of health promotion and behavioral sciences at University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, said in an interview.

How does a common virus trigger such a lethal gynecologic malignancy? “It knocks out two important cancer suppressor genes in cells,” explained Christina Annunziata,MD, PhD, a medical oncologist and senior vice president of extramural discovery science for the American Cancer Society. HPV oncoproteins are encoded by the E6 and E7 genes. As in other DNA tumor viruses, the E6 and E7 proteins functionally inactivate the tumor suppressor proteins p53 and pRB, respectively.
 

US Prevalence

Despite screening and vaccination, cervical cancer is still very much around. This year, 13,820 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and approximately 4360 women will die of it, according to the American Cancer Society. Even before the advent of Gardasil 4, incidence rates had already decreased by more than half from the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s, thanks largely to Pap smear screening programs for treatable premalignant lesions. “The US rate had dropped to about 20 per 100,000 women even before Gardasil 4,” said Annunziata. “After the introduction of the first vaccine, it decreased to 7 per 100,000, a decrease of about 30%, but it remains plateaued now at about the same level.”

Although the past decade has seen rates generally stabilize, there have been some changes in different age groups. In women ages 30-44, rates increased 1.7% each year from 2012 to 2019, while rates declined 11% each year for women ages 20-24— probably reflecting the impact of the first wave of prevention from Gardasil 4.

In one 2021 population-based study of US cancer registry data from 1999 to 2017, rates of both cervical squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma dropped. The largest declines occurred in females 15-20 years old, the age group most likely to be vaccinated against HPV but not typically screened, suggesting a vaccine-related effect.
 

Gardasil 9: 2014

With the 2014 approval of the vaccine’s second iteration, Gardasil 9, which replaced Gardasil 4 and targeted 9 HPV strains, immunization has taken broader aim. The strains covered by Gardasil 9 protect against oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers — as well as penile, anal, vulvar, and vaginal malignancies and premalignancies, and genital warts in both sexes ages 9-45. 

It may be years, however, before the impact of the newer polyvalent formulation is felt. “While the first vaccine has been successful against the prevalent strains of HPV linked to cervical cancer, it’s a little early to call it for the newer vaccine since oropharyngeal cancers tend to develop later in older men,” Cuccaro said. “But the types of HPV linked to mouth and throat cancers and covered by the newer vaccines are much less prevalent in those who are vaccinated. The strains not covered in the vaccine you see are equally present in the vaccinated and non-vaccinated.”

Angela L. Myers, MD, MPH, division director of infectious diseases and medical director of the Center for Wellbeing at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, added, “Unlike for cervical cancer, there are no screening programs for oropharyngeal lesions, so you have to wait to see rates until actual cancer develops.”

A 2023 review reported that HPV vaccination reduced levels of oropharyngeal HPV positivity in men, strengthening the case for pangender immunization. 

And in a recent phase 3 doubled-blind trial, GARDASIL 9 reduced the incidence of anogenital persistent infection caused by nine types of HPV compared with a placebo. 
 

Increasing Uptake

The current public health aim is to have 80% of young people in the targeted age group vaccinated with two doses. Today, uptake among those 9-26 years old stands at about 78% of girls and 75% of boys for the first dose, said Annunziata. “But it’s only about 61% for the two doses in the current series, and we want to improve that.” 

Some parents may still harbor fears that immunizing teens and tweens — both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society recommend immunization at age 9 — will open the door to precocious sexual activity. 

“But overall, uptake in tweens and young teens has increased because the messaging has changed,” said Myers, with the rationale now focusing on cancer prevention not sexual-infection prophylaxis. “This is similar to the hepatitis B vaccine, which used to be given to young adults and is now given to newborns to prevent cancer.” 

Cuccaro added that a proactive presentation by healthcare professionals has a significant effect on vaccine uptake and increases the odds of vaccination ninefold. “Providers should take a presumptive approach and avoid just offering the vaccine as an option. It should be included with regular childhood vaccinations,” she said. “And the advantage of starting early at age 9 is that you can spread the doses out across other regular childhood vaccinations, whereas if you start at age 11, you need to add the HPV vaccine to three other vaccines that are given at that time.” 

After age 15, three doses are necessary. “Providers should stress to parents that it’s most effective when given before young people become sexually active and exposed to HPV,” Cuccaro said. And Myers stressed that despite the vaccine’s effectiveness, routine screening for cervical premalignancies is still important. 

Despite increasing coverage, vaccination rates have some distance to go before the public health target of at least 80% uptake of the series in the targeted age group, Cuccaro cautioned.

On the global stage, barriers to immunization remain, but the World Health Organization has endorsed a campaign to eradicate cervical cancer through HPV vaccination. It has predicted that the 21st century may be the last to experience HPV-associated cancers, currently responsible for more than 300,000 annual deaths worldwide.
 

A Brief History of HPV Vaccines

• 1951. Cervical cancer patient Henrietta Lacks’ rapidly dividing cervical cells are collected by George Otto Gey at Johns Hopkins Hospital. They create the first immortal cell line (HeLa) used to study cancers and vaccines worldwide.
• 1976. Harald zur Hausen suggests that genital wart-associated HPV, not herpes simplex, is the probable cause of cervical cancer.
• 1983. HPV is confirmed as a cause of cancer.
• 1991. The first HPV vaccine is developed.
• 2002. Proof of principle and protective efficacy for the monovalent HPV 16 are shown.
• 2006. Merck’s Gardasil 4 (HPV 4) is FDA approved in girls ages 9-26 for protection against strains 6, 11, 16, and 18 — the cause of more than 70% of cervical cancer cases.
• 2009. Approval of Gardasil 4 is expanded to boys ages 9-26 for the prevention of genital warts.
• 2009. The FDA approves GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix (HPV 16 and 18) for girls and young women. The vaccine was withdrawn from the US market in 2016 following the success of Gardasil 9 but is used abroad for HPV cancer prevention.
• 2014. The 9-valent recombinant vaccine Gardasil 9 is FDA approved for protection against several low-risk, wart-causing HPV strains as well as the high-risk cancer strains targeted by HPV 4.
• 2018. The FDA expands approval to include females and males 27-45 years old.
• 2020. The FDA extends approval of Gardasil 9 to include prevention not only of cervical cancer but also, vaginal, vulvar, anal, oropharyngeal, and other head and neck cancers.

Annunziata, Cuccaro, and Myers had no competing interests to declare.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

Vaccination against human papilloma virus (HPV), a group of more than 200 viruses infecting at least 50% of sexually active people over their lifetimes, has proved more than 90% effective for preventing several diseases caused by high-risk HPV types. 

Gardasil 4: 2006 

It started in 2006 with the approval of Human Papillomavirus Quadrivalent, types 6, 11, 16, and 18 (Gardasil 4). Merck’s vaccine began to lower rates of cervical cancer, a major global killer of women.

“It’s fair to say the vaccine has been an American and a global public health success story in reducing rates of cervical cancer,” Paula M. Cuccaro, PhD, assistant professor of health promotion and behavioral sciences at University of Texas School of Public Health, Houston, said in an interview.

How does a common virus trigger such a lethal gynecologic malignancy? “It knocks out two important cancer suppressor genes in cells,” explained Christina Annunziata,MD, PhD, a medical oncologist and senior vice president of extramural discovery science for the American Cancer Society. HPV oncoproteins are encoded by the E6 and E7 genes. As in other DNA tumor viruses, the E6 and E7 proteins functionally inactivate the tumor suppressor proteins p53 and pRB, respectively.
 

US Prevalence

Despite screening and vaccination, cervical cancer is still very much around. This year, 13,820 new cases of invasive cervical cancer will be diagnosed in the United States, and approximately 4360 women will die of it, according to the American Cancer Society. Even before the advent of Gardasil 4, incidence rates had already decreased by more than half from the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s, thanks largely to Pap smear screening programs for treatable premalignant lesions. “The US rate had dropped to about 20 per 100,000 women even before Gardasil 4,” said Annunziata. “After the introduction of the first vaccine, it decreased to 7 per 100,000, a decrease of about 30%, but it remains plateaued now at about the same level.”

Although the past decade has seen rates generally stabilize, there have been some changes in different age groups. In women ages 30-44, rates increased 1.7% each year from 2012 to 2019, while rates declined 11% each year for women ages 20-24— probably reflecting the impact of the first wave of prevention from Gardasil 4.

In one 2021 population-based study of US cancer registry data from 1999 to 2017, rates of both cervical squamous cell carcinoma and adenocarcinoma dropped. The largest declines occurred in females 15-20 years old, the age group most likely to be vaccinated against HPV but not typically screened, suggesting a vaccine-related effect.
 

Gardasil 9: 2014

With the 2014 approval of the vaccine’s second iteration, Gardasil 9, which replaced Gardasil 4 and targeted 9 HPV strains, immunization has taken broader aim. The strains covered by Gardasil 9 protect against oropharyngeal and other head and neck cancers — as well as penile, anal, vulvar, and vaginal malignancies and premalignancies, and genital warts in both sexes ages 9-45. 

It may be years, however, before the impact of the newer polyvalent formulation is felt. “While the first vaccine has been successful against the prevalent strains of HPV linked to cervical cancer, it’s a little early to call it for the newer vaccine since oropharyngeal cancers tend to develop later in older men,” Cuccaro said. “But the types of HPV linked to mouth and throat cancers and covered by the newer vaccines are much less prevalent in those who are vaccinated. The strains not covered in the vaccine you see are equally present in the vaccinated and non-vaccinated.”

Angela L. Myers, MD, MPH, division director of infectious diseases and medical director of the Center for Wellbeing at Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, Missouri, added, “Unlike for cervical cancer, there are no screening programs for oropharyngeal lesions, so you have to wait to see rates until actual cancer develops.”

A 2023 review reported that HPV vaccination reduced levels of oropharyngeal HPV positivity in men, strengthening the case for pangender immunization. 

And in a recent phase 3 doubled-blind trial, GARDASIL 9 reduced the incidence of anogenital persistent infection caused by nine types of HPV compared with a placebo. 
 

Increasing Uptake

The current public health aim is to have 80% of young people in the targeted age group vaccinated with two doses. Today, uptake among those 9-26 years old stands at about 78% of girls and 75% of boys for the first dose, said Annunziata. “But it’s only about 61% for the two doses in the current series, and we want to improve that.” 

Some parents may still harbor fears that immunizing teens and tweens — both the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Cancer Society recommend immunization at age 9 — will open the door to precocious sexual activity. 

“But overall, uptake in tweens and young teens has increased because the messaging has changed,” said Myers, with the rationale now focusing on cancer prevention not sexual-infection prophylaxis. “This is similar to the hepatitis B vaccine, which used to be given to young adults and is now given to newborns to prevent cancer.” 

Cuccaro added that a proactive presentation by healthcare professionals has a significant effect on vaccine uptake and increases the odds of vaccination ninefold. “Providers should take a presumptive approach and avoid just offering the vaccine as an option. It should be included with regular childhood vaccinations,” she said. “And the advantage of starting early at age 9 is that you can spread the doses out across other regular childhood vaccinations, whereas if you start at age 11, you need to add the HPV vaccine to three other vaccines that are given at that time.” 

After age 15, three doses are necessary. “Providers should stress to parents that it’s most effective when given before young people become sexually active and exposed to HPV,” Cuccaro said. And Myers stressed that despite the vaccine’s effectiveness, routine screening for cervical premalignancies is still important. 

Despite increasing coverage, vaccination rates have some distance to go before the public health target of at least 80% uptake of the series in the targeted age group, Cuccaro cautioned.

On the global stage, barriers to immunization remain, but the World Health Organization has endorsed a campaign to eradicate cervical cancer through HPV vaccination. It has predicted that the 21st century may be the last to experience HPV-associated cancers, currently responsible for more than 300,000 annual deaths worldwide.
 

A Brief History of HPV Vaccines

• 1951. Cervical cancer patient Henrietta Lacks’ rapidly dividing cervical cells are collected by George Otto Gey at Johns Hopkins Hospital. They create the first immortal cell line (HeLa) used to study cancers and vaccines worldwide.
• 1976. Harald zur Hausen suggests that genital wart-associated HPV, not herpes simplex, is the probable cause of cervical cancer.
• 1983. HPV is confirmed as a cause of cancer.
• 1991. The first HPV vaccine is developed.
• 2002. Proof of principle and protective efficacy for the monovalent HPV 16 are shown.
• 2006. Merck’s Gardasil 4 (HPV 4) is FDA approved in girls ages 9-26 for protection against strains 6, 11, 16, and 18 — the cause of more than 70% of cervical cancer cases.
• 2009. Approval of Gardasil 4 is expanded to boys ages 9-26 for the prevention of genital warts.
• 2009. The FDA approves GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix (HPV 16 and 18) for girls and young women. The vaccine was withdrawn from the US market in 2016 following the success of Gardasil 9 but is used abroad for HPV cancer prevention.
• 2014. The 9-valent recombinant vaccine Gardasil 9 is FDA approved for protection against several low-risk, wart-causing HPV strains as well as the high-risk cancer strains targeted by HPV 4.
• 2018. The FDA expands approval to include females and males 27-45 years old.
• 2020. The FDA extends approval of Gardasil 9 to include prevention not only of cervical cancer but also, vaginal, vulvar, anal, oropharyngeal, and other head and neck cancers.

Annunziata, Cuccaro, and Myers had no competing interests to declare.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Between 2011 and 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported recalls of 334 cosmetic dermatology products in the United States, affecting over 77 million units, predominantly due to bacterial contamination.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the FDA Enforcement Report database for cosmetic dermatology products from 2011 to 2023.
• Cosmetic products are any article “intended for body cleaning or beauty enhancement,” as defined by the FDA.
• Recalls were categorized by product type, reason for the recall, microbial contaminant, inorganic contaminant, distribution, and risk classification.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the study period, 334 voluntary and manufacturer-initiated recalls of cosmetic products were reported, affecting 77,135,700 units.
• A total of 297 recalls (88.9%) were categorized as Class II, indicating that they caused “medically reversible health consequences.” The median recall duration was 307 days.
• Hygiene and cleaning products accounted for most of the recalls (51.5%). Makeup gels, soaps, shampoos, tattoo ink, wipes, and lotions were the most recalled product categories. Nearly 51% of the products were distributed internationally.
• Microbial and inorganic contamination accounted for 76.8% and 10.2% of the recalls (the two most common reasons for the recall), respectively, with bacteria (80%) the most common contaminating pathogen (primarily Pseudomonas and Burkholderia species).

IN PRACTICE:

With 77 million units recalled by the FDA over 12 years, cosmetic recalls have remained common, the authors concluded, adding that “dermatologists should be key voices in pharmacovigilance given scientific expertise and frontline experience managing products and associated concerns.” Dermatologists, they added, “should also be aware of FDA enforcement reports for recall updates given that average recall termination took approximately 1 year.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kaushik P. Venkatesh, MBA, MPH, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and was published online on October 29 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations include the potential underreporting of Class III recalls (products that are unlikely to cause any adverse health reaction but violate FDA labeling or manufacturing laws) and lack of complete information on contaminants.

DISCLOSURES:

No information on funding was provided in the study. No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Between 2011 and 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported recalls of 334 cosmetic dermatology products in the United States, affecting over 77 million units, predominantly due to bacterial contamination.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the FDA Enforcement Report database for cosmetic dermatology products from 2011 to 2023.
• Cosmetic products are any article “intended for body cleaning or beauty enhancement,” as defined by the FDA.
• Recalls were categorized by product type, reason for the recall, microbial contaminant, inorganic contaminant, distribution, and risk classification.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the study period, 334 voluntary and manufacturer-initiated recalls of cosmetic products were reported, affecting 77,135,700 units.
• A total of 297 recalls (88.9%) were categorized as Class II, indicating that they caused “medically reversible health consequences.” The median recall duration was 307 days.
• Hygiene and cleaning products accounted for most of the recalls (51.5%). Makeup gels, soaps, shampoos, tattoo ink, wipes, and lotions were the most recalled product categories. Nearly 51% of the products were distributed internationally.
• Microbial and inorganic contamination accounted for 76.8% and 10.2% of the recalls (the two most common reasons for the recall), respectively, with bacteria (80%) the most common contaminating pathogen (primarily Pseudomonas and Burkholderia species).

IN PRACTICE:

With 77 million units recalled by the FDA over 12 years, cosmetic recalls have remained common, the authors concluded, adding that “dermatologists should be key voices in pharmacovigilance given scientific expertise and frontline experience managing products and associated concerns.” Dermatologists, they added, “should also be aware of FDA enforcement reports for recall updates given that average recall termination took approximately 1 year.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kaushik P. Venkatesh, MBA, MPH, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and was published online on October 29 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations include the potential underreporting of Class III recalls (products that are unlikely to cause any adverse health reaction but violate FDA labeling or manufacturing laws) and lack of complete information on contaminants.

DISCLOSURES:

No information on funding was provided in the study. No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Between 2011 and 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reported recalls of 334 cosmetic dermatology products in the United States, affecting over 77 million units, predominantly due to bacterial contamination.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a cross-sectional analysis of the FDA Enforcement Report database for cosmetic dermatology products from 2011 to 2023.
• Cosmetic products are any article “intended for body cleaning or beauty enhancement,” as defined by the FDA.
• Recalls were categorized by product type, reason for the recall, microbial contaminant, inorganic contaminant, distribution, and risk classification.

TAKEAWAY:

• During the study period, 334 voluntary and manufacturer-initiated recalls of cosmetic products were reported, affecting 77,135,700 units.
• A total of 297 recalls (88.9%) were categorized as Class II, indicating that they caused “medically reversible health consequences.” The median recall duration was 307 days.
• Hygiene and cleaning products accounted for most of the recalls (51.5%). Makeup gels, soaps, shampoos, tattoo ink, wipes, and lotions were the most recalled product categories. Nearly 51% of the products were distributed internationally.
• Microbial and inorganic contamination accounted for 76.8% and 10.2% of the recalls (the two most common reasons for the recall), respectively, with bacteria (80%) the most common contaminating pathogen (primarily Pseudomonas and Burkholderia species).

IN PRACTICE:

With 77 million units recalled by the FDA over 12 years, cosmetic recalls have remained common, the authors concluded, adding that “dermatologists should be key voices in pharmacovigilance given scientific expertise and frontline experience managing products and associated concerns.” Dermatologists, they added, “should also be aware of FDA enforcement reports for recall updates given that average recall termination took approximately 1 year.”

SOURCE:

The study was led by Kaushik P. Venkatesh, MBA, MPH, Harvard Medical School, Boston, and was published online on October 29 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS: 

The study’s limitations include the potential underreporting of Class III recalls (products that are unlikely to cause any adverse health reaction but violate FDA labeling or manufacturing laws) and lack of complete information on contaminants.

DISCLOSURES:

No information on funding was provided in the study. No conflicts of interest were reported.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) experienced improved symptoms with iberdomide, a cereblon modulator, added to standard lupus medications, particularly in subacute and chronic cases.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a randomized phase 2 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of iberdomide in 288 patients with CLE (mean age, 45 years; 97% women). Iberdomide is a cereblon modulator, which results in degradation of two transcription factors of immune cell development and homeostasis — Ikaros and Aiolos — that have been implicated in the genetic predisposition of systemic lupus.
• CLE Disease Area and Severity Index Activity (CLASI-A) endpoints included mean percent change from baseline and ≥ 50% reduction from baseline (CLASI-50), which were evaluated in all patients with baseline CLASI-A scores ≥ 8 and by CLE subtypes (acute, subacute, and chronic).
• At baseline, 56% of patients had acute CLE, 29% had chronic CLE, and 16% had subacute CLE; 28% of patients had a baseline CLASI-A score ≥ 8.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral iberdomide (0.45 mg, 0.30 mg, 0.15 mg, or placebo daily) for 24 weeks while continuing standard lupus medications. At week 24, patients on placebo were rerandomized to iberdomide 0.45 mg or 0.30 mg once a day, while those on iberdomide continued their assigned dose through week 52.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among patients with baseline CLASI-A ≥ 8, the mean change in CLASI-A score from baseline at week 24 was −66.7% for those on iberdomide 0.45 mg vs −54.2% for placebo (P = .295).
• At week 24, patients with subacute CLE showed a significantly greater mean percent change from baseline in CLASI-A with iberdomide 0.45 mg vs placebo (−90.5% vs −51.2%; P = .007), while no significant differences were observed with the 0.45-mg dose vs placebo in patients with chronic or acute CLE.
• Overall, CLASI-50 responses were not significantly different among those on 0.45 mg vs placebo (55.6% vs 44.6%). The proportions of patients achieving CLASI-50 at week 24 were significantly greater for iberdomide 0.45 mg vs placebo for those with subacute CLE (91.7% vs 52.9%; P = .035) and chronic CLE (62.1% vs 27.8%; P = .029), but not for those with baseline CLASI-A ≥ 8 (66.7% vs 50%).
• More than 80% of patients had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), which were mostly mild to moderate. Over 2 years, the most common were urinary tract infections, upper respiratory tract infections, neutropenia, and nasopharyngitis. TEAEs leading to iberdomide discontinuation in one or more patients were neutropenia (n = 7), rash (n = 7), increased hepatic enzymes (n = 4), and deep vein thrombosis (n = 3).

IN PRACTICE:

“Data from this phase 2 trial of iberdomide in patients with SLE suggest that a greater proportion of patients with subacute or chronic CLE who received the higher dose of 0.45 mg iberdomide achieved CLASI-50 vs placebo. For the overall population, CLASI-50 response was not significantly different between treatment groups at week 24, partly due to a high placebo response that may have been driven by patients with acute CLE,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Victoria P. Werth, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania and the Veteran’s Administration Medical Center, both in Philadelphia, and was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included small patient subgroups for different CLE subtypes, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. CLE subtype was determined by the investigator without additional photographic adjudication. Additionally, the use of background lupus medications could have influenced the placebo group’s response, limiting the ability to observe the treatment effect of iberdomide monotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Six authors reported being employed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, and several others reported consultancy and research support from various sources including Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) experienced improved symptoms with iberdomide, a cereblon modulator, added to standard lupus medications, particularly in subacute and chronic cases.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a randomized phase 2 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of iberdomide in 288 patients with CLE (mean age, 45 years; 97% women). Iberdomide is a cereblon modulator, which results in degradation of two transcription factors of immune cell development and homeostasis — Ikaros and Aiolos — that have been implicated in the genetic predisposition of systemic lupus.
• CLE Disease Area and Severity Index Activity (CLASI-A) endpoints included mean percent change from baseline and ≥ 50% reduction from baseline (CLASI-50), which were evaluated in all patients with baseline CLASI-A scores ≥ 8 and by CLE subtypes (acute, subacute, and chronic).
• At baseline, 56% of patients had acute CLE, 29% had chronic CLE, and 16% had subacute CLE; 28% of patients had a baseline CLASI-A score ≥ 8.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral iberdomide (0.45 mg, 0.30 mg, 0.15 mg, or placebo daily) for 24 weeks while continuing standard lupus medications. At week 24, patients on placebo were rerandomized to iberdomide 0.45 mg or 0.30 mg once a day, while those on iberdomide continued their assigned dose through week 52.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among patients with baseline CLASI-A ≥ 8, the mean change in CLASI-A score from baseline at week 24 was −66.7% for those on iberdomide 0.45 mg vs −54.2% for placebo (P = .295).
• At week 24, patients with subacute CLE showed a significantly greater mean percent change from baseline in CLASI-A with iberdomide 0.45 mg vs placebo (−90.5% vs −51.2%; P = .007), while no significant differences were observed with the 0.45-mg dose vs placebo in patients with chronic or acute CLE.
• Overall, CLASI-50 responses were not significantly different among those on 0.45 mg vs placebo (55.6% vs 44.6%). The proportions of patients achieving CLASI-50 at week 24 were significantly greater for iberdomide 0.45 mg vs placebo for those with subacute CLE (91.7% vs 52.9%; P = .035) and chronic CLE (62.1% vs 27.8%; P = .029), but not for those with baseline CLASI-A ≥ 8 (66.7% vs 50%).
• More than 80% of patients had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), which were mostly mild to moderate. Over 2 years, the most common were urinary tract infections, upper respiratory tract infections, neutropenia, and nasopharyngitis. TEAEs leading to iberdomide discontinuation in one or more patients were neutropenia (n = 7), rash (n = 7), increased hepatic enzymes (n = 4), and deep vein thrombosis (n = 3).

IN PRACTICE:

“Data from this phase 2 trial of iberdomide in patients with SLE suggest that a greater proportion of patients with subacute or chronic CLE who received the higher dose of 0.45 mg iberdomide achieved CLASI-50 vs placebo. For the overall population, CLASI-50 response was not significantly different between treatment groups at week 24, partly due to a high placebo response that may have been driven by patients with acute CLE,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Victoria P. Werth, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania and the Veteran’s Administration Medical Center, both in Philadelphia, and was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included small patient subgroups for different CLE subtypes, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. CLE subtype was determined by the investigator without additional photographic adjudication. Additionally, the use of background lupus medications could have influenced the placebo group’s response, limiting the ability to observe the treatment effect of iberdomide monotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Six authors reported being employed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, and several others reported consultancy and research support from various sources including Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

TOPLINE:

Patients with cutaneous lupus erythematosus (CLE) experienced improved symptoms with iberdomide, a cereblon modulator, added to standard lupus medications, particularly in subacute and chronic cases.

METHODOLOGY:

• Researchers conducted a randomized phase 2 trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of iberdomide in 288 patients with CLE (mean age, 45 years; 97% women). Iberdomide is a cereblon modulator, which results in degradation of two transcription factors of immune cell development and homeostasis — Ikaros and Aiolos — that have been implicated in the genetic predisposition of systemic lupus.
• CLE Disease Area and Severity Index Activity (CLASI-A) endpoints included mean percent change from baseline and ≥ 50% reduction from baseline (CLASI-50), which were evaluated in all patients with baseline CLASI-A scores ≥ 8 and by CLE subtypes (acute, subacute, and chronic).
• At baseline, 56% of patients had acute CLE, 29% had chronic CLE, and 16% had subacute CLE; 28% of patients had a baseline CLASI-A score ≥ 8.
• Patients were randomly assigned to receive oral iberdomide (0.45 mg, 0.30 mg, 0.15 mg, or placebo daily) for 24 weeks while continuing standard lupus medications. At week 24, patients on placebo were rerandomized to iberdomide 0.45 mg or 0.30 mg once a day, while those on iberdomide continued their assigned dose through week 52.

TAKEAWAY:

• Among patients with baseline CLASI-A ≥ 8, the mean change in CLASI-A score from baseline at week 24 was −66.7% for those on iberdomide 0.45 mg vs −54.2% for placebo (P = .295).
• At week 24, patients with subacute CLE showed a significantly greater mean percent change from baseline in CLASI-A with iberdomide 0.45 mg vs placebo (−90.5% vs −51.2%; P = .007), while no significant differences were observed with the 0.45-mg dose vs placebo in patients with chronic or acute CLE.
• Overall, CLASI-50 responses were not significantly different among those on 0.45 mg vs placebo (55.6% vs 44.6%). The proportions of patients achieving CLASI-50 at week 24 were significantly greater for iberdomide 0.45 mg vs placebo for those with subacute CLE (91.7% vs 52.9%; P = .035) and chronic CLE (62.1% vs 27.8%; P = .029), but not for those with baseline CLASI-A ≥ 8 (66.7% vs 50%).
• More than 80% of patients had treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), which were mostly mild to moderate. Over 2 years, the most common were urinary tract infections, upper respiratory tract infections, neutropenia, and nasopharyngitis. TEAEs leading to iberdomide discontinuation in one or more patients were neutropenia (n = 7), rash (n = 7), increased hepatic enzymes (n = 4), and deep vein thrombosis (n = 3).

IN PRACTICE:

“Data from this phase 2 trial of iberdomide in patients with SLE suggest that a greater proportion of patients with subacute or chronic CLE who received the higher dose of 0.45 mg iberdomide achieved CLASI-50 vs placebo. For the overall population, CLASI-50 response was not significantly different between treatment groups at week 24, partly due to a high placebo response that may have been driven by patients with acute CLE,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Victoria P. Werth, MD, of the University of Pennsylvania and the Veteran’s Administration Medical Center, both in Philadelphia, and was published online in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology.

LIMITATIONS:

The study included small patient subgroups for different CLE subtypes, which may affect the generalizability of the findings. CLE subtype was determined by the investigator without additional photographic adjudication. Additionally, the use of background lupus medications could have influenced the placebo group’s response, limiting the ability to observe the treatment effect of iberdomide monotherapy.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. Six authors reported being employed by Bristol-Myers Squibb, and several others reported consultancy and research support from various sources including Bristol-Myers Squibb.

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

Approximately one third of parents of children with atopic dermatitis reported little or no improvement with elimination diets, and nearly 80% reintroduced the eliminated foods, based on survey data from nearly 300 parents.

Although atopic dermatitis can be associated with an increased risk for food allergies, major allergy organizations do not currently recommend elimination diets as a treatment for atopic dermatitis, said Nadia Makkoukdji, MD, a pediatrician at Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, in a presentation at the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (ACAAI) Annual Scientific Meeting.

“A fear of drastic dietary changes often prevents families from seeking the care their children need,” Makkoukdji said in an interview. In the clinical setting, Makkoukdji noted that she has seen many patients who have started food elimination diets on their own or as recommended by other doctors, and that these diets can lead to dangers such as the development of immunoglobulin E–mediated food allergies on reintroduction of eliminated foods and malnutrition. They can also produce “emotional stress in children and anxiety or depression, while also adding stress to parents and the entire family.”

Makkoukdji conducted the study to explore parents’ perceptions of these diets in management of their children’s atopic dermatitis, she said.

In the study, Makkoukdji and colleagues sought to understand parents’ perceptions of the role of diet in atopic dermatitis in their children. The researchers reviewed surveys from 298 parents of children with atopic dermatitis who were seen at a single academic center. Parents completed the surveys in the emergency department or in an allergy, dermatology, and general pediatrics clinic.

Overall, 42% of parents identified food triggers for their child’s atopic dermatitis. The most commonly identified triggers were milk (32%), tree nuts/seeds/peanuts (16%), and eggs (11%).

Of the parents who reported food triggers, 23% removed the suspected trigger food from the child’s diet completely, 20% removed suspected trigger foods from their own diets while breastfeeding, and 19% changed their infant’s formula.

In the wake of the elimination diets, 38% of the parents reported no improvement in their child’s atopic dermatitis, 35% reported a 25% improvement, and 9% reported complete resolution. The majority (79%) reintroduced eliminated foods and reported no recurrence of atopic dermatitis symptoms.

The researchers were surprised by how many parents changed their child’s diet in the belief that certain foods exacerbated their child’s atopic dermatitis, “although this perception aligns with the common concern that food allergens can trigger or worsen atopic dermatitis flares,” Makkoukdji said.

The current study highlights the need for more awareness of the limited impact of dietary modifications on atopic dermatitis in the absence of confirmed food allergies, Makkoukdji said. “Our study shows that food elimination diets are still commonly being used by parents in the local Miami population.”

The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from a single center and the focus only on pediatric patients, but the primary goal was to assess parental perceptions of AD flares in relation to dietary choices, said Makkoukdji. “Future studies that include larger and more diverse populations would be valuable for the field.”
 

Dietary Modifications Don’t Live Up to Hype

“Food continues to be one of the most discussed aspects of atopic dermatitis,” Peter Lio, MD, clinical assistant professor of dermatology and pediatrics at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, said in an interview.

“Almost all of my patients and families ask about dietary modifications, even though almost all of them have experimented with it to some degree,” said Lio. In his experience, diet plays a small role, if any, in the day-to-day management of atopic dermatitis.

This lack of effect of dietary changes is often frustrating to patients because of the persistent “common wisdom” that points to diet as a root cause of atopic dermatitis, Lio said. “Many practitioners continue to recommend excluding foods such as gluten or dairy from the diet, but generally these are only of modest help,” and although patients wish that dietary changes would fix the problem, most are left wondering why these changes didn’t help them.

The current study findings “reflect my own experience after nearly 20 years of being deeply immersed in the world of atopic dermatitis,” Lio said. Although the takeaway message does not argue against eating healthy foods, some foods do seem to make AD worse in some patients and may have nonallergic pro-inflammatory effects.

“In those cases, it is reasonable to limit or avoid those foods. However, it is extremely difficult to tell what food or foods are driving flare-ups when things are out of control, so dietary modification is generally not the best place to start,” he said.

True food allergies are much more common in patients with atopic dermatitis compared with individuals without atopic dermatitis, but the current study is not addressing these types of allergies, Lio emphasized. “If someone has true allergy to peanuts, for example, they should not be eating them; we also know that they are not ‘cheating’ because these patients would not merely have an eczema flare; they would have urticaria, angioedema, or anaphylaxis. There is tremendous confusion around this point and lots of confusion around allergy testing and its limitations.”

In addition, patients with atopic dermatitis are more likely than those without atopic dermatitis to have abnormalities in the gut microbiome and gut barrier, Lio said.

Abnormalities in the gut microbiome are different from the concept of allergy and may fall into the more complex category of barrier and microbiome disruptors, he said. Therefore, “the food category may not be nearly as important as the specific preparation of the food along with the additives (such as preservatives and emulsifiers) that may actually be driving the problem.”

Although in the past many clinicians advised patients to try cutting out certain foods to see whether atopic dermatitis symptoms improved, this strategy is not without risk, said Lio. “There have been incredible advancements in understanding the role of the gut in tolerization to foods.” Recent research has shown that by eating foods regularly, particularly those such as peanuts that seem to have more allergic potential, the body becomes tolerant, and this prevents the development of true food allergies.

As for additional research, many questions remain about the effects of types of foods, processing methods, and timing of introduction of foods on atopic dermatitis, Lio noted.

“Atopic dermatitis is a systemic condition with the immune system, with the skin/gut/respiratory barriers and microbiome involved; I think we now have a broader view of how big and complex the landscape really is,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Lio had no disclosures relevant to elimination diets but disclosed serving on the speakers bureau for AbbVie, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Hyphens Pharma, Incyte, La Roche–Posay/L’Oréal, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre Dermatologie, Regeneron/Sanofi Genzyme, and Verrica Pharmaceuticals; serving on consulting/advisory boards; or having stock options for many pharmaceutical companies. Lio also disclosed a patent pending for a Theraplex product with royalties paid and is a board member and Scientific Advisory Committee member emeritus of the National Eczema Association.

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

Approximately one third of parents of children with atopic dermatitis reported little or no improvement with elimination diets, and nearly 80% reintroduced the eliminated foods, based on survey data from nearly 300 parents.

Although atopic dermatitis can be associated with an increased risk for food allergies, major allergy organizations do not currently recommend elimination diets as a treatment for atopic dermatitis, said Nadia Makkoukdji, MD, a pediatrician at Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, in a presentation at the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (ACAAI) Annual Scientific Meeting.

“A fear of drastic dietary changes often prevents families from seeking the care their children need,” Makkoukdji said in an interview. In the clinical setting, Makkoukdji noted that she has seen many patients who have started food elimination diets on their own or as recommended by other doctors, and that these diets can lead to dangers such as the development of immunoglobulin E–mediated food allergies on reintroduction of eliminated foods and malnutrition. They can also produce “emotional stress in children and anxiety or depression, while also adding stress to parents and the entire family.”

Makkoukdji conducted the study to explore parents’ perceptions of these diets in management of their children’s atopic dermatitis, she said.

In the study, Makkoukdji and colleagues sought to understand parents’ perceptions of the role of diet in atopic dermatitis in their children. The researchers reviewed surveys from 298 parents of children with atopic dermatitis who were seen at a single academic center. Parents completed the surveys in the emergency department or in an allergy, dermatology, and general pediatrics clinic.

Overall, 42% of parents identified food triggers for their child’s atopic dermatitis. The most commonly identified triggers were milk (32%), tree nuts/seeds/peanuts (16%), and eggs (11%).

Of the parents who reported food triggers, 23% removed the suspected trigger food from the child’s diet completely, 20% removed suspected trigger foods from their own diets while breastfeeding, and 19% changed their infant’s formula.

In the wake of the elimination diets, 38% of the parents reported no improvement in their child’s atopic dermatitis, 35% reported a 25% improvement, and 9% reported complete resolution. The majority (79%) reintroduced eliminated foods and reported no recurrence of atopic dermatitis symptoms.

The researchers were surprised by how many parents changed their child’s diet in the belief that certain foods exacerbated their child’s atopic dermatitis, “although this perception aligns with the common concern that food allergens can trigger or worsen atopic dermatitis flares,” Makkoukdji said.

The current study highlights the need for more awareness of the limited impact of dietary modifications on atopic dermatitis in the absence of confirmed food allergies, Makkoukdji said. “Our study shows that food elimination diets are still commonly being used by parents in the local Miami population.”

The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from a single center and the focus only on pediatric patients, but the primary goal was to assess parental perceptions of AD flares in relation to dietary choices, said Makkoukdji. “Future studies that include larger and more diverse populations would be valuable for the field.”
 

Dietary Modifications Don’t Live Up to Hype

“Food continues to be one of the most discussed aspects of atopic dermatitis,” Peter Lio, MD, clinical assistant professor of dermatology and pediatrics at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, said in an interview.

“Almost all of my patients and families ask about dietary modifications, even though almost all of them have experimented with it to some degree,” said Lio. In his experience, diet plays a small role, if any, in the day-to-day management of atopic dermatitis.

This lack of effect of dietary changes is often frustrating to patients because of the persistent “common wisdom” that points to diet as a root cause of atopic dermatitis, Lio said. “Many practitioners continue to recommend excluding foods such as gluten or dairy from the diet, but generally these are only of modest help,” and although patients wish that dietary changes would fix the problem, most are left wondering why these changes didn’t help them.

The current study findings “reflect my own experience after nearly 20 years of being deeply immersed in the world of atopic dermatitis,” Lio said. Although the takeaway message does not argue against eating healthy foods, some foods do seem to make AD worse in some patients and may have nonallergic pro-inflammatory effects.

“In those cases, it is reasonable to limit or avoid those foods. However, it is extremely difficult to tell what food or foods are driving flare-ups when things are out of control, so dietary modification is generally not the best place to start,” he said.

True food allergies are much more common in patients with atopic dermatitis compared with individuals without atopic dermatitis, but the current study is not addressing these types of allergies, Lio emphasized. “If someone has true allergy to peanuts, for example, they should not be eating them; we also know that they are not ‘cheating’ because these patients would not merely have an eczema flare; they would have urticaria, angioedema, or anaphylaxis. There is tremendous confusion around this point and lots of confusion around allergy testing and its limitations.”

In addition, patients with atopic dermatitis are more likely than those without atopic dermatitis to have abnormalities in the gut microbiome and gut barrier, Lio said.

Abnormalities in the gut microbiome are different from the concept of allergy and may fall into the more complex category of barrier and microbiome disruptors, he said. Therefore, “the food category may not be nearly as important as the specific preparation of the food along with the additives (such as preservatives and emulsifiers) that may actually be driving the problem.”

Although in the past many clinicians advised patients to try cutting out certain foods to see whether atopic dermatitis symptoms improved, this strategy is not without risk, said Lio. “There have been incredible advancements in understanding the role of the gut in tolerization to foods.” Recent research has shown that by eating foods regularly, particularly those such as peanuts that seem to have more allergic potential, the body becomes tolerant, and this prevents the development of true food allergies.

As for additional research, many questions remain about the effects of types of foods, processing methods, and timing of introduction of foods on atopic dermatitis, Lio noted.

“Atopic dermatitis is a systemic condition with the immune system, with the skin/gut/respiratory barriers and microbiome involved; I think we now have a broader view of how big and complex the landscape really is,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Lio had no disclosures relevant to elimination diets but disclosed serving on the speakers bureau for AbbVie, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Hyphens Pharma, Incyte, La Roche–Posay/L’Oréal, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre Dermatologie, Regeneron/Sanofi Genzyme, and Verrica Pharmaceuticals; serving on consulting/advisory boards; or having stock options for many pharmaceutical companies. Lio also disclosed a patent pending for a Theraplex product with royalties paid and is a board member and Scientific Advisory Committee member emeritus of the National Eczema Association.

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

Approximately one third of parents of children with atopic dermatitis reported little or no improvement with elimination diets, and nearly 80% reintroduced the eliminated foods, based on survey data from nearly 300 parents.

Although atopic dermatitis can be associated with an increased risk for food allergies, major allergy organizations do not currently recommend elimination diets as a treatment for atopic dermatitis, said Nadia Makkoukdji, MD, a pediatrician at Jackson Memorial Hospital, Miami, in a presentation at the American College of Allergy, Asthma, and Immunology (ACAAI) Annual Scientific Meeting.

“A fear of drastic dietary changes often prevents families from seeking the care their children need,” Makkoukdji said in an interview. In the clinical setting, Makkoukdji noted that she has seen many patients who have started food elimination diets on their own or as recommended by other doctors, and that these diets can lead to dangers such as the development of immunoglobulin E–mediated food allergies on reintroduction of eliminated foods and malnutrition. They can also produce “emotional stress in children and anxiety or depression, while also adding stress to parents and the entire family.”

Makkoukdji conducted the study to explore parents’ perceptions of these diets in management of their children’s atopic dermatitis, she said.

In the study, Makkoukdji and colleagues sought to understand parents’ perceptions of the role of diet in atopic dermatitis in their children. The researchers reviewed surveys from 298 parents of children with atopic dermatitis who were seen at a single academic center. Parents completed the surveys in the emergency department or in an allergy, dermatology, and general pediatrics clinic.

Overall, 42% of parents identified food triggers for their child’s atopic dermatitis. The most commonly identified triggers were milk (32%), tree nuts/seeds/peanuts (16%), and eggs (11%).

Of the parents who reported food triggers, 23% removed the suspected trigger food from the child’s diet completely, 20% removed suspected trigger foods from their own diets while breastfeeding, and 19% changed their infant’s formula.

In the wake of the elimination diets, 38% of the parents reported no improvement in their child’s atopic dermatitis, 35% reported a 25% improvement, and 9% reported complete resolution. The majority (79%) reintroduced eliminated foods and reported no recurrence of atopic dermatitis symptoms.

The researchers were surprised by how many parents changed their child’s diet in the belief that certain foods exacerbated their child’s atopic dermatitis, “although this perception aligns with the common concern that food allergens can trigger or worsen atopic dermatitis flares,” Makkoukdji said.

The current study highlights the need for more awareness of the limited impact of dietary modifications on atopic dermatitis in the absence of confirmed food allergies, Makkoukdji said. “Our study shows that food elimination diets are still commonly being used by parents in the local Miami population.”

The findings were limited by several factors, including the use of data from a single center and the focus only on pediatric patients, but the primary goal was to assess parental perceptions of AD flares in relation to dietary choices, said Makkoukdji. “Future studies that include larger and more diverse populations would be valuable for the field.”
 

Dietary Modifications Don’t Live Up to Hype

“Food continues to be one of the most discussed aspects of atopic dermatitis,” Peter Lio, MD, clinical assistant professor of dermatology and pediatrics at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, said in an interview.

“Almost all of my patients and families ask about dietary modifications, even though almost all of them have experimented with it to some degree,” said Lio. In his experience, diet plays a small role, if any, in the day-to-day management of atopic dermatitis.

This lack of effect of dietary changes is often frustrating to patients because of the persistent “common wisdom” that points to diet as a root cause of atopic dermatitis, Lio said. “Many practitioners continue to recommend excluding foods such as gluten or dairy from the diet, but generally these are only of modest help,” and although patients wish that dietary changes would fix the problem, most are left wondering why these changes didn’t help them.

The current study findings “reflect my own experience after nearly 20 years of being deeply immersed in the world of atopic dermatitis,” Lio said. Although the takeaway message does not argue against eating healthy foods, some foods do seem to make AD worse in some patients and may have nonallergic pro-inflammatory effects.

“In those cases, it is reasonable to limit or avoid those foods. However, it is extremely difficult to tell what food or foods are driving flare-ups when things are out of control, so dietary modification is generally not the best place to start,” he said.

True food allergies are much more common in patients with atopic dermatitis compared with individuals without atopic dermatitis, but the current study is not addressing these types of allergies, Lio emphasized. “If someone has true allergy to peanuts, for example, they should not be eating them; we also know that they are not ‘cheating’ because these patients would not merely have an eczema flare; they would have urticaria, angioedema, or anaphylaxis. There is tremendous confusion around this point and lots of confusion around allergy testing and its limitations.”

In addition, patients with atopic dermatitis are more likely than those without atopic dermatitis to have abnormalities in the gut microbiome and gut barrier, Lio said.

Abnormalities in the gut microbiome are different from the concept of allergy and may fall into the more complex category of barrier and microbiome disruptors, he said. Therefore, “the food category may not be nearly as important as the specific preparation of the food along with the additives (such as preservatives and emulsifiers) that may actually be driving the problem.”

Although in the past many clinicians advised patients to try cutting out certain foods to see whether atopic dermatitis symptoms improved, this strategy is not without risk, said Lio. “There have been incredible advancements in understanding the role of the gut in tolerization to foods.” Recent research has shown that by eating foods regularly, particularly those such as peanuts that seem to have more allergic potential, the body becomes tolerant, and this prevents the development of true food allergies.

As for additional research, many questions remain about the effects of types of foods, processing methods, and timing of introduction of foods on atopic dermatitis, Lio noted.

“Atopic dermatitis is a systemic condition with the immune system, with the skin/gut/respiratory barriers and microbiome involved; I think we now have a broader view of how big and complex the landscape really is,” he said.

The study received no outside funding. The researchers had no financial conflicts to disclose. Lio had no disclosures relevant to elimination diets but disclosed serving on the speakers bureau for AbbVie, Arcutis Biotherapeutics, Eli Lilly, Galderma, Hyphens Pharma, Incyte, La Roche–Posay/L’Oréal, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre Dermatologie, Regeneron/Sanofi Genzyme, and Verrica Pharmaceuticals; serving on consulting/advisory boards; or having stock options for many pharmaceutical companies. Lio also disclosed a patent pending for a Theraplex product with royalties paid and is a board member and Scientific Advisory Committee member emeritus of the National Eczema Association.

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

TOPLINE:

Intact fish skin grafts, sourced from Atlantic cod, show superior and faster healing than standard wound care practices in patients with deep and penetrating diabetic foot ulcers.

METHODOLOGY:

• Standard wound care for diabetic foot ulcers involves vascular assessment, surgical debridement, use of appropriate dressings, infection management, and glycemic control; however, standard care is typically associated with poor outcomes.
• Researchers conducted a multicenter clinical trial in 15 tertiary care centers with diabetic foot units across France, Italy, Germany, and Sweden to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intact fish skin grafts over standard-of-care practices in treating complex diabetic foot ulcers.
• A total of 255 patients aged 18 years or older with diabetes and lower limb wounds penetrating to the tendon, capsule, bone, or joint were randomly assigned to receive either an intact fish skin graft or standard wound care for 14 weeks.
• The primary endpoint was the percentage of wounds achieving complete closure by 16 weeks.
• Wound healing was also assessed at 20 and 24 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• The proportion of wounds healed at 16 weeks was higher with intact fish skin grafts than with standard-of-care (44.0% vs 26.4% adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.58; 95% CI, 1.48-4.56).
• The fish skin grafts continued to be more effective than standard wound care practices at weeks 20 (aOR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.27–3.70) and 24 (aOR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.31–3.70).
• The mean time to healing was 17.31 weeks for the intact fish skin graft group and 19.37 weeks for the standard-of-care group; intact fish skin grafts were also associated with faster healing times than standard wound care (hazard ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.07-2.36).
• Target wound infections were the most common adverse events, occurring in a similar number of patients in both the groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our trial demonstrated treatment of complex diabetic foot ulcers with intact fish skin grafts achieved a significantly greater proportion of diabetic foot ulcers healed at 16 weeks than standard of care, and was associated with increased healing at 20 and 24 weeks. That these results were achieved in non-superficial UT [University of Texas diabetic wound classification system] grade 2 and 3 diabetic foot ulcers and included ischemic and/or infected diabetic foot ulcers is of importance,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dured Dardari, MD, PhD, Center Hospitalier Sud Francilien, Corbeil-Essonnes, France, and was published online in NEJM Evidence.

LIMITATIONS:

No limitations were discussed for this study.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by European Commission Fast Track to Innovation Horizon 2020 and Kerecis. Two authors reported being employees with or without stock options at Kerecis, and other authors reported having ties with many sources including Kerecis.

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

TOPLINE:

Intact fish skin grafts, sourced from Atlantic cod, show superior and faster healing than standard wound care practices in patients with deep and penetrating diabetic foot ulcers.

METHODOLOGY:

• Standard wound care for diabetic foot ulcers involves vascular assessment, surgical debridement, use of appropriate dressings, infection management, and glycemic control; however, standard care is typically associated with poor outcomes.
• Researchers conducted a multicenter clinical trial in 15 tertiary care centers with diabetic foot units across France, Italy, Germany, and Sweden to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intact fish skin grafts over standard-of-care practices in treating complex diabetic foot ulcers.
• A total of 255 patients aged 18 years or older with diabetes and lower limb wounds penetrating to the tendon, capsule, bone, or joint were randomly assigned to receive either an intact fish skin graft or standard wound care for 14 weeks.
• The primary endpoint was the percentage of wounds achieving complete closure by 16 weeks.
• Wound healing was also assessed at 20 and 24 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• The proportion of wounds healed at 16 weeks was higher with intact fish skin grafts than with standard-of-care (44.0% vs 26.4% adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.58; 95% CI, 1.48-4.56).
• The fish skin grafts continued to be more effective than standard wound care practices at weeks 20 (aOR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.27–3.70) and 24 (aOR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.31–3.70).
• The mean time to healing was 17.31 weeks for the intact fish skin graft group and 19.37 weeks for the standard-of-care group; intact fish skin grafts were also associated with faster healing times than standard wound care (hazard ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.07-2.36).
• Target wound infections were the most common adverse events, occurring in a similar number of patients in both the groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our trial demonstrated treatment of complex diabetic foot ulcers with intact fish skin grafts achieved a significantly greater proportion of diabetic foot ulcers healed at 16 weeks than standard of care, and was associated with increased healing at 20 and 24 weeks. That these results were achieved in non-superficial UT [University of Texas diabetic wound classification system] grade 2 and 3 diabetic foot ulcers and included ischemic and/or infected diabetic foot ulcers is of importance,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dured Dardari, MD, PhD, Center Hospitalier Sud Francilien, Corbeil-Essonnes, France, and was published online in NEJM Evidence.

LIMITATIONS:

No limitations were discussed for this study.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by European Commission Fast Track to Innovation Horizon 2020 and Kerecis. Two authors reported being employees with or without stock options at Kerecis, and other authors reported having ties with many sources including Kerecis.

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

TOPLINE:

Intact fish skin grafts, sourced from Atlantic cod, show superior and faster healing than standard wound care practices in patients with deep and penetrating diabetic foot ulcers.

METHODOLOGY:

• Standard wound care for diabetic foot ulcers involves vascular assessment, surgical debridement, use of appropriate dressings, infection management, and glycemic control; however, standard care is typically associated with poor outcomes.
• Researchers conducted a multicenter clinical trial in 15 tertiary care centers with diabetic foot units across France, Italy, Germany, and Sweden to evaluate the efficacy and safety of intact fish skin grafts over standard-of-care practices in treating complex diabetic foot ulcers.
• A total of 255 patients aged 18 years or older with diabetes and lower limb wounds penetrating to the tendon, capsule, bone, or joint were randomly assigned to receive either an intact fish skin graft or standard wound care for 14 weeks.
• The primary endpoint was the percentage of wounds achieving complete closure by 16 weeks.
• Wound healing was also assessed at 20 and 24 weeks.

TAKEAWAY:

• The proportion of wounds healed at 16 weeks was higher with intact fish skin grafts than with standard-of-care (44.0% vs 26.4% adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.58; 95% CI, 1.48-4.56).
• The fish skin grafts continued to be more effective than standard wound care practices at weeks 20 (aOR, 2.15; 95% CI, 1.27–3.70) and 24 (aOR, 2.19; 95% CI, 1.31–3.70).
• The mean time to healing was 17.31 weeks for the intact fish skin graft group and 19.37 weeks for the standard-of-care group; intact fish skin grafts were also associated with faster healing times than standard wound care (hazard ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.07-2.36).
• Target wound infections were the most common adverse events, occurring in a similar number of patients in both the groups.

IN PRACTICE:

“Our trial demonstrated treatment of complex diabetic foot ulcers with intact fish skin grafts achieved a significantly greater proportion of diabetic foot ulcers healed at 16 weeks than standard of care, and was associated with increased healing at 20 and 24 weeks. That these results were achieved in non-superficial UT [University of Texas diabetic wound classification system] grade 2 and 3 diabetic foot ulcers and included ischemic and/or infected diabetic foot ulcers is of importance,” the authors wrote.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Dured Dardari, MD, PhD, Center Hospitalier Sud Francilien, Corbeil-Essonnes, France, and was published online in NEJM Evidence.

LIMITATIONS:

No limitations were discussed for this study.

DISCLOSURES:

The study was funded by European Commission Fast Track to Innovation Horizon 2020 and Kerecis. Two authors reported being employees with or without stock options at Kerecis, and other authors reported having ties with many sources including Kerecis.

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

In seconds, Ravi Parikh, MD, an oncologist at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, had a summary of his patient’s entire medical history. Normally, Parikh skimmed the cumbersome files before seeing a patient. However, the artificial intelligence (AI) tool his institution was testing could list the highlights he needed in a fraction of the time.

“On the whole, I like it ... it saves me time,” Parikh said of the tool. “But I’d be lying if I told you it was perfect all the time. It’s interpreting the [patient] history in some ways that may be inaccurate,” he said.

Within the first week of testing the tool, Parikh started to notice that the large language model (LLM) made a particular mistake in his patients with prostate cancer. If their prostate-specific antigen test results came back slightly elevated — which is part of normal variation — the LLM recorded it as disease progression. Because Parikh reviews all his notes — with or without using an AI tool — after a visit, he easily caught the mistake before it was added to the chart. “The problem, I think, is if these mistakes go under the hood,” he said.

In the data science world, these mistakes are called hallucinations. And a growing body of research suggests they’re happening more frequently than is safe for healthcare. The industry promised LLMs would alleviate administrative burden and reduce physician burnout. But so far, studies show these AI-tool mistakes often create more work for doctors, not less. To truly help physicians and be safe for patients, some experts say healthcare needs to build its own LLMs from the ground up. And all agree that the field desperately needs a way to vet these algorithms more thoroughly.
 

Prone to Error

Right now, “I think the industry is focused on taking existing LLMs and forcing them into usage for healthcare,” said Nigam H. Shah, MBBS, PhD, chief data scientist for Stanford Health. However, the value of deploying general LLMs in the healthcare space is questionable. “People are starting to wonder if we’re using these tools wrong,” he told this news organization.

In 2023, Shah and his colleagues evaluated seven LLMs on their ability to answer electronic health record–based questions. For realistic tasks, the error rate in the best cases was about 35%, he said. “To me, that rate seems a bit high ... to adopt for routine use.”

A study earlier this year by the UC San Diego School of Medicine showed that using LLMs to respond to patient messages increased the time doctors spent on messages. And this summer, a study by the clinical AI firm Mendel found that when GPT-4o or Llama-3 were used to summarize patient medical records, almost every summary contained at least one type of hallucination.

“We’ve seen cases where a patient does have drug allergies, but the system says ‘no known drug allergies’ ” in the medical history summary, said Wael Salloum, PhD, cofounder and chief science officer at Mendel. “That’s a serious hallucination.” And if physicians have to constantly verify what the system is telling them, that “defeats the purpose [of summarization],” he said.
 

A Higher Quality Diet

Part of the trouble with LLMs is that there’s just not enough high-quality information to feed them. The algorithms are insatiable, requiring vast swaths of data for training. GPT-3.5, for instance, was trained on 570 GB of data from the internet, more than 300 billion words. And to train GPT-4o, OpenAI reportedly transcribed more than 1 million hours of YouTube content.

However, the strategies that built these general LLMs don’t always translate well to healthcare. The internet is full of low-quality or misleading health information from wellness sites and supplement advertisements. And even data that are trustworthy, like the millions of clinical studies and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) statements, can be outdated, Salloum said. And “an LLM in training can’t distinguish good from bad,” he added.

The good news is that clinicians don’t rely on controversial information in the real world. Medical knowledge is standardized. “Healthcare is a domain rich with explicit knowledge,” Salloum said. So there’s potential to build a more reliable LLM that is guided by robust medical standards and guidelines.

It’s possible that healthcare could use small language models, which are LLM’s pocket-sized cousins, and perform tasks needing only bite-sized datasets requiring fewer resources and easier fine-tuning, according to Microsoft’s website. Shah said training these smaller models on real medical data might be an option, like an LLM meant to respond to patient messages that could be trained with real messages sent by physicians.

Several groups are already working on databases of standardized human medical knowledge or real physician responses. “Perhaps that will work better than using LLMs trained on the general internet. Those studies need to be done,” Shah said.

Jon Tamir, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering and co-lead of the AI Health Lab at The University of Texas at Austin, said, “The community has recognized that we are entering a new era of AI where the dataset itself is the most important aspect. We need training sets that are highly curated and highly specialized.

“If the dataset is highly specialized, it will definitely help reduce hallucinations,” he said.
 

Cutting Overconfidence

A major problem with LLM mistakes is that they are often hard to detect. Hallucinations can be highly convincing even if they’re highly inaccurate, according to Tamir.

When Shah, for instance, was recently testing an LLM on de-identified patient data, he asked the LLM which blood test the patient last had. The model responded with “complete blood count [CBC].” But when he asked for the results, the model gave him white blood count and other values. “Turns out that record did not have a CBC done at all! The result was entirely made up,” he said.

Making healthcare LLMs safer and more reliable will mean training AI to acknowledge potential mistakes and uncertainty. Existing LLMs are trained to project confidence and produce a lot of answers, even when there isn’t one, Salloum said. They rarely respond with “I don’t know” even when their prediction has low confidence, he added.

Healthcare stands to benefit from a system that highlights uncertainty and potential errors. For instance, if a patient’s history shows they have smoked, stopped smoking, vaped, and started smoking again. The LLM might call them a smoker but flag the comment as uncertain because the chronology is complicated, Salloum said.

Tamir added that this strategy could improve LLM and doctor collaboration by honing in on where human expertise is needed most.
 

Too Little Evaluation

For any improvement strategy to work, LLMs — and all AI-assisted healthcare tools — first need a better evaluation framework. So far, LLMs have “been used in really exciting ways but not really well-vetted ways,” Tamir said.

While some AI-assisted tools, particularly in medical imaging, have undergone rigorous FDA evaluations and earned approval, most haven’t. And because the FDA only regulates algorithms that are considered medical devices, Parikh said that most LLMs used for administrative tasks and efficiency don’t fall under the regulatory agency’s purview.

But these algorithms still have access to patient information and can directly influence patient and doctor decisions. Third-party regulatory agencies are expected to emerge, but it’s still unclear who those will be. Before developers can build a safer and more efficient LLM for healthcare, they’ll need better guidelines and guardrails. “Unless we figure out evaluation, how would we know whether the healthcare-appropriate large language models are better or worse?” Shah asked.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In seconds, Ravi Parikh, MD, an oncologist at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, had a summary of his patient’s entire medical history. Normally, Parikh skimmed the cumbersome files before seeing a patient. However, the artificial intelligence (AI) tool his institution was testing could list the highlights he needed in a fraction of the time.

“On the whole, I like it ... it saves me time,” Parikh said of the tool. “But I’d be lying if I told you it was perfect all the time. It’s interpreting the [patient] history in some ways that may be inaccurate,” he said.

Within the first week of testing the tool, Parikh started to notice that the large language model (LLM) made a particular mistake in his patients with prostate cancer. If their prostate-specific antigen test results came back slightly elevated — which is part of normal variation — the LLM recorded it as disease progression. Because Parikh reviews all his notes — with or without using an AI tool — after a visit, he easily caught the mistake before it was added to the chart. “The problem, I think, is if these mistakes go under the hood,” he said.

In the data science world, these mistakes are called hallucinations. And a growing body of research suggests they’re happening more frequently than is safe for healthcare. The industry promised LLMs would alleviate administrative burden and reduce physician burnout. But so far, studies show these AI-tool mistakes often create more work for doctors, not less. To truly help physicians and be safe for patients, some experts say healthcare needs to build its own LLMs from the ground up. And all agree that the field desperately needs a way to vet these algorithms more thoroughly.
 

Prone to Error

Right now, “I think the industry is focused on taking existing LLMs and forcing them into usage for healthcare,” said Nigam H. Shah, MBBS, PhD, chief data scientist for Stanford Health. However, the value of deploying general LLMs in the healthcare space is questionable. “People are starting to wonder if we’re using these tools wrong,” he told this news organization.

In 2023, Shah and his colleagues evaluated seven LLMs on their ability to answer electronic health record–based questions. For realistic tasks, the error rate in the best cases was about 35%, he said. “To me, that rate seems a bit high ... to adopt for routine use.”

A study earlier this year by the UC San Diego School of Medicine showed that using LLMs to respond to patient messages increased the time doctors spent on messages. And this summer, a study by the clinical AI firm Mendel found that when GPT-4o or Llama-3 were used to summarize patient medical records, almost every summary contained at least one type of hallucination.

“We’ve seen cases where a patient does have drug allergies, but the system says ‘no known drug allergies’ ” in the medical history summary, said Wael Salloum, PhD, cofounder and chief science officer at Mendel. “That’s a serious hallucination.” And if physicians have to constantly verify what the system is telling them, that “defeats the purpose [of summarization],” he said.
 

A Higher Quality Diet

Part of the trouble with LLMs is that there’s just not enough high-quality information to feed them. The algorithms are insatiable, requiring vast swaths of data for training. GPT-3.5, for instance, was trained on 570 GB of data from the internet, more than 300 billion words. And to train GPT-4o, OpenAI reportedly transcribed more than 1 million hours of YouTube content.

However, the strategies that built these general LLMs don’t always translate well to healthcare. The internet is full of low-quality or misleading health information from wellness sites and supplement advertisements. And even data that are trustworthy, like the millions of clinical studies and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) statements, can be outdated, Salloum said. And “an LLM in training can’t distinguish good from bad,” he added.

The good news is that clinicians don’t rely on controversial information in the real world. Medical knowledge is standardized. “Healthcare is a domain rich with explicit knowledge,” Salloum said. So there’s potential to build a more reliable LLM that is guided by robust medical standards and guidelines.

It’s possible that healthcare could use small language models, which are LLM’s pocket-sized cousins, and perform tasks needing only bite-sized datasets requiring fewer resources and easier fine-tuning, according to Microsoft’s website. Shah said training these smaller models on real medical data might be an option, like an LLM meant to respond to patient messages that could be trained with real messages sent by physicians.

Several groups are already working on databases of standardized human medical knowledge or real physician responses. “Perhaps that will work better than using LLMs trained on the general internet. Those studies need to be done,” Shah said.

Jon Tamir, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering and co-lead of the AI Health Lab at The University of Texas at Austin, said, “The community has recognized that we are entering a new era of AI where the dataset itself is the most important aspect. We need training sets that are highly curated and highly specialized.

“If the dataset is highly specialized, it will definitely help reduce hallucinations,” he said.
 

Cutting Overconfidence

A major problem with LLM mistakes is that they are often hard to detect. Hallucinations can be highly convincing even if they’re highly inaccurate, according to Tamir.

When Shah, for instance, was recently testing an LLM on de-identified patient data, he asked the LLM which blood test the patient last had. The model responded with “complete blood count [CBC].” But when he asked for the results, the model gave him white blood count and other values. “Turns out that record did not have a CBC done at all! The result was entirely made up,” he said.

Making healthcare LLMs safer and more reliable will mean training AI to acknowledge potential mistakes and uncertainty. Existing LLMs are trained to project confidence and produce a lot of answers, even when there isn’t one, Salloum said. They rarely respond with “I don’t know” even when their prediction has low confidence, he added.

Healthcare stands to benefit from a system that highlights uncertainty and potential errors. For instance, if a patient’s history shows they have smoked, stopped smoking, vaped, and started smoking again. The LLM might call them a smoker but flag the comment as uncertain because the chronology is complicated, Salloum said.

Tamir added that this strategy could improve LLM and doctor collaboration by honing in on where human expertise is needed most.
 

Too Little Evaluation

For any improvement strategy to work, LLMs — and all AI-assisted healthcare tools — first need a better evaluation framework. So far, LLMs have “been used in really exciting ways but not really well-vetted ways,” Tamir said.

While some AI-assisted tools, particularly in medical imaging, have undergone rigorous FDA evaluations and earned approval, most haven’t. And because the FDA only regulates algorithms that are considered medical devices, Parikh said that most LLMs used for administrative tasks and efficiency don’t fall under the regulatory agency’s purview.

But these algorithms still have access to patient information and can directly influence patient and doctor decisions. Third-party regulatory agencies are expected to emerge, but it’s still unclear who those will be. Before developers can build a safer and more efficient LLM for healthcare, they’ll need better guidelines and guardrails. “Unless we figure out evaluation, how would we know whether the healthcare-appropriate large language models are better or worse?” Shah asked.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In seconds, Ravi Parikh, MD, an oncologist at the Emory University School of Medicine in Atlanta, had a summary of his patient’s entire medical history. Normally, Parikh skimmed the cumbersome files before seeing a patient. However, the artificial intelligence (AI) tool his institution was testing could list the highlights he needed in a fraction of the time.

“On the whole, I like it ... it saves me time,” Parikh said of the tool. “But I’d be lying if I told you it was perfect all the time. It’s interpreting the [patient] history in some ways that may be inaccurate,” he said.

Within the first week of testing the tool, Parikh started to notice that the large language model (LLM) made a particular mistake in his patients with prostate cancer. If their prostate-specific antigen test results came back slightly elevated — which is part of normal variation — the LLM recorded it as disease progression. Because Parikh reviews all his notes — with or without using an AI tool — after a visit, he easily caught the mistake before it was added to the chart. “The problem, I think, is if these mistakes go under the hood,” he said.

In the data science world, these mistakes are called hallucinations. And a growing body of research suggests they’re happening more frequently than is safe for healthcare. The industry promised LLMs would alleviate administrative burden and reduce physician burnout. But so far, studies show these AI-tool mistakes often create more work for doctors, not less. To truly help physicians and be safe for patients, some experts say healthcare needs to build its own LLMs from the ground up. And all agree that the field desperately needs a way to vet these algorithms more thoroughly.
 

Prone to Error

Right now, “I think the industry is focused on taking existing LLMs and forcing them into usage for healthcare,” said Nigam H. Shah, MBBS, PhD, chief data scientist for Stanford Health. However, the value of deploying general LLMs in the healthcare space is questionable. “People are starting to wonder if we’re using these tools wrong,” he told this news organization.

In 2023, Shah and his colleagues evaluated seven LLMs on their ability to answer electronic health record–based questions. For realistic tasks, the error rate in the best cases was about 35%, he said. “To me, that rate seems a bit high ... to adopt for routine use.”

A study earlier this year by the UC San Diego School of Medicine showed that using LLMs to respond to patient messages increased the time doctors spent on messages. And this summer, a study by the clinical AI firm Mendel found that when GPT-4o or Llama-3 were used to summarize patient medical records, almost every summary contained at least one type of hallucination.

“We’ve seen cases where a patient does have drug allergies, but the system says ‘no known drug allergies’ ” in the medical history summary, said Wael Salloum, PhD, cofounder and chief science officer at Mendel. “That’s a serious hallucination.” And if physicians have to constantly verify what the system is telling them, that “defeats the purpose [of summarization],” he said.
 

A Higher Quality Diet

Part of the trouble with LLMs is that there’s just not enough high-quality information to feed them. The algorithms are insatiable, requiring vast swaths of data for training. GPT-3.5, for instance, was trained on 570 GB of data from the internet, more than 300 billion words. And to train GPT-4o, OpenAI reportedly transcribed more than 1 million hours of YouTube content.

However, the strategies that built these general LLMs don’t always translate well to healthcare. The internet is full of low-quality or misleading health information from wellness sites and supplement advertisements. And even data that are trustworthy, like the millions of clinical studies and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) statements, can be outdated, Salloum said. And “an LLM in training can’t distinguish good from bad,” he added.

The good news is that clinicians don’t rely on controversial information in the real world. Medical knowledge is standardized. “Healthcare is a domain rich with explicit knowledge,” Salloum said. So there’s potential to build a more reliable LLM that is guided by robust medical standards and guidelines.

It’s possible that healthcare could use small language models, which are LLM’s pocket-sized cousins, and perform tasks needing only bite-sized datasets requiring fewer resources and easier fine-tuning, according to Microsoft’s website. Shah said training these smaller models on real medical data might be an option, like an LLM meant to respond to patient messages that could be trained with real messages sent by physicians.

Several groups are already working on databases of standardized human medical knowledge or real physician responses. “Perhaps that will work better than using LLMs trained on the general internet. Those studies need to be done,” Shah said.

Jon Tamir, assistant professor of electrical and computer engineering and co-lead of the AI Health Lab at The University of Texas at Austin, said, “The community has recognized that we are entering a new era of AI where the dataset itself is the most important aspect. We need training sets that are highly curated and highly specialized.

“If the dataset is highly specialized, it will definitely help reduce hallucinations,” he said.
 

Cutting Overconfidence

A major problem with LLM mistakes is that they are often hard to detect. Hallucinations can be highly convincing even if they’re highly inaccurate, according to Tamir.

When Shah, for instance, was recently testing an LLM on de-identified patient data, he asked the LLM which blood test the patient last had. The model responded with “complete blood count [CBC].” But when he asked for the results, the model gave him white blood count and other values. “Turns out that record did not have a CBC done at all! The result was entirely made up,” he said.

Making healthcare LLMs safer and more reliable will mean training AI to acknowledge potential mistakes and uncertainty. Existing LLMs are trained to project confidence and produce a lot of answers, even when there isn’t one, Salloum said. They rarely respond with “I don’t know” even when their prediction has low confidence, he added.

Healthcare stands to benefit from a system that highlights uncertainty and potential errors. For instance, if a patient’s history shows they have smoked, stopped smoking, vaped, and started smoking again. The LLM might call them a smoker but flag the comment as uncertain because the chronology is complicated, Salloum said.

Tamir added that this strategy could improve LLM and doctor collaboration by honing in on where human expertise is needed most.
 

Too Little Evaluation

For any improvement strategy to work, LLMs — and all AI-assisted healthcare tools — first need a better evaluation framework. So far, LLMs have “been used in really exciting ways but not really well-vetted ways,” Tamir said.

While some AI-assisted tools, particularly in medical imaging, have undergone rigorous FDA evaluations and earned approval, most haven’t. And because the FDA only regulates algorithms that are considered medical devices, Parikh said that most LLMs used for administrative tasks and efficiency don’t fall under the regulatory agency’s purview.

But these algorithms still have access to patient information and can directly influence patient and doctor decisions. Third-party regulatory agencies are expected to emerge, but it’s still unclear who those will be. Before developers can build a safer and more efficient LLM for healthcare, they’ll need better guidelines and guardrails. “Unless we figure out evaluation, how would we know whether the healthcare-appropriate large language models are better or worse?” Shah asked.
 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

From the largest healthcare companies to solo practices, just every organization in medicine faces a risk for costly cyberattacks. In recent years, hackers have threatened to release the personal information of patients and employees — or paralyze online systems — unless they’re paid a ransom.

Should companies pay? It’s not an easy answer, a pair of experts told colleagues in an American Medical Association (AMA) cybersecurity webinar on October 18. It turns out that each choice — pay or don’t pay — can end up being costly.

This is just one of the new challenges facing the American medical system on the cybersecurity front, the speakers said. Others include the possibility that hackers will manipulate patient data — turning a medical test negative, for example, when it’s actually positive — and take advantage of the powers of artificial intelligence (AI).

The AMA held the webinar to educate physicians about cybersecurity risks and defenses, an especially hot topic in the wake of February’s Change Healthcare hack, which cost UnitedHealth Group an estimated $2.5 billion — so far — and deeply disrupted the American healthcare system.

Cautionary tales abound. Greg Garcia, executive director for cybersecurity of the Health Sector Coordinating Council, a coalition of medical industry organizations, pointed to a Pennsylvania clinic that refused to pay a ransom to prevent the release of hundreds of images of patients with breast cancer undressed from the waist up. Garcia told webinar participants that the ransom was $5 million.
 

Risky Choices

While the Federal Bureau of Investigation recommends against paying a ransom, this can be a risky choice, Garcia said. Hackers released the images, and the center has reportedly agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit for $65 million. “They traded $5 million for $60 million,” Garcia added, slightly misstating the settlement amount.

Health systems have been cagey about whether they’ve paid ransoms to prevent private data from being made public in cyberattacks. If a ransom is demanded, “it’s every organization for itself,” Garcia said.

He highlighted the case of a chain of psychiatry practices in Finland that suffered a ransomware attack in 2020. The hackers “contacted the patients and said: ‘Hey, call your clinic and tell them to pay the ransom. Otherwise, we’re going to release all your psychiatric notes to the public.’ ”

Cyberattacks continue. In October, Boston Children’s Health Physicians announced that it had suffered a “ recent security incident” involving data — possibly including Social Security numbers and treatment information — regarding patients and employees. A hacker group reportedly claimed responsibility and wants the system, which boasts more than 300 clinicians, to pay a ransom or else it will release the stolen information.
 

Should Paying Ransom Be a Crime?

Christian Dameff, MD, MS, an emergency medicine physician and director of the Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity at the University of California (UC), San Diego, noted that there are efforts to turn paying ransom into a crime. “If people aren’t paying ransoms, then ransomware operators will move to something else that makes them money.”

Dameff urged colleagues to understand we no longer live in a world where clinicians only bother to think of technology when they call the IT department to help them reset their password.

New challenges face clinicians, he said. “How do we develop better strategies, downtime procedures, and safe clinical care in an era where our vital technology may be gone, not just for an hour or 2, but as is the case with these ransomware attacks, sometimes weeks to months.”

Garcia said “cybersecurity is everybody’s responsibility, including frontline clinicians. Because you’re touching data, you’re touching technology, you’re touching patients, and all of those things combine to present some vulnerabilities in the digital world.”
 

Next Frontier: Hackers May Manipulate Patient Data

Dameff said future hackers may use AI to manipulate individual patient data in ways that threaten patient health. AI makes this easier to accomplish.

“What if I delete your allergies in your electronic health record, or I manipulate your chest x-ray, or I change your lab values so it looks like you’re in diabetic ketoacidosis when you’re not so a clinician gives you insulin when you don’t need it?”

Garcia highlighted another new threat: Phishing efforts that are harder to ignore thanks to AI.

“One of the most successful way that hackers get in, disrupt systems, and steal data is through email phishing, and it’s only going to get better because of artificial intelligence,” he said. “No longer are you going to have typos in that email written by a hacking group in Nigeria or in China. It’s going to be perfect looking.”

What can practices and healthcare systems do? Garcia highlighted federal health agency efforts to encourage organizations to adopt best practices in cybersecurity.

“If you’ve got a data breach, and you can show to the US Department of Health & Human Services [HHS] you have implemented generally recognized cybersecurity controls over the past year, that you have done your best, you did the right thing, and you still got hit, HHS is directed to essentially take it easy on you,” he said. “That’s a positive incentive.”
 

Ransomware Guide in the Works

Dameff said UC San Diego’s Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity plans to publish a free cybersecurity guide in 2025 that will include specific information about ransomware attacks for medical specialties such as cardiology, trauma surgery, and pediatrics.

“Then, should you ever be ransomed, you can pull out this guide. You’ll know what’s going to kind of happen, and you can better prepare for those effects.”

Will the future president prioritize healthcare cybersecurity? That remains to be seen, but crises do have the capacity to concentrate the mind, experts said.

The nation’s capital “has a very short memory, a short attention span. The policymakers tend to be reactive,” Dameff said. “All it takes is yet another Change Healthcare–like attack that disrupts 30% or more of the nation’s healthcare system for the policymakers to sit up, take notice, and try to come up with solutions.”

In addition, he said, an estimated two data breaches/ransomware attacks are occurring per day. “The fact is that we’re all patients, up to the President of the United States and every member of the Congress is a patient.”

There’s a “very existential, very palpable understanding that cyber safety is patient safety and cyber insecurity is patient insecurity,” Dameff said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

From the largest healthcare companies to solo practices, just every organization in medicine faces a risk for costly cyberattacks. In recent years, hackers have threatened to release the personal information of patients and employees — or paralyze online systems — unless they’re paid a ransom.

Should companies pay? It’s not an easy answer, a pair of experts told colleagues in an American Medical Association (AMA) cybersecurity webinar on October 18. It turns out that each choice — pay or don’t pay — can end up being costly.

This is just one of the new challenges facing the American medical system on the cybersecurity front, the speakers said. Others include the possibility that hackers will manipulate patient data — turning a medical test negative, for example, when it’s actually positive — and take advantage of the powers of artificial intelligence (AI).

The AMA held the webinar to educate physicians about cybersecurity risks and defenses, an especially hot topic in the wake of February’s Change Healthcare hack, which cost UnitedHealth Group an estimated $2.5 billion — so far — and deeply disrupted the American healthcare system.

Cautionary tales abound. Greg Garcia, executive director for cybersecurity of the Health Sector Coordinating Council, a coalition of medical industry organizations, pointed to a Pennsylvania clinic that refused to pay a ransom to prevent the release of hundreds of images of patients with breast cancer undressed from the waist up. Garcia told webinar participants that the ransom was $5 million.
 

Risky Choices

While the Federal Bureau of Investigation recommends against paying a ransom, this can be a risky choice, Garcia said. Hackers released the images, and the center has reportedly agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit for $65 million. “They traded $5 million for $60 million,” Garcia added, slightly misstating the settlement amount.

Health systems have been cagey about whether they’ve paid ransoms to prevent private data from being made public in cyberattacks. If a ransom is demanded, “it’s every organization for itself,” Garcia said.

He highlighted the case of a chain of psychiatry practices in Finland that suffered a ransomware attack in 2020. The hackers “contacted the patients and said: ‘Hey, call your clinic and tell them to pay the ransom. Otherwise, we’re going to release all your psychiatric notes to the public.’ ”

Cyberattacks continue. In October, Boston Children’s Health Physicians announced that it had suffered a “ recent security incident” involving data — possibly including Social Security numbers and treatment information — regarding patients and employees. A hacker group reportedly claimed responsibility and wants the system, which boasts more than 300 clinicians, to pay a ransom or else it will release the stolen information.
 

Should Paying Ransom Be a Crime?

Christian Dameff, MD, MS, an emergency medicine physician and director of the Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity at the University of California (UC), San Diego, noted that there are efforts to turn paying ransom into a crime. “If people aren’t paying ransoms, then ransomware operators will move to something else that makes them money.”

Dameff urged colleagues to understand we no longer live in a world where clinicians only bother to think of technology when they call the IT department to help them reset their password.

New challenges face clinicians, he said. “How do we develop better strategies, downtime procedures, and safe clinical care in an era where our vital technology may be gone, not just for an hour or 2, but as is the case with these ransomware attacks, sometimes weeks to months.”

Garcia said “cybersecurity is everybody’s responsibility, including frontline clinicians. Because you’re touching data, you’re touching technology, you’re touching patients, and all of those things combine to present some vulnerabilities in the digital world.”
 

Next Frontier: Hackers May Manipulate Patient Data

Dameff said future hackers may use AI to manipulate individual patient data in ways that threaten patient health. AI makes this easier to accomplish.

“What if I delete your allergies in your electronic health record, or I manipulate your chest x-ray, or I change your lab values so it looks like you’re in diabetic ketoacidosis when you’re not so a clinician gives you insulin when you don’t need it?”

Garcia highlighted another new threat: Phishing efforts that are harder to ignore thanks to AI.

“One of the most successful way that hackers get in, disrupt systems, and steal data is through email phishing, and it’s only going to get better because of artificial intelligence,” he said. “No longer are you going to have typos in that email written by a hacking group in Nigeria or in China. It’s going to be perfect looking.”

What can practices and healthcare systems do? Garcia highlighted federal health agency efforts to encourage organizations to adopt best practices in cybersecurity.

“If you’ve got a data breach, and you can show to the US Department of Health & Human Services [HHS] you have implemented generally recognized cybersecurity controls over the past year, that you have done your best, you did the right thing, and you still got hit, HHS is directed to essentially take it easy on you,” he said. “That’s a positive incentive.”
 

Ransomware Guide in the Works

Dameff said UC San Diego’s Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity plans to publish a free cybersecurity guide in 2025 that will include specific information about ransomware attacks for medical specialties such as cardiology, trauma surgery, and pediatrics.

“Then, should you ever be ransomed, you can pull out this guide. You’ll know what’s going to kind of happen, and you can better prepare for those effects.”

Will the future president prioritize healthcare cybersecurity? That remains to be seen, but crises do have the capacity to concentrate the mind, experts said.

The nation’s capital “has a very short memory, a short attention span. The policymakers tend to be reactive,” Dameff said. “All it takes is yet another Change Healthcare–like attack that disrupts 30% or more of the nation’s healthcare system for the policymakers to sit up, take notice, and try to come up with solutions.”

In addition, he said, an estimated two data breaches/ransomware attacks are occurring per day. “The fact is that we’re all patients, up to the President of the United States and every member of the Congress is a patient.”

There’s a “very existential, very palpable understanding that cyber safety is patient safety and cyber insecurity is patient insecurity,” Dameff said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

From the largest healthcare companies to solo practices, just every organization in medicine faces a risk for costly cyberattacks. In recent years, hackers have threatened to release the personal information of patients and employees — or paralyze online systems — unless they’re paid a ransom.

Should companies pay? It’s not an easy answer, a pair of experts told colleagues in an American Medical Association (AMA) cybersecurity webinar on October 18. It turns out that each choice — pay or don’t pay — can end up being costly.

This is just one of the new challenges facing the American medical system on the cybersecurity front, the speakers said. Others include the possibility that hackers will manipulate patient data — turning a medical test negative, for example, when it’s actually positive — and take advantage of the powers of artificial intelligence (AI).

The AMA held the webinar to educate physicians about cybersecurity risks and defenses, an especially hot topic in the wake of February’s Change Healthcare hack, which cost UnitedHealth Group an estimated $2.5 billion — so far — and deeply disrupted the American healthcare system.

Cautionary tales abound. Greg Garcia, executive director for cybersecurity of the Health Sector Coordinating Council, a coalition of medical industry organizations, pointed to a Pennsylvania clinic that refused to pay a ransom to prevent the release of hundreds of images of patients with breast cancer undressed from the waist up. Garcia told webinar participants that the ransom was $5 million.
 

Risky Choices

While the Federal Bureau of Investigation recommends against paying a ransom, this can be a risky choice, Garcia said. Hackers released the images, and the center has reportedly agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit for $65 million. “They traded $5 million for $60 million,” Garcia added, slightly misstating the settlement amount.

Health systems have been cagey about whether they’ve paid ransoms to prevent private data from being made public in cyberattacks. If a ransom is demanded, “it’s every organization for itself,” Garcia said.

He highlighted the case of a chain of psychiatry practices in Finland that suffered a ransomware attack in 2020. The hackers “contacted the patients and said: ‘Hey, call your clinic and tell them to pay the ransom. Otherwise, we’re going to release all your psychiatric notes to the public.’ ”

Cyberattacks continue. In October, Boston Children’s Health Physicians announced that it had suffered a “ recent security incident” involving data — possibly including Social Security numbers and treatment information — regarding patients and employees. A hacker group reportedly claimed responsibility and wants the system, which boasts more than 300 clinicians, to pay a ransom or else it will release the stolen information.
 

Should Paying Ransom Be a Crime?

Christian Dameff, MD, MS, an emergency medicine physician and director of the Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity at the University of California (UC), San Diego, noted that there are efforts to turn paying ransom into a crime. “If people aren’t paying ransoms, then ransomware operators will move to something else that makes them money.”

Dameff urged colleagues to understand we no longer live in a world where clinicians only bother to think of technology when they call the IT department to help them reset their password.

New challenges face clinicians, he said. “How do we develop better strategies, downtime procedures, and safe clinical care in an era where our vital technology may be gone, not just for an hour or 2, but as is the case with these ransomware attacks, sometimes weeks to months.”

Garcia said “cybersecurity is everybody’s responsibility, including frontline clinicians. Because you’re touching data, you’re touching technology, you’re touching patients, and all of those things combine to present some vulnerabilities in the digital world.”
 

Next Frontier: Hackers May Manipulate Patient Data

Dameff said future hackers may use AI to manipulate individual patient data in ways that threaten patient health. AI makes this easier to accomplish.

“What if I delete your allergies in your electronic health record, or I manipulate your chest x-ray, or I change your lab values so it looks like you’re in diabetic ketoacidosis when you’re not so a clinician gives you insulin when you don’t need it?”

Garcia highlighted another new threat: Phishing efforts that are harder to ignore thanks to AI.

“One of the most successful way that hackers get in, disrupt systems, and steal data is through email phishing, and it’s only going to get better because of artificial intelligence,” he said. “No longer are you going to have typos in that email written by a hacking group in Nigeria or in China. It’s going to be perfect looking.”

What can practices and healthcare systems do? Garcia highlighted federal health agency efforts to encourage organizations to adopt best practices in cybersecurity.

“If you’ve got a data breach, and you can show to the US Department of Health & Human Services [HHS] you have implemented generally recognized cybersecurity controls over the past year, that you have done your best, you did the right thing, and you still got hit, HHS is directed to essentially take it easy on you,” he said. “That’s a positive incentive.”
 

Ransomware Guide in the Works

Dameff said UC San Diego’s Center for Healthcare Cybersecurity plans to publish a free cybersecurity guide in 2025 that will include specific information about ransomware attacks for medical specialties such as cardiology, trauma surgery, and pediatrics.

“Then, should you ever be ransomed, you can pull out this guide. You’ll know what’s going to kind of happen, and you can better prepare for those effects.”

Will the future president prioritize healthcare cybersecurity? That remains to be seen, but crises do have the capacity to concentrate the mind, experts said.

The nation’s capital “has a very short memory, a short attention span. The policymakers tend to be reactive,” Dameff said. “All it takes is yet another Change Healthcare–like attack that disrupts 30% or more of the nation’s healthcare system for the policymakers to sit up, take notice, and try to come up with solutions.”

In addition, he said, an estimated two data breaches/ransomware attacks are occurring per day. “The fact is that we’re all patients, up to the President of the United States and every member of the Congress is a patient.”

There’s a “very existential, very palpable understanding that cyber safety is patient safety and cyber insecurity is patient insecurity,” Dameff said.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On October 1, 2024, International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes for central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) and frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) took effect for the first time, a development characterized as a critical advancement in the field of hair loss disorders.

“CCCA and FFA are conditions that require early diagnosis and intervention to prevent irreversible hair loss,” Maria Hordinsky, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and a member of the Board of Directors, Scarring Alopecia Foundation (SAF), said in an interview.

Ms. Jefferson

For her part, Jefferson said that she will continue to advocate for patients with scarring alopecia as a medical student and when she becomes a physician. “I hope in the near future we will see an externally led FDA Patient-Focused Drug Development meeting for both CCCA and FFA, further advancing care and research for these conditions,” she said in an interview.

McMichael, Hordinsky, and Jefferson had no relevant disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On October 1, 2024, International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes for central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) and frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) took effect for the first time, a development characterized as a critical advancement in the field of hair loss disorders.

“CCCA and FFA are conditions that require early diagnosis and intervention to prevent irreversible hair loss,” Maria Hordinsky, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and a member of the Board of Directors, Scarring Alopecia Foundation (SAF), said in an interview.

Ms. Jefferson

For her part, Jefferson said that she will continue to advocate for patients with scarring alopecia as a medical student and when she becomes a physician. “I hope in the near future we will see an externally led FDA Patient-Focused Drug Development meeting for both CCCA and FFA, further advancing care and research for these conditions,” she said in an interview.

McMichael, Hordinsky, and Jefferson had no relevant disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

On October 1, 2024, International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-10-CM) codes for central centrifugal cicatricial alopecia (CCCA) and frontal fibrosing alopecia (FFA) took effect for the first time, a development characterized as a critical advancement in the field of hair loss disorders.

“CCCA and FFA are conditions that require early diagnosis and intervention to prevent irreversible hair loss,” Maria Hordinsky, MD, professor of dermatology at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, and a member of the Board of Directors, Scarring Alopecia Foundation (SAF), said in an interview.

Ms. Jefferson

For her part, Jefferson said that she will continue to advocate for patients with scarring alopecia as a medical student and when she becomes a physician. “I hope in the near future we will see an externally led FDA Patient-Focused Drug Development meeting for both CCCA and FFA, further advancing care and research for these conditions,” she said in an interview.

McMichael, Hordinsky, and Jefferson had no relevant disclosures to report.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.