Dermatology News

Involvement of the head, neck, face, and hands with atopic dermatitis was associated with a significantly higher impact on health-related quality of life and appeared to be associated with more severe AD, according to a large, cross-sectional study of patients with AD.

“While we know that head, neck, face, and hands seem to be significantly affected by patients with AD, there is a limited evidence basis regarding the prevalence and health-related quality of life impact of AD in these areas,” presenting author Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, said during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

For the study, Dr. Eichenfield, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues evaluated 533 patients from the TARGET-DERM AD cohort, an ongoing, longitudinal, observational study launched in 2019 that captures patients with AD in 44 community or academic sites in the United States.

Adult, adolescent, and pediatric patients with moderate or severe Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) scores at enrollment were included in the analysis. The researchers used the Patient-Oriented Scoring AD (PO-SCORAD) index to gather information on involvement of the head, neck, face, hands, or other areas, and the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) and Dermatology Life Quality Index/Children’s DLQI (CDLQI) to measure health-related quality of life outcomes.

Of the 533 study participants, 453 (85%) had AD affecting the head, neck, face, hands, and other areas, while 80 (15%) had AD located in other body regions not including the head, neck, face, or hands. About 38% of all patients were using systemic treatments; most were using topical treatments.

Comorbid immune system disorders (including allergic and hypersensitivity disorders) were noted in 44.8% of patients, infections in 32.5%, asthma in 26.5%, hypertension in 18.6%, depression in 15.8%, and anxiety in 12.4%, with similar proportions observed in those with or without head, neck, face, and hand involvement.

However, patients with head, face, neck, and hand involvement, when compared with patients without those affected areas, were more likely to have severe vIGA scores (28.5% vs. 16.3%, P = .02) and a higher median total body surface area affected (15% vs. 10%, P ≤ .01). Also, while bivariable analyses did not detect statistical differences in POEM and DLQI/CDLQI by body region involvement, multivariable-adjusted models showed that patients with head, neck, face, and hand involvement were more than twice as likely to report higher DLQI/CDLQI (odds ratio, 2.09) and POEM (OR, 2.51) scores than those without head, face, neck, and hand involvement.

“These findings highlight the importance of detailed assessment of specific areas affected by AD to personalize treatment approaches to the needs of patients,” Dr. Eichenfield concluded.

Raj Chovatiya MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the findings confirm clinical suspicions about the unique and heightened impact of facial, head/neck, and hand dermatitis. “These data show that a detailed skin examination is necessary for a complete assessment of AD,” he said. “Future studies should focus on characterizing the optimal treatment approaches for each of these special sites.”

“This is important data,” added primary study author Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, director of clinical research in the division of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “We need more high-quality studies like this; we need to create long-term longitudinal data to better understand [the impact of AD on] this and other cohorts.”

TARGET-DERM is sponsored by Target RWE. Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he has served as a consultant to or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for AbbVie, Arena, Arcutis, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr. Silverberg disclosed that he is a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies, receives fees for non-CME/CE services from Eli Lilly, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme, as well as contracted research fees from Galderma.

Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH

Patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) in “visible” areas such as the head, neck, and hands experience a higher impact on their quality of life than those who do not have these areas of involvement. This is a self-evident and unsurprising result but also a particularly important one to document for several reasons. First, evidence-based demonstration of quality-of-life impact is critical as we petition carriers to support the use of newer, more expensive medications. Second, from a topical therapy standpoint, we often use different medications on the head, neck, face, and hands relative to other areas. On the head and neck area we often use either weaker topical steroids to avoid side effects or nonsteroids like topical calcineurin or phosphodiesterase inhibitors; conversely, on the hands we use stronger steroids and are less likely to use nonsteroidal agents that are perceived to be less potent. These data emphasize the need to tailor therapy but ascertain whether standard approaches are satisfactory. If patients are not responding, particularly in these sensitive areas, providers should consider the outsized impact AD may be having on quality of life.

Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.

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

This article was updated 6/10/22.

Involvement of the head, neck, face, and hands with atopic dermatitis was associated with a significantly higher impact on health-related quality of life and appeared to be associated with more severe AD, according to a large, cross-sectional study of patients with AD.

“While we know that head, neck, face, and hands seem to be significantly affected by patients with AD, there is a limited evidence basis regarding the prevalence and health-related quality of life impact of AD in these areas,” presenting author Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, said during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

For the study, Dr. Eichenfield, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues evaluated 533 patients from the TARGET-DERM AD cohort, an ongoing, longitudinal, observational study launched in 2019 that captures patients with AD in 44 community or academic sites in the United States.

Adult, adolescent, and pediatric patients with moderate or severe Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) scores at enrollment were included in the analysis. The researchers used the Patient-Oriented Scoring AD (PO-SCORAD) index to gather information on involvement of the head, neck, face, hands, or other areas, and the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) and Dermatology Life Quality Index/Children’s DLQI (CDLQI) to measure health-related quality of life outcomes.

Of the 533 study participants, 453 (85%) had AD affecting the head, neck, face, hands, and other areas, while 80 (15%) had AD located in other body regions not including the head, neck, face, or hands. About 38% of all patients were using systemic treatments; most were using topical treatments.

Comorbid immune system disorders (including allergic and hypersensitivity disorders) were noted in 44.8% of patients, infections in 32.5%, asthma in 26.5%, hypertension in 18.6%, depression in 15.8%, and anxiety in 12.4%, with similar proportions observed in those with or without head, neck, face, and hand involvement.

However, patients with head, face, neck, and hand involvement, when compared with patients without those affected areas, were more likely to have severe vIGA scores (28.5% vs. 16.3%, P = .02) and a higher median total body surface area affected (15% vs. 10%, P ≤ .01). Also, while bivariable analyses did not detect statistical differences in POEM and DLQI/CDLQI by body region involvement, multivariable-adjusted models showed that patients with head, neck, face, and hand involvement were more than twice as likely to report higher DLQI/CDLQI (odds ratio, 2.09) and POEM (OR, 2.51) scores than those without head, face, neck, and hand involvement.

“These findings highlight the importance of detailed assessment of specific areas affected by AD to personalize treatment approaches to the needs of patients,” Dr. Eichenfield concluded.

Raj Chovatiya MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the findings confirm clinical suspicions about the unique and heightened impact of facial, head/neck, and hand dermatitis. “These data show that a detailed skin examination is necessary for a complete assessment of AD,” he said. “Future studies should focus on characterizing the optimal treatment approaches for each of these special sites.”

“This is important data,” added primary study author Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, director of clinical research in the division of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “We need more high-quality studies like this; we need to create long-term longitudinal data to better understand [the impact of AD on] this and other cohorts.”

TARGET-DERM is sponsored by Target RWE. Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he has served as a consultant to or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for AbbVie, Arena, Arcutis, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr. Silverberg disclosed that he is a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies, receives fees for non-CME/CE services from Eli Lilly, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme, as well as contracted research fees from Galderma.

Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH

Patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) in “visible” areas such as the head, neck, and hands experience a higher impact on their quality of life than those who do not have these areas of involvement. This is a self-evident and unsurprising result but also a particularly important one to document for several reasons. First, evidence-based demonstration of quality-of-life impact is critical as we petition carriers to support the use of newer, more expensive medications. Second, from a topical therapy standpoint, we often use different medications on the head, neck, face, and hands relative to other areas. On the head and neck area we often use either weaker topical steroids to avoid side effects or nonsteroids like topical calcineurin or phosphodiesterase inhibitors; conversely, on the hands we use stronger steroids and are less likely to use nonsteroidal agents that are perceived to be less potent. These data emphasize the need to tailor therapy but ascertain whether standard approaches are satisfactory. If patients are not responding, particularly in these sensitive areas, providers should consider the outsized impact AD may be having on quality of life.

Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.

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

This article was updated 6/10/22.

Involvement of the head, neck, face, and hands with atopic dermatitis was associated with a significantly higher impact on health-related quality of life and appeared to be associated with more severe AD, according to a large, cross-sectional study of patients with AD.

“While we know that head, neck, face, and hands seem to be significantly affected by patients with AD, there is a limited evidence basis regarding the prevalence and health-related quality of life impact of AD in these areas,” presenting author Lawrence F. Eichenfield, MD, said during a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

For the study, Dr. Eichenfield, professor of dermatology and pediatrics at the University of California, San Diego, and colleagues evaluated 533 patients from the TARGET-DERM AD cohort, an ongoing, longitudinal, observational study launched in 2019 that captures patients with AD in 44 community or academic sites in the United States.

Adult, adolescent, and pediatric patients with moderate or severe Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD) scores at enrollment were included in the analysis. The researchers used the Patient-Oriented Scoring AD (PO-SCORAD) index to gather information on involvement of the head, neck, face, hands, or other areas, and the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM) and Dermatology Life Quality Index/Children’s DLQI (CDLQI) to measure health-related quality of life outcomes.

Of the 533 study participants, 453 (85%) had AD affecting the head, neck, face, hands, and other areas, while 80 (15%) had AD located in other body regions not including the head, neck, face, or hands. About 38% of all patients were using systemic treatments; most were using topical treatments.

Comorbid immune system disorders (including allergic and hypersensitivity disorders) were noted in 44.8% of patients, infections in 32.5%, asthma in 26.5%, hypertension in 18.6%, depression in 15.8%, and anxiety in 12.4%, with similar proportions observed in those with or without head, neck, face, and hand involvement.

However, patients with head, face, neck, and hand involvement, when compared with patients without those affected areas, were more likely to have severe vIGA scores (28.5% vs. 16.3%, P = .02) and a higher median total body surface area affected (15% vs. 10%, P ≤ .01). Also, while bivariable analyses did not detect statistical differences in POEM and DLQI/CDLQI by body region involvement, multivariable-adjusted models showed that patients with head, neck, face, and hand involvement were more than twice as likely to report higher DLQI/CDLQI (odds ratio, 2.09) and POEM (OR, 2.51) scores than those without head, face, neck, and hand involvement.

“These findings highlight the importance of detailed assessment of specific areas affected by AD to personalize treatment approaches to the needs of patients,” Dr. Eichenfield concluded.

Raj Chovatiya MD, PhD, assistant professor of dermatology at Northwestern University, Chicago, who was asked to comment on the study, said that the findings confirm clinical suspicions about the unique and heightened impact of facial, head/neck, and hand dermatitis. “These data show that a detailed skin examination is necessary for a complete assessment of AD,” he said. “Future studies should focus on characterizing the optimal treatment approaches for each of these special sites.”

“This is important data,” added primary study author Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, director of clinical research in the division of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington. “We need more high-quality studies like this; we need to create long-term longitudinal data to better understand [the impact of AD on] this and other cohorts.”

TARGET-DERM is sponsored by Target RWE. Dr. Eichenfield disclosed that he has served as a consultant to or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Chovatiya disclosed that he is a consultant to, a speaker for, and/or a member of the advisory board for AbbVie, Arena, Arcutis, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi-Genzyme. Dr. Silverberg disclosed that he is a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies, receives fees for non-CME/CE services from Eli Lilly, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme, as well as contracted research fees from Galderma.

Commentary by Robert Sidbury, MD, MPH

Patients with atopic dermatitis (AD) in “visible” areas such as the head, neck, and hands experience a higher impact on their quality of life than those who do not have these areas of involvement. This is a self-evident and unsurprising result but also a particularly important one to document for several reasons. First, evidence-based demonstration of quality-of-life impact is critical as we petition carriers to support the use of newer, more expensive medications. Second, from a topical therapy standpoint, we often use different medications on the head, neck, face, and hands relative to other areas. On the head and neck area we often use either weaker topical steroids to avoid side effects or nonsteroids like topical calcineurin or phosphodiesterase inhibitors; conversely, on the hands we use stronger steroids and are less likely to use nonsteroidal agents that are perceived to be less potent. These data emphasize the need to tailor therapy but ascertain whether standard approaches are satisfactory. If patients are not responding, particularly in these sensitive areas, providers should consider the outsized impact AD may be having on quality of life.

Dr. Sidbury is chief of dermatology at Seattle Children's Hospital and professor, department of pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle. He is a site principal investigator for dupilumab trials, for which the hospital has a contract with Regeneron.

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

This article was updated 6/10/22.

More than a week after the rollout of the new, gender-neutral approach to the risk mitigation program for isotretinoin, frustration and glitches are still an issue, according to dermatologists, pharmacists, and patients.

When the new website and call center launched Dec. 13, hours-long hold times and repeated crashing of the website were reported as the norm, not the exception, triggering the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) to request – and get – an emergency meeting on Dec. 16 with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which mandates the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) for isotretinoin due to the teratogenicity of the acne medication.

At that meeting, ‘’the FDA and HHS [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] acknowledged the concerns of dermatologists and the need for stakeholders to work collaboratively to find a solution,” Ilona Frieden, MD, chair of the AADA’s iPLEDGE workgroup and professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an email interview. At the meeting, the AADA representatives described the severe impact on patient access to treatment that is resulting from the issues. The AADA also ‘’reiterated our call for a temporary pause to the program while stakeholders work to resolve the urgent issues with the platform,” she said.

The new approach, which is intended to make the experience more inclusive for transgender patients, reduces the previous three risk categories (females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males) to just two (those capable of getting pregnant and those not capable). The program requires physicians, patients, and pharmacists who prescribe, use, or dispense the drug to be registered, with requirements that include the use of two forms of an effective contraceptive and regular pregnancy tests by patients capable of becoming pregnant.

With reduced or no access during the technology glitches, access to the medicine was delayed for some patients. And dermatologists, pharmacists, and their staffs reported grueling hold times trying to reach the call center when the website had issues.

While the FDA agreed to help find a solution, it noted that the solution ‘’was to be found with dermatologists and pharmacists who are on the ground living the program every day,” Dr. Frieden said. No timeline for solving the issues was provided, so on Dec. 21, the AADA asked the FDA for a constructive dialogue among stakeholders within the next 24 hours, Dr. Frieden told this news organization.

While Dr. Frieden sees progress, ‘’we are disappointed that this situation continues to drag on for more than a week later, with more patients losing access to their needed medication each day.” While some prescribers have been able to log onto the portal and enter the information required, confirming some patients, large gaps remain, she said. Patients and pharmacists still report difficulties logging on. When that happens and they try to reach the call center, there are often hours-long hold times, dropped calls, or a message saying to call back.

The iPLEDGE administrator is Syneos Health, but a spokesperson for Syneos, Gary Gatyas, said the company does not maintain the system or the contact center.

So who does manage the call center and website? “The AADA has asked stakeholders, including Syneos Health, for clarification on who manages the call center and website but has not received a response,” Dr. Frieden said. “In the meeting [Dec. 16], representatives from the FDA made clear that the iPLEDGE sponsors are ultimately responsible for this REMS program,” Dr. Frieden said.

According to the FDA, isotretinoin manufacturers are part of the iPLEDGE program. On the iPLEDGE website, 12 isotretinoin products are listed, made by eight different companies.

One dermatologist maneuvering the new website who registered successfully as a provider told this news organization that he received a follow-up survey from United BioSource about the new website. This news organization contacted that company to confirm it runs the website but has not yet received a response.

Meanwhile, dermatologists continue to help frustrated patients cope with the new website and registration details. Neil S. Goldberg, MD, a dermatologist in Westchester County, New York, heard from two mothers who helped their teen daughters complete the forms by attesting they would use abstinence as contraception but then couldn’t figure out how to answer another question. As a result, their answers were interpreted as the patients saying they were using abstinence but didn’t commit to not having sexual contact with a partner capable of impregnating them. So Dr. Goldberg got an automated message back from the iPLEDGE program that the answers were a mismatch.

And in the comments section following a previous story on the problematic rollout, one reader offered a suggestion for reducing hold times to the call center: choose the Spanish option.

Dr. Frieden and Dr. Goldberg have no relevant disclosures.

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

More than a week after the rollout of the new, gender-neutral approach to the risk mitigation program for isotretinoin, frustration and glitches are still an issue, according to dermatologists, pharmacists, and patients.

When the new website and call center launched Dec. 13, hours-long hold times and repeated crashing of the website were reported as the norm, not the exception, triggering the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) to request – and get – an emergency meeting on Dec. 16 with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which mandates the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) for isotretinoin due to the teratogenicity of the acne medication.

At that meeting, ‘’the FDA and HHS [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] acknowledged the concerns of dermatologists and the need for stakeholders to work collaboratively to find a solution,” Ilona Frieden, MD, chair of the AADA’s iPLEDGE workgroup and professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an email interview. At the meeting, the AADA representatives described the severe impact on patient access to treatment that is resulting from the issues. The AADA also ‘’reiterated our call for a temporary pause to the program while stakeholders work to resolve the urgent issues with the platform,” she said.

The new approach, which is intended to make the experience more inclusive for transgender patients, reduces the previous three risk categories (females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males) to just two (those capable of getting pregnant and those not capable). The program requires physicians, patients, and pharmacists who prescribe, use, or dispense the drug to be registered, with requirements that include the use of two forms of an effective contraceptive and regular pregnancy tests by patients capable of becoming pregnant.

With reduced or no access during the technology glitches, access to the medicine was delayed for some patients. And dermatologists, pharmacists, and their staffs reported grueling hold times trying to reach the call center when the website had issues.

While the FDA agreed to help find a solution, it noted that the solution ‘’was to be found with dermatologists and pharmacists who are on the ground living the program every day,” Dr. Frieden said. No timeline for solving the issues was provided, so on Dec. 21, the AADA asked the FDA for a constructive dialogue among stakeholders within the next 24 hours, Dr. Frieden told this news organization.

While Dr. Frieden sees progress, ‘’we are disappointed that this situation continues to drag on for more than a week later, with more patients losing access to their needed medication each day.” While some prescribers have been able to log onto the portal and enter the information required, confirming some patients, large gaps remain, she said. Patients and pharmacists still report difficulties logging on. When that happens and they try to reach the call center, there are often hours-long hold times, dropped calls, or a message saying to call back.

The iPLEDGE administrator is Syneos Health, but a spokesperson for Syneos, Gary Gatyas, said the company does not maintain the system or the contact center.

So who does manage the call center and website? “The AADA has asked stakeholders, including Syneos Health, for clarification on who manages the call center and website but has not received a response,” Dr. Frieden said. “In the meeting [Dec. 16], representatives from the FDA made clear that the iPLEDGE sponsors are ultimately responsible for this REMS program,” Dr. Frieden said.

According to the FDA, isotretinoin manufacturers are part of the iPLEDGE program. On the iPLEDGE website, 12 isotretinoin products are listed, made by eight different companies.

One dermatologist maneuvering the new website who registered successfully as a provider told this news organization that he received a follow-up survey from United BioSource about the new website. This news organization contacted that company to confirm it runs the website but has not yet received a response.

Meanwhile, dermatologists continue to help frustrated patients cope with the new website and registration details. Neil S. Goldberg, MD, a dermatologist in Westchester County, New York, heard from two mothers who helped their teen daughters complete the forms by attesting they would use abstinence as contraception but then couldn’t figure out how to answer another question. As a result, their answers were interpreted as the patients saying they were using abstinence but didn’t commit to not having sexual contact with a partner capable of impregnating them. So Dr. Goldberg got an automated message back from the iPLEDGE program that the answers were a mismatch.

And in the comments section following a previous story on the problematic rollout, one reader offered a suggestion for reducing hold times to the call center: choose the Spanish option.

Dr. Frieden and Dr. Goldberg have no relevant disclosures.

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

More than a week after the rollout of the new, gender-neutral approach to the risk mitigation program for isotretinoin, frustration and glitches are still an issue, according to dermatologists, pharmacists, and patients.

When the new website and call center launched Dec. 13, hours-long hold times and repeated crashing of the website were reported as the norm, not the exception, triggering the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) to request – and get – an emergency meeting on Dec. 16 with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which mandates the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) for isotretinoin due to the teratogenicity of the acne medication.

At that meeting, ‘’the FDA and HHS [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] acknowledged the concerns of dermatologists and the need for stakeholders to work collaboratively to find a solution,” Ilona Frieden, MD, chair of the AADA’s iPLEDGE workgroup and professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, said in an email interview. At the meeting, the AADA representatives described the severe impact on patient access to treatment that is resulting from the issues. The AADA also ‘’reiterated our call for a temporary pause to the program while stakeholders work to resolve the urgent issues with the platform,” she said.

The new approach, which is intended to make the experience more inclusive for transgender patients, reduces the previous three risk categories (females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males) to just two (those capable of getting pregnant and those not capable). The program requires physicians, patients, and pharmacists who prescribe, use, or dispense the drug to be registered, with requirements that include the use of two forms of an effective contraceptive and regular pregnancy tests by patients capable of becoming pregnant.

With reduced or no access during the technology glitches, access to the medicine was delayed for some patients. And dermatologists, pharmacists, and their staffs reported grueling hold times trying to reach the call center when the website had issues.

While the FDA agreed to help find a solution, it noted that the solution ‘’was to be found with dermatologists and pharmacists who are on the ground living the program every day,” Dr. Frieden said. No timeline for solving the issues was provided, so on Dec. 21, the AADA asked the FDA for a constructive dialogue among stakeholders within the next 24 hours, Dr. Frieden told this news organization.

While Dr. Frieden sees progress, ‘’we are disappointed that this situation continues to drag on for more than a week later, with more patients losing access to their needed medication each day.” While some prescribers have been able to log onto the portal and enter the information required, confirming some patients, large gaps remain, she said. Patients and pharmacists still report difficulties logging on. When that happens and they try to reach the call center, there are often hours-long hold times, dropped calls, or a message saying to call back.

The iPLEDGE administrator is Syneos Health, but a spokesperson for Syneos, Gary Gatyas, said the company does not maintain the system or the contact center.

So who does manage the call center and website? “The AADA has asked stakeholders, including Syneos Health, for clarification on who manages the call center and website but has not received a response,” Dr. Frieden said. “In the meeting [Dec. 16], representatives from the FDA made clear that the iPLEDGE sponsors are ultimately responsible for this REMS program,” Dr. Frieden said.

According to the FDA, isotretinoin manufacturers are part of the iPLEDGE program. On the iPLEDGE website, 12 isotretinoin products are listed, made by eight different companies.

One dermatologist maneuvering the new website who registered successfully as a provider told this news organization that he received a follow-up survey from United BioSource about the new website. This news organization contacted that company to confirm it runs the website but has not yet received a response.

Meanwhile, dermatologists continue to help frustrated patients cope with the new website and registration details. Neil S. Goldberg, MD, a dermatologist in Westchester County, New York, heard from two mothers who helped their teen daughters complete the forms by attesting they would use abstinence as contraception but then couldn’t figure out how to answer another question. As a result, their answers were interpreted as the patients saying they were using abstinence but didn’t commit to not having sexual contact with a partner capable of impregnating them. So Dr. Goldberg got an automated message back from the iPLEDGE program that the answers were a mismatch.

And in the comments section following a previous story on the problematic rollout, one reader offered a suggestion for reducing hold times to the call center: choose the Spanish option.

Dr. Frieden and Dr. Goldberg have no relevant disclosures.

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

People who get COVID-19 infections caused by the Omicron variant are less likely to need hospital care, compared with those infected by the Delta variant, according to two large new studies from the U.K. and South Africa.

The findings, which were released ahead of peer review, add to previous glimmers of evidence suggesting that Omicron – while extremely contagious -– may result in less severe symptoms than its predecessors.

“This is helping us quantify how much less severe Omicron is than Delta, and it appears to be between 40 to 75% reduced risk of hospitalizations, adjusted for many factors, which is very good,” said Eric Topol, MD, the editor-in-chief of Medscape and a cardiologist at Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, CA.

The first analysis, which was done by the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling and Imperial College London, found that overall, people infected by Omicron had about a 20% reduced risk of needing any hospital care for their infections and a 40% lower risk of an overnight hospital stay, compared to those infected with Delta.

Meanwhile, people who were re-infected – meaning they caught Omicron after recovering from a previous COVID-19 infection – had a 50%-60% lower risk of needing hospital care, likely reflecting the benefits of having some prior immunity against the same family of viruses.

The study included everyone with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 in the U.K. during the first 2 weeks of December – roughly 56,000 Omicron cases and 269,000 Delta infections.

The second study, from researchers at the National Institute for Communicable Diseases in South Africa, included more than 29,000 COVID-19 cases that had lab results highly suggestive of Omicron infections. Compared to people infected with the Delta variant, those with presumed Omicron infections were about 70% less likely to have severe disease.

While the news is hopeful for individuals, on a population level, health care systems may still be stressed, the study authors warned.

“Given the high transmissibility of the Omicron virus, there remains the potential for health services to face increasing demand if Omicron cases continue to grow at the rate that has been seen in recent weeks,” said study author Neil Ferguson, PhD, who studies how infectious diseases spread at Imperial College London.

The study authors say their findings are specific to the U.K. and South Africa, where substantial portions of the population have some immune protection from past infection. In other words, they may not apply to countries where fewer people have been vaccinated or recovered from a bout with COVID-19.

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

People who get COVID-19 infections caused by the Omicron variant are less likely to need hospital care, compared with those infected by the Delta variant, according to two large new studies from the U.K. and South Africa.

The findings, which were released ahead of peer review, add to previous glimmers of evidence suggesting that Omicron – while extremely contagious -– may result in less severe symptoms than its predecessors.

“This is helping us quantify how much less severe Omicron is than Delta, and it appears to be between 40 to 75% reduced risk of hospitalizations, adjusted for many factors, which is very good,” said Eric Topol, MD, the editor-in-chief of Medscape and a cardiologist at Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, CA.

The first analysis, which was done by the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling and Imperial College London, found that overall, people infected by Omicron had about a 20% reduced risk of needing any hospital care for their infections and a 40% lower risk of an overnight hospital stay, compared to those infected with Delta.

Meanwhile, people who were re-infected – meaning they caught Omicron after recovering from a previous COVID-19 infection – had a 50%-60% lower risk of needing hospital care, likely reflecting the benefits of having some prior immunity against the same family of viruses.

The study included everyone with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 in the U.K. during the first 2 weeks of December – roughly 56,000 Omicron cases and 269,000 Delta infections.

The second study, from researchers at the National Institute for Communicable Diseases in South Africa, included more than 29,000 COVID-19 cases that had lab results highly suggestive of Omicron infections. Compared to people infected with the Delta variant, those with presumed Omicron infections were about 70% less likely to have severe disease.

While the news is hopeful for individuals, on a population level, health care systems may still be stressed, the study authors warned.

“Given the high transmissibility of the Omicron virus, there remains the potential for health services to face increasing demand if Omicron cases continue to grow at the rate that has been seen in recent weeks,” said study author Neil Ferguson, PhD, who studies how infectious diseases spread at Imperial College London.

The study authors say their findings are specific to the U.K. and South Africa, where substantial portions of the population have some immune protection from past infection. In other words, they may not apply to countries where fewer people have been vaccinated or recovered from a bout with COVID-19.

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

People who get COVID-19 infections caused by the Omicron variant are less likely to need hospital care, compared with those infected by the Delta variant, according to two large new studies from the U.K. and South Africa.

The findings, which were released ahead of peer review, add to previous glimmers of evidence suggesting that Omicron – while extremely contagious -– may result in less severe symptoms than its predecessors.

“This is helping us quantify how much less severe Omicron is than Delta, and it appears to be between 40 to 75% reduced risk of hospitalizations, adjusted for many factors, which is very good,” said Eric Topol, MD, the editor-in-chief of Medscape and a cardiologist at Scripps Research Translational Institute in La Jolla, CA.

The first analysis, which was done by the World Health Organization Collaborating Centre for Infectious Disease Modelling and Imperial College London, found that overall, people infected by Omicron had about a 20% reduced risk of needing any hospital care for their infections and a 40% lower risk of an overnight hospital stay, compared to those infected with Delta.

Meanwhile, people who were re-infected – meaning they caught Omicron after recovering from a previous COVID-19 infection – had a 50%-60% lower risk of needing hospital care, likely reflecting the benefits of having some prior immunity against the same family of viruses.

The study included everyone with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed COVID-19 in the U.K. during the first 2 weeks of December – roughly 56,000 Omicron cases and 269,000 Delta infections.

The second study, from researchers at the National Institute for Communicable Diseases in South Africa, included more than 29,000 COVID-19 cases that had lab results highly suggestive of Omicron infections. Compared to people infected with the Delta variant, those with presumed Omicron infections were about 70% less likely to have severe disease.

While the news is hopeful for individuals, on a population level, health care systems may still be stressed, the study authors warned.

“Given the high transmissibility of the Omicron virus, there remains the potential for health services to face increasing demand if Omicron cases continue to grow at the rate that has been seen in recent weeks,” said study author Neil Ferguson, PhD, who studies how infectious diseases spread at Imperial College London.

The study authors say their findings are specific to the U.K. and South Africa, where substantial portions of the population have some immune protection from past infection. In other words, they may not apply to countries where fewer people have been vaccinated or recovered from a bout with COVID-19.

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 22, 2021, granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for a new antiviral pill to treat people with symptomatic COVID-19.

Pfizer’s ritonavir, name brand Paxlovid, can now be taken by patients ages 12 and up who weigh at least 88 pounds.

The antiviral is only for people who test positive for the coronavirus and who are at high risk for severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death. It is available by prescription only and should be taken as soon as possible after diagnosis and within 5 days of the start of symptoms.

Paxlovid is taken as three tablets together orally twice a day for 5 days, for a total of 30 tablets.

Possible side effects include a reduced sense of taste, diarrhea, high blood pressure, and muscle aches.

The authorization arrives as U.S. cases of the Omicron variant are surging, some monoclonal antibody treatments are becoming less effective, and Americans struggle to maintain some sense of tradition and normalcy around the holidays.

Paxlovid joins remdesivir as an available antiviral to treat COVID-19. Remdesivir is fully approved by the FDA but is given only intravenously in a hospital.  

The COVID-19 antiviral pills come with some obvious advantages, including greater convenience for consumers – such as home use – and the potential to expand treatment for people in low- and middle-income countries.

‘An exciting step forward’

The EUA for Pfizer’s new drug has been highly anticipated, and news of its impending authorization circulated on social media on Tuesday. Eric Topol, MD, called the development an “exciting step forward.” Dr. Topol is editor in chief of Medscape, the parent company of MDedge.

He and many others also expected the FDA to grant emergency use authorization for an antiviral from Merck. But there was no immediate word Wednesday if that was still going to happen.

An accelerated authorization?

The FDA’s authorization for Pfizer’s antiviral comes about 5 weeks after the company submitted an application to the agency. In its submission, the company said a study showed the pill reduced by 89% the rate of hospitalization and death for people with mild to moderate COVID-19 illness.

In April 2021, Pfizer announced its antiviral pill for COVID-19 could be available by year’s end. In September, an official at the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases seconded the prediction.

Merck filed its EUA application with the FDA in October. The company included results of its phase 3 study showing the treatment was linked to a 50% reduction in COVID-19 hospitalizations.

Interestingly, in September, Merck announced the findings of laboratory studies suggesting that molnupiravir would work against variants of the coronavirus because the agent does not target the virus’s spike protein. At the time, Delta was the dominant variant in the United States.

Faith-based purchasing

The U.S. government has already recognized the potential of these oral therapies, at least in terms of preorders.

Last month, it announced intentions to purchase $1 billion worth of Merck’s molnupiravir, adding to the $1.2 billion worth of the pills the U.S. ordered in June 2021. Also in November, the government announced it would purchase 10 million courses of the Pfizer pill at an estimated cost of $5.3 billion.

The government preorders of the antiviral pills for COVID-19 are separate from the orders for COVID-19 vaccines. Most recently, the Biden administration announced it will make 500 million tests for coronavirus infection available to Americans for free in early 2022.

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 22, 2021, granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for a new antiviral pill to treat people with symptomatic COVID-19.

Pfizer’s ritonavir, name brand Paxlovid, can now be taken by patients ages 12 and up who weigh at least 88 pounds.

The antiviral is only for people who test positive for the coronavirus and who are at high risk for severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death. It is available by prescription only and should be taken as soon as possible after diagnosis and within 5 days of the start of symptoms.

Paxlovid is taken as three tablets together orally twice a day for 5 days, for a total of 30 tablets.

Possible side effects include a reduced sense of taste, diarrhea, high blood pressure, and muscle aches.

The authorization arrives as U.S. cases of the Omicron variant are surging, some monoclonal antibody treatments are becoming less effective, and Americans struggle to maintain some sense of tradition and normalcy around the holidays.

Paxlovid joins remdesivir as an available antiviral to treat COVID-19. Remdesivir is fully approved by the FDA but is given only intravenously in a hospital.  

The COVID-19 antiviral pills come with some obvious advantages, including greater convenience for consumers – such as home use – and the potential to expand treatment for people in low- and middle-income countries.

‘An exciting step forward’

The EUA for Pfizer’s new drug has been highly anticipated, and news of its impending authorization circulated on social media on Tuesday. Eric Topol, MD, called the development an “exciting step forward.” Dr. Topol is editor in chief of Medscape, the parent company of MDedge.

He and many others also expected the FDA to grant emergency use authorization for an antiviral from Merck. But there was no immediate word Wednesday if that was still going to happen.

An accelerated authorization?

The FDA’s authorization for Pfizer’s antiviral comes about 5 weeks after the company submitted an application to the agency. In its submission, the company said a study showed the pill reduced by 89% the rate of hospitalization and death for people with mild to moderate COVID-19 illness.

In April 2021, Pfizer announced its antiviral pill for COVID-19 could be available by year’s end. In September, an official at the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases seconded the prediction.

Merck filed its EUA application with the FDA in October. The company included results of its phase 3 study showing the treatment was linked to a 50% reduction in COVID-19 hospitalizations.

Interestingly, in September, Merck announced the findings of laboratory studies suggesting that molnupiravir would work against variants of the coronavirus because the agent does not target the virus’s spike protein. At the time, Delta was the dominant variant in the United States.

Faith-based purchasing

The U.S. government has already recognized the potential of these oral therapies, at least in terms of preorders.

Last month, it announced intentions to purchase $1 billion worth of Merck’s molnupiravir, adding to the $1.2 billion worth of the pills the U.S. ordered in June 2021. Also in November, the government announced it would purchase 10 million courses of the Pfizer pill at an estimated cost of $5.3 billion.

The government preorders of the antiviral pills for COVID-19 are separate from the orders for COVID-19 vaccines. Most recently, the Biden administration announced it will make 500 million tests for coronavirus infection available to Americans for free in early 2022.

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

The Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 22, 2021, granted emergency use authorization (EUA) for a new antiviral pill to treat people with symptomatic COVID-19.

Pfizer’s ritonavir, name brand Paxlovid, can now be taken by patients ages 12 and up who weigh at least 88 pounds.

The antiviral is only for people who test positive for the coronavirus and who are at high risk for severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death. It is available by prescription only and should be taken as soon as possible after diagnosis and within 5 days of the start of symptoms.

Paxlovid is taken as three tablets together orally twice a day for 5 days, for a total of 30 tablets.

Possible side effects include a reduced sense of taste, diarrhea, high blood pressure, and muscle aches.

The authorization arrives as U.S. cases of the Omicron variant are surging, some monoclonal antibody treatments are becoming less effective, and Americans struggle to maintain some sense of tradition and normalcy around the holidays.

Paxlovid joins remdesivir as an available antiviral to treat COVID-19. Remdesivir is fully approved by the FDA but is given only intravenously in a hospital.  

The COVID-19 antiviral pills come with some obvious advantages, including greater convenience for consumers – such as home use – and the potential to expand treatment for people in low- and middle-income countries.

‘An exciting step forward’

The EUA for Pfizer’s new drug has been highly anticipated, and news of its impending authorization circulated on social media on Tuesday. Eric Topol, MD, called the development an “exciting step forward.” Dr. Topol is editor in chief of Medscape, the parent company of MDedge.

He and many others also expected the FDA to grant emergency use authorization for an antiviral from Merck. But there was no immediate word Wednesday if that was still going to happen.

An accelerated authorization?

The FDA’s authorization for Pfizer’s antiviral comes about 5 weeks after the company submitted an application to the agency. In its submission, the company said a study showed the pill reduced by 89% the rate of hospitalization and death for people with mild to moderate COVID-19 illness.

In April 2021, Pfizer announced its antiviral pill for COVID-19 could be available by year’s end. In September, an official at the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases seconded the prediction.

Merck filed its EUA application with the FDA in October. The company included results of its phase 3 study showing the treatment was linked to a 50% reduction in COVID-19 hospitalizations.

Interestingly, in September, Merck announced the findings of laboratory studies suggesting that molnupiravir would work against variants of the coronavirus because the agent does not target the virus’s spike protein. At the time, Delta was the dominant variant in the United States.

Faith-based purchasing

The U.S. government has already recognized the potential of these oral therapies, at least in terms of preorders.

Last month, it announced intentions to purchase $1 billion worth of Merck’s molnupiravir, adding to the $1.2 billion worth of the pills the U.S. ordered in June 2021. Also in November, the government announced it would purchase 10 million courses of the Pfizer pill at an estimated cost of $5.3 billion.

The government preorders of the antiviral pills for COVID-19 are separate from the orders for COVID-19 vaccines. Most recently, the Biden administration announced it will make 500 million tests for coronavirus infection available to Americans for free in early 2022.

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

The frequency of showering or bathing and follow-up application of moisturizer appear to be more important factors associated with atopic dermatitis (AD) severity than the duration of showers or baths, results from a prospective observational study found.

Uros Rakita

“Patients may benefit most from counseling on showering or bathing once daily and regularly applying moisturizer after showering or bathing,” one of the study authors, Uros Rakita, MSc, told this news organization. “Recommending less than daily shower frequencies or counseling on specific shower durations may not be necessary.”

During a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium, Mr. Rakita, a fourth-year student at Chicago Medical School, North Chicago, presented findings from a prospective, practice-based dermatology study that investigated the longitudinal relationship between different bathing practices and AD severity to help inform patient counseling about optimal bathing practices.

“AD is a chronic, inflammatory skin condition with a diverse set of environmental triggers and exacerbating factors,” Mr. Rakita said during the meeting. “Maintaining adequate skin hydration, skin hygiene, and avoiding triggers are key aspects of AD management across all disease severities. Therefore, understanding optimal shower or bath and moisturizing practices is essential.” In fact, he added, “bathing has been shown to not only hydrate the skin, but also to improve symptoms, remove allergens, and decrease [Staphylococcus] aureus colonization. However, at the same time, concern exists for the potential of inappropriate shower or bathing frequency or durations, as well as inconsistent moisturizer application to worsen disease severity and potentially compromise disease management.”

He noted that current guidelines on bathing frequency and duration among AD patients lack consensus, are limited, and are largely based on studies of pediatric populations.

Mr. Rakita, along with primary study author Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, director of clinical research in the division of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, and Trisha Kaundinya, a medical student at Northwestern University, Chicago, prospectively evaluated 509 adults with AD who made an average of 2.3 visits at a single dermatology clinic between 2013 and 2020. At each visit, severity of AD signs and symptoms, as well as bathing and moisturizing practices, were assessed.

AD severity was assessed using the objective component of Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (o-SCORAD), intensity of pruritus in the past 3 days (SCORAD-itch), Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). The researchers constructed repeated measures regression models to examine associations of bathing and moisturizing practices with change in AD severity outcome measure scores over time. Multivariable models controlled for age, sex, and race.

In adjusted linear regression models, showering or bathing more than once a day versus once daily was associated with significantly higher scores for SCORAD-itch (0.74; P = .0456), o-SCORAD (4.27; P = .0171), EASI (4.20; P = .0028), POEM (2.61; P = .0021), and DLQI (2.77; P = .0004).

The researchers also found that consistent application of moisturizer after the shower or bath was associated with significantly lower scores for o-SCORAD (–7.22; P < .0001), EASI (–3.91; P = .001) and POEM (–2.68; P = .0002), compared against not applying moisturizer after a shower or bath. However, shower or bath duration of more than, compared against fewer than, 15 minutes was not associated with significantly lower scores for o-SCORAD (1.26; P = .2868), SCORAD-itch (0.17; P = .4987), EASI (0.85; P = .3454), POEM (0.24; P = .6627) or DLQI (–0.40; P = .4318).

“Interestingly, this pattern was present when the reference shower or bath durations were under 10 minutes as well as under 5 minutes,” Mr. Rakita said. “Also, shower or bath frequencies of less than daily, relative to daily frequencies, were not significantly related to longitudinal AD severity.”

Mr. Rakita acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the researchers did not examine the potential influence of specific soap and moisturizing products, water hardness, or other bathing features such as water temperature and bath additives.

Lawrence J. Green, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, said that he was not surprised by the finding that moisturizing after bathing improved AD signs and symptoms. “On the other hand, a long-held belief that longer duration of shower/bath time worsens AD was not found to be true,” said Dr. Green, a dermatologist who practices in Rockville, Md., and is also clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University.

“This provides useful information for practicing dermatologists who wish to provide evidenced-based education about moisturizing and bathing to their AD patients,” he said.

The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Dermatology Foundation. Dr. Silverberg disclosed that he is a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies, receives fees for non-CME/CE services from Eli Lilly, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme, as well as contracted research fees from Galderma. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies. There were no other disclosures.

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

The frequency of showering or bathing and follow-up application of moisturizer appear to be more important factors associated with atopic dermatitis (AD) severity than the duration of showers or baths, results from a prospective observational study found.

Uros Rakita

“Patients may benefit most from counseling on showering or bathing once daily and regularly applying moisturizer after showering or bathing,” one of the study authors, Uros Rakita, MSc, told this news organization. “Recommending less than daily shower frequencies or counseling on specific shower durations may not be necessary.”

During a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium, Mr. Rakita, a fourth-year student at Chicago Medical School, North Chicago, presented findings from a prospective, practice-based dermatology study that investigated the longitudinal relationship between different bathing practices and AD severity to help inform patient counseling about optimal bathing practices.

“AD is a chronic, inflammatory skin condition with a diverse set of environmental triggers and exacerbating factors,” Mr. Rakita said during the meeting. “Maintaining adequate skin hydration, skin hygiene, and avoiding triggers are key aspects of AD management across all disease severities. Therefore, understanding optimal shower or bath and moisturizing practices is essential.” In fact, he added, “bathing has been shown to not only hydrate the skin, but also to improve symptoms, remove allergens, and decrease [Staphylococcus] aureus colonization. However, at the same time, concern exists for the potential of inappropriate shower or bathing frequency or durations, as well as inconsistent moisturizer application to worsen disease severity and potentially compromise disease management.”

He noted that current guidelines on bathing frequency and duration among AD patients lack consensus, are limited, and are largely based on studies of pediatric populations.

Mr. Rakita, along with primary study author Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, director of clinical research in the division of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, and Trisha Kaundinya, a medical student at Northwestern University, Chicago, prospectively evaluated 509 adults with AD who made an average of 2.3 visits at a single dermatology clinic between 2013 and 2020. At each visit, severity of AD signs and symptoms, as well as bathing and moisturizing practices, were assessed.

AD severity was assessed using the objective component of Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (o-SCORAD), intensity of pruritus in the past 3 days (SCORAD-itch), Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). The researchers constructed repeated measures regression models to examine associations of bathing and moisturizing practices with change in AD severity outcome measure scores over time. Multivariable models controlled for age, sex, and race.

In adjusted linear regression models, showering or bathing more than once a day versus once daily was associated with significantly higher scores for SCORAD-itch (0.74; P = .0456), o-SCORAD (4.27; P = .0171), EASI (4.20; P = .0028), POEM (2.61; P = .0021), and DLQI (2.77; P = .0004).

The researchers also found that consistent application of moisturizer after the shower or bath was associated with significantly lower scores for o-SCORAD (–7.22; P < .0001), EASI (–3.91; P = .001) and POEM (–2.68; P = .0002), compared against not applying moisturizer after a shower or bath. However, shower or bath duration of more than, compared against fewer than, 15 minutes was not associated with significantly lower scores for o-SCORAD (1.26; P = .2868), SCORAD-itch (0.17; P = .4987), EASI (0.85; P = .3454), POEM (0.24; P = .6627) or DLQI (–0.40; P = .4318).

“Interestingly, this pattern was present when the reference shower or bath durations were under 10 minutes as well as under 5 minutes,” Mr. Rakita said. “Also, shower or bath frequencies of less than daily, relative to daily frequencies, were not significantly related to longitudinal AD severity.”

Mr. Rakita acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the researchers did not examine the potential influence of specific soap and moisturizing products, water hardness, or other bathing features such as water temperature and bath additives.

Lawrence J. Green, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, said that he was not surprised by the finding that moisturizing after bathing improved AD signs and symptoms. “On the other hand, a long-held belief that longer duration of shower/bath time worsens AD was not found to be true,” said Dr. Green, a dermatologist who practices in Rockville, Md., and is also clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University.

“This provides useful information for practicing dermatologists who wish to provide evidenced-based education about moisturizing and bathing to their AD patients,” he said.

The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Dermatology Foundation. Dr. Silverberg disclosed that he is a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies, receives fees for non-CME/CE services from Eli Lilly, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme, as well as contracted research fees from Galderma. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies. There were no other disclosures.

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

The frequency of showering or bathing and follow-up application of moisturizer appear to be more important factors associated with atopic dermatitis (AD) severity than the duration of showers or baths, results from a prospective observational study found.

Uros Rakita

“Patients may benefit most from counseling on showering or bathing once daily and regularly applying moisturizer after showering or bathing,” one of the study authors, Uros Rakita, MSc, told this news organization. “Recommending less than daily shower frequencies or counseling on specific shower durations may not be necessary.”

During a late-breaking abstract session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium, Mr. Rakita, a fourth-year student at Chicago Medical School, North Chicago, presented findings from a prospective, practice-based dermatology study that investigated the longitudinal relationship between different bathing practices and AD severity to help inform patient counseling about optimal bathing practices.

“AD is a chronic, inflammatory skin condition with a diverse set of environmental triggers and exacerbating factors,” Mr. Rakita said during the meeting. “Maintaining adequate skin hydration, skin hygiene, and avoiding triggers are key aspects of AD management across all disease severities. Therefore, understanding optimal shower or bath and moisturizing practices is essential.” In fact, he added, “bathing has been shown to not only hydrate the skin, but also to improve symptoms, remove allergens, and decrease [Staphylococcus] aureus colonization. However, at the same time, concern exists for the potential of inappropriate shower or bathing frequency or durations, as well as inconsistent moisturizer application to worsen disease severity and potentially compromise disease management.”

He noted that current guidelines on bathing frequency and duration among AD patients lack consensus, are limited, and are largely based on studies of pediatric populations.

Mr. Rakita, along with primary study author Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, director of clinical research in the division of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, and Trisha Kaundinya, a medical student at Northwestern University, Chicago, prospectively evaluated 509 adults with AD who made an average of 2.3 visits at a single dermatology clinic between 2013 and 2020. At each visit, severity of AD signs and symptoms, as well as bathing and moisturizing practices, were assessed.

AD severity was assessed using the objective component of Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (o-SCORAD), intensity of pruritus in the past 3 days (SCORAD-itch), Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI). The researchers constructed repeated measures regression models to examine associations of bathing and moisturizing practices with change in AD severity outcome measure scores over time. Multivariable models controlled for age, sex, and race.

In adjusted linear regression models, showering or bathing more than once a day versus once daily was associated with significantly higher scores for SCORAD-itch (0.74; P = .0456), o-SCORAD (4.27; P = .0171), EASI (4.20; P = .0028), POEM (2.61; P = .0021), and DLQI (2.77; P = .0004).

The researchers also found that consistent application of moisturizer after the shower or bath was associated with significantly lower scores for o-SCORAD (–7.22; P < .0001), EASI (–3.91; P = .001) and POEM (–2.68; P = .0002), compared against not applying moisturizer after a shower or bath. However, shower or bath duration of more than, compared against fewer than, 15 minutes was not associated with significantly lower scores for o-SCORAD (1.26; P = .2868), SCORAD-itch (0.17; P = .4987), EASI (0.85; P = .3454), POEM (0.24; P = .6627) or DLQI (–0.40; P = .4318).

“Interestingly, this pattern was present when the reference shower or bath durations were under 10 minutes as well as under 5 minutes,” Mr. Rakita said. “Also, shower or bath frequencies of less than daily, relative to daily frequencies, were not significantly related to longitudinal AD severity.”

Mr. Rakita acknowledged certain limitations of the study, including the fact that the researchers did not examine the potential influence of specific soap and moisturizing products, water hardness, or other bathing features such as water temperature and bath additives.

Lawrence J. Green, MD, who was asked to comment on the study, said that he was not surprised by the finding that moisturizing after bathing improved AD signs and symptoms. “On the other hand, a long-held belief that longer duration of shower/bath time worsens AD was not found to be true,” said Dr. Green, a dermatologist who practices in Rockville, Md., and is also clinical professor of dermatology at George Washington University.

“This provides useful information for practicing dermatologists who wish to provide evidenced-based education about moisturizing and bathing to their AD patients,” he said.

The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Dermatology Foundation. Dr. Silverberg disclosed that he is a consultant to numerous pharmaceutical companies, receives fees for non-CME/CE services from Eli Lilly, Leo Pharma, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Sanofi Genzyme, as well as contracted research fees from Galderma. Dr. Green disclosed that he is a speaker, consultant, or investigator for numerous pharmaceutical companies. There were no other disclosures.

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

Patients ages 65 years and older with atopic dermatitis (AD) have similar disease severity when compared with younger adult patients, but they have more profound sleep disturbances, especially trouble staying asleep.

Those are key findings from a cross-sectional study that Jaya Manjunath, BS, and Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, presented during a poster session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

“Atopic dermatitis is a chronic, pruritic skin disease associated with sleep disturbance and fatigue affecting adults of all ages,” they wrote. “When caring for geriatric patients, several factors such as sleep disturbance, polypharmacy, cognition, social support, and mobility should be considered. However, little is known about the characteristics of atopic dermatitis in the geriatric population.”

Ms. Manjunath, a student at George Washington University, Washington, and Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research in the department of dermatology at GWU, recruited patients with AD aged 18 years and older diagnosed by Hanifin-Rajka criteria who were evaluated at an academic medical center between 2014 and 2019. They underwent full body skin exams and completed electronic questionnaires. AD severity was assessed with the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) total and itch subscores, Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA), patient-reported Global Assessment of AD severity, and the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM).

The researchers also assessed the frequency of sleep disturbances, including difficulty falling asleep and staying asleep, and used multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate associations of age (65 and older vs. 18-64 years) with AD severity, sleep disturbance or fatigue, controlling for total POEM score, sex, and race.

Using adjusted odds ratios, Ms. Manjunath and Dr. Silverberg found that being 65 or older was not associated with AD severity on the EASI (adjusted odds ratio, 1.47); total SCORAD (aOR, 1.10), and itch subscore (aOR, 1.00); IGA (aOR, 1.87); patient-reported Global Assessment of AD severity (aOR, 0.80), or the patient-oriented eczema measure (aOR, 0.55), associations that were not statistically significant.

However, the researchers found that older adult age was associated with an increased number of nights of sleep disturbance from AD in the past week (aOR, 2.14; P = .0142), as well as increased fatigue in the past 7 days (aOR, 1.81; P = .0313), trouble sleeping in the past 7 days (aOR, 1.98; P = .0118), and trouble staying asleep in the past 7 days (aOR, 2.26; P = .0030), but not with difficulty falling asleep in the last 7 days (aOR, 1.16; P = .5996).

“Future studies are needed to determine why geriatric AD patients have increased sleep disturbance and optimal interventions to address their sleep disturbance,” the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Dermatology Foundation, and by an unrestricted grant from Galderma. Ms. Manjunath disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Silverberg reported that he is a consultant to and/or an advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron and Sanofi and has received a grant from Galderma.

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

Patients ages 65 years and older with atopic dermatitis (AD) have similar disease severity when compared with younger adult patients, but they have more profound sleep disturbances, especially trouble staying asleep.

Those are key findings from a cross-sectional study that Jaya Manjunath, BS, and Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, presented during a poster session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

“Atopic dermatitis is a chronic, pruritic skin disease associated with sleep disturbance and fatigue affecting adults of all ages,” they wrote. “When caring for geriatric patients, several factors such as sleep disturbance, polypharmacy, cognition, social support, and mobility should be considered. However, little is known about the characteristics of atopic dermatitis in the geriatric population.”

Ms. Manjunath, a student at George Washington University, Washington, and Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research in the department of dermatology at GWU, recruited patients with AD aged 18 years and older diagnosed by Hanifin-Rajka criteria who were evaluated at an academic medical center between 2014 and 2019. They underwent full body skin exams and completed electronic questionnaires. AD severity was assessed with the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) total and itch subscores, Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA), patient-reported Global Assessment of AD severity, and the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM).

The researchers also assessed the frequency of sleep disturbances, including difficulty falling asleep and staying asleep, and used multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate associations of age (65 and older vs. 18-64 years) with AD severity, sleep disturbance or fatigue, controlling for total POEM score, sex, and race.

Using adjusted odds ratios, Ms. Manjunath and Dr. Silverberg found that being 65 or older was not associated with AD severity on the EASI (adjusted odds ratio, 1.47); total SCORAD (aOR, 1.10), and itch subscore (aOR, 1.00); IGA (aOR, 1.87); patient-reported Global Assessment of AD severity (aOR, 0.80), or the patient-oriented eczema measure (aOR, 0.55), associations that were not statistically significant.

However, the researchers found that older adult age was associated with an increased number of nights of sleep disturbance from AD in the past week (aOR, 2.14; P = .0142), as well as increased fatigue in the past 7 days (aOR, 1.81; P = .0313), trouble sleeping in the past 7 days (aOR, 1.98; P = .0118), and trouble staying asleep in the past 7 days (aOR, 2.26; P = .0030), but not with difficulty falling asleep in the last 7 days (aOR, 1.16; P = .5996).

“Future studies are needed to determine why geriatric AD patients have increased sleep disturbance and optimal interventions to address their sleep disturbance,” the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Dermatology Foundation, and by an unrestricted grant from Galderma. Ms. Manjunath disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Silverberg reported that he is a consultant to and/or an advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron and Sanofi and has received a grant from Galderma.

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

Patients ages 65 years and older with atopic dermatitis (AD) have similar disease severity when compared with younger adult patients, but they have more profound sleep disturbances, especially trouble staying asleep.

Those are key findings from a cross-sectional study that Jaya Manjunath, BS, and Jonathan I. Silverberg, MD, PhD, MPH, presented during a poster session at the Revolutionizing Atopic Dermatitis symposium.

“Atopic dermatitis is a chronic, pruritic skin disease associated with sleep disturbance and fatigue affecting adults of all ages,” they wrote. “When caring for geriatric patients, several factors such as sleep disturbance, polypharmacy, cognition, social support, and mobility should be considered. However, little is known about the characteristics of atopic dermatitis in the geriatric population.”

Ms. Manjunath, a student at George Washington University, Washington, and Dr. Silverberg, director of clinical research in the department of dermatology at GWU, recruited patients with AD aged 18 years and older diagnosed by Hanifin-Rajka criteria who were evaluated at an academic medical center between 2014 and 2019. They underwent full body skin exams and completed electronic questionnaires. AD severity was assessed with the Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Scoring Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) total and itch subscores, Investigator’s Global Assessment (IGA), patient-reported Global Assessment of AD severity, and the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM).

The researchers also assessed the frequency of sleep disturbances, including difficulty falling asleep and staying asleep, and used multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate associations of age (65 and older vs. 18-64 years) with AD severity, sleep disturbance or fatigue, controlling for total POEM score, sex, and race.

Using adjusted odds ratios, Ms. Manjunath and Dr. Silverberg found that being 65 or older was not associated with AD severity on the EASI (adjusted odds ratio, 1.47); total SCORAD (aOR, 1.10), and itch subscore (aOR, 1.00); IGA (aOR, 1.87); patient-reported Global Assessment of AD severity (aOR, 0.80), or the patient-oriented eczema measure (aOR, 0.55), associations that were not statistically significant.

However, the researchers found that older adult age was associated with an increased number of nights of sleep disturbance from AD in the past week (aOR, 2.14; P = .0142), as well as increased fatigue in the past 7 days (aOR, 1.81; P = .0313), trouble sleeping in the past 7 days (aOR, 1.98; P = .0118), and trouble staying asleep in the past 7 days (aOR, 2.26; P = .0030), but not with difficulty falling asleep in the last 7 days (aOR, 1.16; P = .5996).

“Future studies are needed to determine why geriatric AD patients have increased sleep disturbance and optimal interventions to address their sleep disturbance,” the researchers concluded.

The study was supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Dermatology Foundation, and by an unrestricted grant from Galderma. Ms. Manjunath disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Silverberg reported that he is a consultant to and/or an advisory board member for several pharmaceutical companies. He is also a speaker for Regeneron and Sanofi and has received a grant from Galderma.

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

The International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC) Artificial Intelligence Working Group has released the first-ever guidelines for developing artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms used in dermatology.

Christopher Smith

The guidelines, published in JAMA Dermatology on Dec. 1, 2021, contain a broad range of recommendations stakeholders should consider when developing and assessing image-based AI algorithms in dermatology. The recommendations are divided into categories of data, technique, technical assessment, and application. ISIC is “an academia and industry partnership designed to facilitate the application of digital skin imaging to help reduce melanoma mortality,” and is organized into different working groups, including the AI working group, according to its website.

“Our goal with these guidelines was to create higher-quality reporting of dataset and algorithm characteristics for dermatology AI,” first author Roxana Daneshjou, MD, PhD, clinical scholar in dermatology, in the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “We hope these guidelines also aid regulatory bodies around the world when they are assessing algorithms to be used in dermatology.”
 

Recommendations for data

The authors recommended that datasets used by AI algorithms have image descriptions and details on image artifacts. “For photography, these include the type of camera used; whether images were taken under standardized or varying conditions; whether they were taken by professional photographers, laymen, or health care professionals; and image quality,” they wrote. They also recommended that developers include in an image description the type of lighting used and whether the photo contains pen markings, hair, tattoos, injuries, surgical effects, or other “physical perturbations.”

Exchangeable image file format data obtained from the camera, and preprocessing procedures like color normalization and “postprocessing” of images, such as filtering, should also be disclosed. In addition, developers should disclose and justify inclusion of images that have been created by an algorithm within a dataset. Any public images used in the datasets should have references, and privately used images should be made public where possible, the authors said.

The ISIC working group guidelines also provided recommendations for patient-level metadata. Each image should include a patient’s geographical location and medical center they visited as well as their age, sex and gender, ethnicity and/or race, and skin tone. Dr. Daneshjou said this was one area where she and her colleagues found a lack of transparency in AI datasets in algorithms in a recent review. “We found that many AI papers provided sparse details about the images used to train and test their algorithms,” Dr. Daneshjou explained. “For example, only 7 out of 70 papers had any information about the skin tones in the images used for developing and/or testing AI algorithms. Understanding the diversity of images used to train and test algorithms is important because algorithms that are developed on images of predominantly white skin likely won’t work as well on Black and brown skin.”

The guideline authors also asked algorithm developers to describe the limitations of not including patient-level metadata information when it is incomplete or unavailable. In addition, “we ask that algorithm developers comment on potential biases of their algorithms,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “For example, an algorithm based only on telemedicine images may not capture the full range of diseases seen within an in-person clinic.”

When describing their AI algorithm, developers should detail their reasoning for the dataset size and partitions, inclusion and exclusion criteria for images, and use of any external samples for test sets. “Authors should consider any differences between the image characteristics used for algorithm development and those that might be encountered in the real world,” the guidelines stated.

Recommendations for technique

How the images in a dataset are labeled is a unique challenge in developing AI algorithms for dermatology, the authors noted. Developers should use histopathological diagnosis in their labeling, but this can sometimes result in label noise.

“Many of the AI algorithms in dermatology use supervised learning, which requires labeled examples to help the algorithm ‘learn’ features for discriminating between lesions. We found that some papers use consensus labeling – dermatologists providing a label – to label skin cancers; however, the standard for diagnosing skin cancer is using histopathology from a biopsy,” she said. “Dermatologists can biopsy seven to eight suspected melanomas before discovering a true melanoma, so dermatologist labeling of skin cancers is prone to label noise.”

ISIC’s guidelines stated a gold standard of labeling for dermatologic images is one area that still needs future research, but currently, “diagnoses, labels and diagnostic groups used in data repositories as well as public ontologies” such as ICD-11, AnatomyMapper, and SNOMED-CT should be included in dermatologic image datasets.

AI developers should also provide a detailed description of their algorithm, which includes methods, work flows, mathematical formulas as well as the generalizability of the algorithm across more than one dataset.
 

Recommendations for technical assessment

“Another important recommendation is that algorithm developers should provide a way for algorithms to be publicly evaluable by researchers,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “Many dermatology AI algorithms do not share either their data or their algorithm. Algorithm sharing is important for assessing reproducibility and robustness.”

Google’s recently announced AI-powered dermatology assistant tool, for example, “has made claims about its accuracy and ability to diagnose skin disease at a dermatologist level, but there is no way for researchers to independently test these claims,” she said. Other options like Model Dermatology, developed by Seung Seog Han, MD, PhD, of the Dermatology Clinic in Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues, offer an application programming interface “that allows researchers to test the algorithm,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “This kind of openness is key for assessing algorithm robustness.”

Developers should also note in their algorithm explanations how performance markers and benchmarks would translate to proposed clinical application. “In this context,” the use case – the context in which the AI application is being used – “should be clearly described – who are the intended users and under what clinical scenario are they using the algorithm,” the authors wrote.
 

Recommendations for application

The guidelines note that use case for the model should also be described by the AI developers. “Our checklist includes delineating use cases for algorithms and describing what use cases may be within the scope of the algorithm versus which use cases are out of scope,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “For example, an algorithm developed to provide decision support to dermatologists, with a human in the loop, may not be accurate enough to release directly to consumers.”

As the goal of AI algorithms in dermatology is eventual implementation for clinicians and patients, the authors asked developers to consider shortcomings and potential harms of the algorithm during implementation. “Ethical considerations and impact on vulnerable populations should also be considered and discussed,” they wrote. An algorithm “suggesting aesthetic medical treatments may have negative effects given the biased nature of beauty standards,” and “an algorithm that diagnoses basal cell carcinomas but lacks any pigmented basal cell carcinomas, which are more often seen in skin of color, will not perform equitably across populations.”

Prior to implementing an AI algorithm, the ISIC working group recommended developers perform prospective clinical trials for validation. Checklists and guidelines like SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI “provide guidance on how to design clinical trials to test AI algorithms,” Dr. Daneshjou said.

After implementation, “I believe we need additional research in how we monitor algorithms after they are deployed clinically, Dr. Daneshjou said. “Currently there are no [Food and Drug Administration]–approved AI algorithms in dermatology; however, there are several applications that have CE mark in Europe, and there are no mechanisms for postmarket surveillance there.
 

'Timely' recommendations

Commenting on the ISIC working group guidelines, Justin M. Ko, MD, MBA, director and chief of medical dermatology for Stanford Health Care, who was not involved with the work, said that the recommendations are timely and provide “a framework for a ‘common language’ around AI datasets specifically tailored to dermatology.” Dr. Ko, chair of the American Academy of Dermatology’s Ad Hoc Task Force on Augmented Intelligence, noted the work by Dr. Daneshjou and colleagues “is consistent with and builds further details” on the position statement released by the AAD AI task force in 2019.

“As machine-learning capabilities and commercial efforts continue to mature, it becomes increasingly important that we are able to ‘look under the hood,’ and evaluate all the critical factors that influence development of these capabilities,” he said in an interview. “A standard set of reporting guidelines not only allows for transparency in evaluating data and performance of models and algorithms, but also forces the consideration of issues of equity, fairness, mitigation of bias, and clinically meaningful outcomes.”

One concern is the impact of AI algorithms on societal or health systems, he noted, which is brought up in the guidelines. “The last thing we would want is the development of robust AI systems that exacerbate access challenges, or generate patient anxiety/worry, or drive low-value utilization, or adds to care team burden, or create a technological barrier to care, or increases inequity in dermatologic care,” he said.

In developing AI algorithms for dermatology, a “major practical issue” is how performance on paper will translate to real-world use, Dr. Ko explained, and the ISIC guidelines “provide a critical step in empowering clinicians, practices, and our field to shape the advent of the AI and augmented intelligence tools and systems to promote and enhance meaningful clinical outcomes, and augment the core patient-clinician relationship and ensure they are grounded in principles of fairness, equity and transparency.”

This research was funded by awards and grants to individual authors from the Charina Fund, a Google Research Award, Melanoma Research Alliance, National Health and Medical Research Council, National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, National Science Foundation, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The authors disclosed relationships with governmental entities, pharmaceutical companies, technology startups, medical publishers, charitable trusts, consulting firms, dermatology training companies, providers of medical devices, manufacturers of dermatologic products, and other organizations related to the paper in the form of supplied equipment, having founded a company; receiving grants, patents, or personal fees; holding shares; and medical reporting. Dr. Ko reported that he serves as a clinical advisor for Skin Analytics, and has an ongoing research collaboration with Google.

The International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC) Artificial Intelligence Working Group has released the first-ever guidelines for developing artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms used in dermatology.

Christopher Smith

The guidelines, published in JAMA Dermatology on Dec. 1, 2021, contain a broad range of recommendations stakeholders should consider when developing and assessing image-based AI algorithms in dermatology. The recommendations are divided into categories of data, technique, technical assessment, and application. ISIC is “an academia and industry partnership designed to facilitate the application of digital skin imaging to help reduce melanoma mortality,” and is organized into different working groups, including the AI working group, according to its website.

“Our goal with these guidelines was to create higher-quality reporting of dataset and algorithm characteristics for dermatology AI,” first author Roxana Daneshjou, MD, PhD, clinical scholar in dermatology, in the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “We hope these guidelines also aid regulatory bodies around the world when they are assessing algorithms to be used in dermatology.”
 

Recommendations for data

The authors recommended that datasets used by AI algorithms have image descriptions and details on image artifacts. “For photography, these include the type of camera used; whether images were taken under standardized or varying conditions; whether they were taken by professional photographers, laymen, or health care professionals; and image quality,” they wrote. They also recommended that developers include in an image description the type of lighting used and whether the photo contains pen markings, hair, tattoos, injuries, surgical effects, or other “physical perturbations.”

Exchangeable image file format data obtained from the camera, and preprocessing procedures like color normalization and “postprocessing” of images, such as filtering, should also be disclosed. In addition, developers should disclose and justify inclusion of images that have been created by an algorithm within a dataset. Any public images used in the datasets should have references, and privately used images should be made public where possible, the authors said.

The ISIC working group guidelines also provided recommendations for patient-level metadata. Each image should include a patient’s geographical location and medical center they visited as well as their age, sex and gender, ethnicity and/or race, and skin tone. Dr. Daneshjou said this was one area where she and her colleagues found a lack of transparency in AI datasets in algorithms in a recent review. “We found that many AI papers provided sparse details about the images used to train and test their algorithms,” Dr. Daneshjou explained. “For example, only 7 out of 70 papers had any information about the skin tones in the images used for developing and/or testing AI algorithms. Understanding the diversity of images used to train and test algorithms is important because algorithms that are developed on images of predominantly white skin likely won’t work as well on Black and brown skin.”

The guideline authors also asked algorithm developers to describe the limitations of not including patient-level metadata information when it is incomplete or unavailable. In addition, “we ask that algorithm developers comment on potential biases of their algorithms,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “For example, an algorithm based only on telemedicine images may not capture the full range of diseases seen within an in-person clinic.”

When describing their AI algorithm, developers should detail their reasoning for the dataset size and partitions, inclusion and exclusion criteria for images, and use of any external samples for test sets. “Authors should consider any differences between the image characteristics used for algorithm development and those that might be encountered in the real world,” the guidelines stated.

Recommendations for technique

How the images in a dataset are labeled is a unique challenge in developing AI algorithms for dermatology, the authors noted. Developers should use histopathological diagnosis in their labeling, but this can sometimes result in label noise.

“Many of the AI algorithms in dermatology use supervised learning, which requires labeled examples to help the algorithm ‘learn’ features for discriminating between lesions. We found that some papers use consensus labeling – dermatologists providing a label – to label skin cancers; however, the standard for diagnosing skin cancer is using histopathology from a biopsy,” she said. “Dermatologists can biopsy seven to eight suspected melanomas before discovering a true melanoma, so dermatologist labeling of skin cancers is prone to label noise.”

ISIC’s guidelines stated a gold standard of labeling for dermatologic images is one area that still needs future research, but currently, “diagnoses, labels and diagnostic groups used in data repositories as well as public ontologies” such as ICD-11, AnatomyMapper, and SNOMED-CT should be included in dermatologic image datasets.

AI developers should also provide a detailed description of their algorithm, which includes methods, work flows, mathematical formulas as well as the generalizability of the algorithm across more than one dataset.
 

Recommendations for technical assessment

“Another important recommendation is that algorithm developers should provide a way for algorithms to be publicly evaluable by researchers,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “Many dermatology AI algorithms do not share either their data or their algorithm. Algorithm sharing is important for assessing reproducibility and robustness.”

Google’s recently announced AI-powered dermatology assistant tool, for example, “has made claims about its accuracy and ability to diagnose skin disease at a dermatologist level, but there is no way for researchers to independently test these claims,” she said. Other options like Model Dermatology, developed by Seung Seog Han, MD, PhD, of the Dermatology Clinic in Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues, offer an application programming interface “that allows researchers to test the algorithm,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “This kind of openness is key for assessing algorithm robustness.”

Developers should also note in their algorithm explanations how performance markers and benchmarks would translate to proposed clinical application. “In this context,” the use case – the context in which the AI application is being used – “should be clearly described – who are the intended users and under what clinical scenario are they using the algorithm,” the authors wrote.
 

Recommendations for application

The guidelines note that use case for the model should also be described by the AI developers. “Our checklist includes delineating use cases for algorithms and describing what use cases may be within the scope of the algorithm versus which use cases are out of scope,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “For example, an algorithm developed to provide decision support to dermatologists, with a human in the loop, may not be accurate enough to release directly to consumers.”

As the goal of AI algorithms in dermatology is eventual implementation for clinicians and patients, the authors asked developers to consider shortcomings and potential harms of the algorithm during implementation. “Ethical considerations and impact on vulnerable populations should also be considered and discussed,” they wrote. An algorithm “suggesting aesthetic medical treatments may have negative effects given the biased nature of beauty standards,” and “an algorithm that diagnoses basal cell carcinomas but lacks any pigmented basal cell carcinomas, which are more often seen in skin of color, will not perform equitably across populations.”

Prior to implementing an AI algorithm, the ISIC working group recommended developers perform prospective clinical trials for validation. Checklists and guidelines like SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI “provide guidance on how to design clinical trials to test AI algorithms,” Dr. Daneshjou said.

After implementation, “I believe we need additional research in how we monitor algorithms after they are deployed clinically, Dr. Daneshjou said. “Currently there are no [Food and Drug Administration]–approved AI algorithms in dermatology; however, there are several applications that have CE mark in Europe, and there are no mechanisms for postmarket surveillance there.
 

'Timely' recommendations

Commenting on the ISIC working group guidelines, Justin M. Ko, MD, MBA, director and chief of medical dermatology for Stanford Health Care, who was not involved with the work, said that the recommendations are timely and provide “a framework for a ‘common language’ around AI datasets specifically tailored to dermatology.” Dr. Ko, chair of the American Academy of Dermatology’s Ad Hoc Task Force on Augmented Intelligence, noted the work by Dr. Daneshjou and colleagues “is consistent with and builds further details” on the position statement released by the AAD AI task force in 2019.

“As machine-learning capabilities and commercial efforts continue to mature, it becomes increasingly important that we are able to ‘look under the hood,’ and evaluate all the critical factors that influence development of these capabilities,” he said in an interview. “A standard set of reporting guidelines not only allows for transparency in evaluating data and performance of models and algorithms, but also forces the consideration of issues of equity, fairness, mitigation of bias, and clinically meaningful outcomes.”

One concern is the impact of AI algorithms on societal or health systems, he noted, which is brought up in the guidelines. “The last thing we would want is the development of robust AI systems that exacerbate access challenges, or generate patient anxiety/worry, or drive low-value utilization, or adds to care team burden, or create a technological barrier to care, or increases inequity in dermatologic care,” he said.

In developing AI algorithms for dermatology, a “major practical issue” is how performance on paper will translate to real-world use, Dr. Ko explained, and the ISIC guidelines “provide a critical step in empowering clinicians, practices, and our field to shape the advent of the AI and augmented intelligence tools and systems to promote and enhance meaningful clinical outcomes, and augment the core patient-clinician relationship and ensure they are grounded in principles of fairness, equity and transparency.”

This research was funded by awards and grants to individual authors from the Charina Fund, a Google Research Award, Melanoma Research Alliance, National Health and Medical Research Council, National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, National Science Foundation, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The authors disclosed relationships with governmental entities, pharmaceutical companies, technology startups, medical publishers, charitable trusts, consulting firms, dermatology training companies, providers of medical devices, manufacturers of dermatologic products, and other organizations related to the paper in the form of supplied equipment, having founded a company; receiving grants, patents, or personal fees; holding shares; and medical reporting. Dr. Ko reported that he serves as a clinical advisor for Skin Analytics, and has an ongoing research collaboration with Google.

The International Skin Imaging Collaboration (ISIC) Artificial Intelligence Working Group has released the first-ever guidelines for developing artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms used in dermatology.

Christopher Smith

The guidelines, published in JAMA Dermatology on Dec. 1, 2021, contain a broad range of recommendations stakeholders should consider when developing and assessing image-based AI algorithms in dermatology. The recommendations are divided into categories of data, technique, technical assessment, and application. ISIC is “an academia and industry partnership designed to facilitate the application of digital skin imaging to help reduce melanoma mortality,” and is organized into different working groups, including the AI working group, according to its website.

“Our goal with these guidelines was to create higher-quality reporting of dataset and algorithm characteristics for dermatology AI,” first author Roxana Daneshjou, MD, PhD, clinical scholar in dermatology, in the department of dermatology at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “We hope these guidelines also aid regulatory bodies around the world when they are assessing algorithms to be used in dermatology.”
 

Recommendations for data

The authors recommended that datasets used by AI algorithms have image descriptions and details on image artifacts. “For photography, these include the type of camera used; whether images were taken under standardized or varying conditions; whether they were taken by professional photographers, laymen, or health care professionals; and image quality,” they wrote. They also recommended that developers include in an image description the type of lighting used and whether the photo contains pen markings, hair, tattoos, injuries, surgical effects, or other “physical perturbations.”

Exchangeable image file format data obtained from the camera, and preprocessing procedures like color normalization and “postprocessing” of images, such as filtering, should also be disclosed. In addition, developers should disclose and justify inclusion of images that have been created by an algorithm within a dataset. Any public images used in the datasets should have references, and privately used images should be made public where possible, the authors said.

The ISIC working group guidelines also provided recommendations for patient-level metadata. Each image should include a patient’s geographical location and medical center they visited as well as their age, sex and gender, ethnicity and/or race, and skin tone. Dr. Daneshjou said this was one area where she and her colleagues found a lack of transparency in AI datasets in algorithms in a recent review. “We found that many AI papers provided sparse details about the images used to train and test their algorithms,” Dr. Daneshjou explained. “For example, only 7 out of 70 papers had any information about the skin tones in the images used for developing and/or testing AI algorithms. Understanding the diversity of images used to train and test algorithms is important because algorithms that are developed on images of predominantly white skin likely won’t work as well on Black and brown skin.”

The guideline authors also asked algorithm developers to describe the limitations of not including patient-level metadata information when it is incomplete or unavailable. In addition, “we ask that algorithm developers comment on potential biases of their algorithms,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “For example, an algorithm based only on telemedicine images may not capture the full range of diseases seen within an in-person clinic.”

When describing their AI algorithm, developers should detail their reasoning for the dataset size and partitions, inclusion and exclusion criteria for images, and use of any external samples for test sets. “Authors should consider any differences between the image characteristics used for algorithm development and those that might be encountered in the real world,” the guidelines stated.

Recommendations for technique

How the images in a dataset are labeled is a unique challenge in developing AI algorithms for dermatology, the authors noted. Developers should use histopathological diagnosis in their labeling, but this can sometimes result in label noise.

“Many of the AI algorithms in dermatology use supervised learning, which requires labeled examples to help the algorithm ‘learn’ features for discriminating between lesions. We found that some papers use consensus labeling – dermatologists providing a label – to label skin cancers; however, the standard for diagnosing skin cancer is using histopathology from a biopsy,” she said. “Dermatologists can biopsy seven to eight suspected melanomas before discovering a true melanoma, so dermatologist labeling of skin cancers is prone to label noise.”

ISIC’s guidelines stated a gold standard of labeling for dermatologic images is one area that still needs future research, but currently, “diagnoses, labels and diagnostic groups used in data repositories as well as public ontologies” such as ICD-11, AnatomyMapper, and SNOMED-CT should be included in dermatologic image datasets.

AI developers should also provide a detailed description of their algorithm, which includes methods, work flows, mathematical formulas as well as the generalizability of the algorithm across more than one dataset.
 

Recommendations for technical assessment

“Another important recommendation is that algorithm developers should provide a way for algorithms to be publicly evaluable by researchers,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “Many dermatology AI algorithms do not share either their data or their algorithm. Algorithm sharing is important for assessing reproducibility and robustness.”

Google’s recently announced AI-powered dermatology assistant tool, for example, “has made claims about its accuracy and ability to diagnose skin disease at a dermatologist level, but there is no way for researchers to independently test these claims,” she said. Other options like Model Dermatology, developed by Seung Seog Han, MD, PhD, of the Dermatology Clinic in Seoul, South Korea, and colleagues, offer an application programming interface “that allows researchers to test the algorithm,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “This kind of openness is key for assessing algorithm robustness.”

Developers should also note in their algorithm explanations how performance markers and benchmarks would translate to proposed clinical application. “In this context,” the use case – the context in which the AI application is being used – “should be clearly described – who are the intended users and under what clinical scenario are they using the algorithm,” the authors wrote.
 

Recommendations for application

The guidelines note that use case for the model should also be described by the AI developers. “Our checklist includes delineating use cases for algorithms and describing what use cases may be within the scope of the algorithm versus which use cases are out of scope,” Dr. Daneshjou said. “For example, an algorithm developed to provide decision support to dermatologists, with a human in the loop, may not be accurate enough to release directly to consumers.”

As the goal of AI algorithms in dermatology is eventual implementation for clinicians and patients, the authors asked developers to consider shortcomings and potential harms of the algorithm during implementation. “Ethical considerations and impact on vulnerable populations should also be considered and discussed,” they wrote. An algorithm “suggesting aesthetic medical treatments may have negative effects given the biased nature of beauty standards,” and “an algorithm that diagnoses basal cell carcinomas but lacks any pigmented basal cell carcinomas, which are more often seen in skin of color, will not perform equitably across populations.”

Prior to implementing an AI algorithm, the ISIC working group recommended developers perform prospective clinical trials for validation. Checklists and guidelines like SPIRIT-AI and CONSORT-AI “provide guidance on how to design clinical trials to test AI algorithms,” Dr. Daneshjou said.

After implementation, “I believe we need additional research in how we monitor algorithms after they are deployed clinically, Dr. Daneshjou said. “Currently there are no [Food and Drug Administration]–approved AI algorithms in dermatology; however, there are several applications that have CE mark in Europe, and there are no mechanisms for postmarket surveillance there.
 

'Timely' recommendations

Commenting on the ISIC working group guidelines, Justin M. Ko, MD, MBA, director and chief of medical dermatology for Stanford Health Care, who was not involved with the work, said that the recommendations are timely and provide “a framework for a ‘common language’ around AI datasets specifically tailored to dermatology.” Dr. Ko, chair of the American Academy of Dermatology’s Ad Hoc Task Force on Augmented Intelligence, noted the work by Dr. Daneshjou and colleagues “is consistent with and builds further details” on the position statement released by the AAD AI task force in 2019.

“As machine-learning capabilities and commercial efforts continue to mature, it becomes increasingly important that we are able to ‘look under the hood,’ and evaluate all the critical factors that influence development of these capabilities,” he said in an interview. “A standard set of reporting guidelines not only allows for transparency in evaluating data and performance of models and algorithms, but also forces the consideration of issues of equity, fairness, mitigation of bias, and clinically meaningful outcomes.”

One concern is the impact of AI algorithms on societal or health systems, he noted, which is brought up in the guidelines. “The last thing we would want is the development of robust AI systems that exacerbate access challenges, or generate patient anxiety/worry, or drive low-value utilization, or adds to care team burden, or create a technological barrier to care, or increases inequity in dermatologic care,” he said.

In developing AI algorithms for dermatology, a “major practical issue” is how performance on paper will translate to real-world use, Dr. Ko explained, and the ISIC guidelines “provide a critical step in empowering clinicians, practices, and our field to shape the advent of the AI and augmented intelligence tools and systems to promote and enhance meaningful clinical outcomes, and augment the core patient-clinician relationship and ensure they are grounded in principles of fairness, equity and transparency.”

This research was funded by awards and grants to individual authors from the Charina Fund, a Google Research Award, Melanoma Research Alliance, National Health and Medical Research Council, National Institutes of Health/National Cancer Institute, National Science Foundation, and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The authors disclosed relationships with governmental entities, pharmaceutical companies, technology startups, medical publishers, charitable trusts, consulting firms, dermatology training companies, providers of medical devices, manufacturers of dermatologic products, and other organizations related to the paper in the form of supplied equipment, having founded a company; receiving grants, patents, or personal fees; holding shares; and medical reporting. Dr. Ko reported that he serves as a clinical advisor for Skin Analytics, and has an ongoing research collaboration with Google.

Low-power, low-density 1,927-nm and 1,440-nm fractional diode lasers are safe to pair with botulinum neurotoxin type A and soft-tissue fillers during the same treatment session, results from a 6-year, single-center review showed.

“These treatments can be complementary in single-session treatments and can offer increased convenience for both patients and physicians,” primary study author Jordan V. Wang, MD, MBE, MBA, said during a virtual abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.

To date, limited studies have demonstrated the safety of pairing botulinum neurotoxin type A and soft-tissue fillers with laser and other energy-based devices during the same treatment session on the same day, said Dr. Wang, medical research director at the Laser & Skin Surgery Center of New York. “Some concerns remain, though, regarding patient safety and efficacy,” he said. “Data on single-session treatment with low-power, low-density 1,927-nm and 1,440-nm fractional diode lasers and either botulinum neurotoxin or fillers are lacking.”

In a retrospective review of electronic medical records conducted from May 2015 to April 2021, Dr. Wang, Roy G. Geronemus, MD, and Carolyn Kushner, MD evaluated patients who received a single-session facial treatment with either BoNT-A or soft-tissue fillers and the low-power, low-density 1,927-nm and 1,440-nm fractional diode lasers (Clear+Brilliant Perméa and Original, Solta, Pleasanton, Calif.). Safety was assessed by documenting adverse events related to the spread of BoNT-A and fillers or laser treatment of filled areas within 4 weeks.

Adverse events they looked for related to botulinum neurotoxin use included eyelid ptosis; neck weakness or spasms; impairments in chewing, swallowing, speech, and respiration; and prescriptions of apraclonidine eye drops. Filler-related adverse events they looked for included product migration, unexpected loss of filler volume, vascular occlusion, acute pain, necrosis, blindness, and burn. “For both, we looked at hospital or emergency room transfers or admissions and referrals to ENT or ophthalmology,” Dr. Wang said.

During the 6-year study period, 525 patients had 1,562 single-session laser treatments with a mean 46.4 units of BoNT-A, and 398 patients had 1,237 single-session treatments with a mean 1.6 soft-tissue filler syringes. Among those who received BoNT-A, most (93%) were female, their mean age was 51 years, and 99% were treated with a 1,927-nm wavelength at a medium setting in 87% of cases. The top five injection sites were glabella (82%), forehead (69%), periorbital area (64%), neck (40%), and jawline and/or masseters (13%).

The researchers noted one case (0.06%) where apraclonidine eye drops were prescribed for ptosis. The patient had undergone eight other single-session treatments without issue. There were no other documented adverse events directly related to spread of BoNT-A. According to Dr. Wang, this rate of ptosis is lower than the incidence with BoNT-A alone in two landmark trials studying its effects on glabellar lines, which was reported as 5.4% and 1.0%.

Among the 398 patients who received soft-tissue fillers, most (94%) were female, their mean age was 54 years, and 99% were treated with a 1927nm wavelength at a medium setting in 97% of cases. The top five injection sites were cheeks and/or tear troughs (89%), perioral area and/or marionette lines (77%), lips (34%), nasolabial folds (19%), and temples (11%), and the mean number of filler syringes per treatment was 1.6. Slightly more than half (51%) had 1 session, while the remainder had 2 to greater than 10 sessions. The researchers observed no documented adverse events related to spread of fillers or laser treatment of filled areas.

“This laser is a low-powered device that creates small, superficial, and transient microchannels, which likely contributes to the safety of single-session treatments with cosmetic injectables,” Dr. Wang said. However, prospective studies are needed to further validate these results, he added.

“With this very mild laser, it is not surprising that combined treatment had no effect,” said Eric F. Bernstein, MD, MSE, director of the Main Line Center for Laser Surgery in Ardmore, Pa., who was asked to comment on the study results. “There have been numerous anecdotal reports of spreading of botulinum toxin effect to areas not in the target area for treatment following a variety of lasers, including the more powerful version of the laser used in this study. In addition, spread following vascular and other lasers has been reported,” he noted

The laser used in this study, Dr. Bernstein continued, “is low powered and emits a wavelength that is very superficially absorbed, resulting in injury to the stratum corneum, superficial epidermis, or possibly the very superficial dermis, and is often used by physician extenders and not physicians – although I suspect this is not the case in the current study. One can have a reasonable degree of confidence when combining this laser with injectables, but these results cannot be extrapolated to other devices.”

The abstract received the annual ASDS Carruthers Award during the meeting. Dr. Wang reported that he is a consultant or advisor to Allergan, Alastin, AVAVA, Cynosure, Lutronic, Novoxel, Sofwave, and Solta. Dr. Bernstein reported having received research funding from Cynosure, Candela, and Acclaro. He also has received consulting fees from Cynosure and holds ownership interest in Candela, Novoxel, OnSite, Joylux, and Acclaro and has served on the advisory board for Novoxel, Cynosure, and Acclaro.

Low-power, low-density 1,927-nm and 1,440-nm fractional diode lasers are safe to pair with botulinum neurotoxin type A and soft-tissue fillers during the same treatment session, results from a 6-year, single-center review showed.

“These treatments can be complementary in single-session treatments and can offer increased convenience for both patients and physicians,” primary study author Jordan V. Wang, MD, MBE, MBA, said during a virtual abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.

To date, limited studies have demonstrated the safety of pairing botulinum neurotoxin type A and soft-tissue fillers with laser and other energy-based devices during the same treatment session on the same day, said Dr. Wang, medical research director at the Laser & Skin Surgery Center of New York. “Some concerns remain, though, regarding patient safety and efficacy,” he said. “Data on single-session treatment with low-power, low-density 1,927-nm and 1,440-nm fractional diode lasers and either botulinum neurotoxin or fillers are lacking.”

In a retrospective review of electronic medical records conducted from May 2015 to April 2021, Dr. Wang, Roy G. Geronemus, MD, and Carolyn Kushner, MD evaluated patients who received a single-session facial treatment with either BoNT-A or soft-tissue fillers and the low-power, low-density 1,927-nm and 1,440-nm fractional diode lasers (Clear+Brilliant Perméa and Original, Solta, Pleasanton, Calif.). Safety was assessed by documenting adverse events related to the spread of BoNT-A and fillers or laser treatment of filled areas within 4 weeks.

Adverse events they looked for related to botulinum neurotoxin use included eyelid ptosis; neck weakness or spasms; impairments in chewing, swallowing, speech, and respiration; and prescriptions of apraclonidine eye drops. Filler-related adverse events they looked for included product migration, unexpected loss of filler volume, vascular occlusion, acute pain, necrosis, blindness, and burn. “For both, we looked at hospital or emergency room transfers or admissions and referrals to ENT or ophthalmology,” Dr. Wang said.

During the 6-year study period, 525 patients had 1,562 single-session laser treatments with a mean 46.4 units of BoNT-A, and 398 patients had 1,237 single-session treatments with a mean 1.6 soft-tissue filler syringes. Among those who received BoNT-A, most (93%) were female, their mean age was 51 years, and 99% were treated with a 1,927-nm wavelength at a medium setting in 87% of cases. The top five injection sites were glabella (82%), forehead (69%), periorbital area (64%), neck (40%), and jawline and/or masseters (13%).

The researchers noted one case (0.06%) where apraclonidine eye drops were prescribed for ptosis. The patient had undergone eight other single-session treatments without issue. There were no other documented adverse events directly related to spread of BoNT-A. According to Dr. Wang, this rate of ptosis is lower than the incidence with BoNT-A alone in two landmark trials studying its effects on glabellar lines, which was reported as 5.4% and 1.0%.

Among the 398 patients who received soft-tissue fillers, most (94%) were female, their mean age was 54 years, and 99% were treated with a 1927nm wavelength at a medium setting in 97% of cases. The top five injection sites were cheeks and/or tear troughs (89%), perioral area and/or marionette lines (77%), lips (34%), nasolabial folds (19%), and temples (11%), and the mean number of filler syringes per treatment was 1.6. Slightly more than half (51%) had 1 session, while the remainder had 2 to greater than 10 sessions. The researchers observed no documented adverse events related to spread of fillers or laser treatment of filled areas.

“This laser is a low-powered device that creates small, superficial, and transient microchannels, which likely contributes to the safety of single-session treatments with cosmetic injectables,” Dr. Wang said. However, prospective studies are needed to further validate these results, he added.

“With this very mild laser, it is not surprising that combined treatment had no effect,” said Eric F. Bernstein, MD, MSE, director of the Main Line Center for Laser Surgery in Ardmore, Pa., who was asked to comment on the study results. “There have been numerous anecdotal reports of spreading of botulinum toxin effect to areas not in the target area for treatment following a variety of lasers, including the more powerful version of the laser used in this study. In addition, spread following vascular and other lasers has been reported,” he noted

The laser used in this study, Dr. Bernstein continued, “is low powered and emits a wavelength that is very superficially absorbed, resulting in injury to the stratum corneum, superficial epidermis, or possibly the very superficial dermis, and is often used by physician extenders and not physicians – although I suspect this is not the case in the current study. One can have a reasonable degree of confidence when combining this laser with injectables, but these results cannot be extrapolated to other devices.”

The abstract received the annual ASDS Carruthers Award during the meeting. Dr. Wang reported that he is a consultant or advisor to Allergan, Alastin, AVAVA, Cynosure, Lutronic, Novoxel, Sofwave, and Solta. Dr. Bernstein reported having received research funding from Cynosure, Candela, and Acclaro. He also has received consulting fees from Cynosure and holds ownership interest in Candela, Novoxel, OnSite, Joylux, and Acclaro and has served on the advisory board for Novoxel, Cynosure, and Acclaro.

Low-power, low-density 1,927-nm and 1,440-nm fractional diode lasers are safe to pair with botulinum neurotoxin type A and soft-tissue fillers during the same treatment session, results from a 6-year, single-center review showed.

“These treatments can be complementary in single-session treatments and can offer increased convenience for both patients and physicians,” primary study author Jordan V. Wang, MD, MBE, MBA, said during a virtual abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.

To date, limited studies have demonstrated the safety of pairing botulinum neurotoxin type A and soft-tissue fillers with laser and other energy-based devices during the same treatment session on the same day, said Dr. Wang, medical research director at the Laser & Skin Surgery Center of New York. “Some concerns remain, though, regarding patient safety and efficacy,” he said. “Data on single-session treatment with low-power, low-density 1,927-nm and 1,440-nm fractional diode lasers and either botulinum neurotoxin or fillers are lacking.”

In a retrospective review of electronic medical records conducted from May 2015 to April 2021, Dr. Wang, Roy G. Geronemus, MD, and Carolyn Kushner, MD evaluated patients who received a single-session facial treatment with either BoNT-A or soft-tissue fillers and the low-power, low-density 1,927-nm and 1,440-nm fractional diode lasers (Clear+Brilliant Perméa and Original, Solta, Pleasanton, Calif.). Safety was assessed by documenting adverse events related to the spread of BoNT-A and fillers or laser treatment of filled areas within 4 weeks.

Adverse events they looked for related to botulinum neurotoxin use included eyelid ptosis; neck weakness or spasms; impairments in chewing, swallowing, speech, and respiration; and prescriptions of apraclonidine eye drops. Filler-related adverse events they looked for included product migration, unexpected loss of filler volume, vascular occlusion, acute pain, necrosis, blindness, and burn. “For both, we looked at hospital or emergency room transfers or admissions and referrals to ENT or ophthalmology,” Dr. Wang said.

During the 6-year study period, 525 patients had 1,562 single-session laser treatments with a mean 46.4 units of BoNT-A, and 398 patients had 1,237 single-session treatments with a mean 1.6 soft-tissue filler syringes. Among those who received BoNT-A, most (93%) were female, their mean age was 51 years, and 99% were treated with a 1,927-nm wavelength at a medium setting in 87% of cases. The top five injection sites were glabella (82%), forehead (69%), periorbital area (64%), neck (40%), and jawline and/or masseters (13%).

The researchers noted one case (0.06%) where apraclonidine eye drops were prescribed for ptosis. The patient had undergone eight other single-session treatments without issue. There were no other documented adverse events directly related to spread of BoNT-A. According to Dr. Wang, this rate of ptosis is lower than the incidence with BoNT-A alone in two landmark trials studying its effects on glabellar lines, which was reported as 5.4% and 1.0%.

Among the 398 patients who received soft-tissue fillers, most (94%) were female, their mean age was 54 years, and 99% were treated with a 1927nm wavelength at a medium setting in 97% of cases. The top five injection sites were cheeks and/or tear troughs (89%), perioral area and/or marionette lines (77%), lips (34%), nasolabial folds (19%), and temples (11%), and the mean number of filler syringes per treatment was 1.6. Slightly more than half (51%) had 1 session, while the remainder had 2 to greater than 10 sessions. The researchers observed no documented adverse events related to spread of fillers or laser treatment of filled areas.

“This laser is a low-powered device that creates small, superficial, and transient microchannels, which likely contributes to the safety of single-session treatments with cosmetic injectables,” Dr. Wang said. However, prospective studies are needed to further validate these results, he added.

“With this very mild laser, it is not surprising that combined treatment had no effect,” said Eric F. Bernstein, MD, MSE, director of the Main Line Center for Laser Surgery in Ardmore, Pa., who was asked to comment on the study results. “There have been numerous anecdotal reports of spreading of botulinum toxin effect to areas not in the target area for treatment following a variety of lasers, including the more powerful version of the laser used in this study. In addition, spread following vascular and other lasers has been reported,” he noted

The laser used in this study, Dr. Bernstein continued, “is low powered and emits a wavelength that is very superficially absorbed, resulting in injury to the stratum corneum, superficial epidermis, or possibly the very superficial dermis, and is often used by physician extenders and not physicians – although I suspect this is not the case in the current study. One can have a reasonable degree of confidence when combining this laser with injectables, but these results cannot be extrapolated to other devices.”

The abstract received the annual ASDS Carruthers Award during the meeting. Dr. Wang reported that he is a consultant or advisor to Allergan, Alastin, AVAVA, Cynosure, Lutronic, Novoxel, Sofwave, and Solta. Dr. Bernstein reported having received research funding from Cynosure, Candela, and Acclaro. He also has received consulting fees from Cynosure and holds ownership interest in Candela, Novoxel, OnSite, Joylux, and Acclaro and has served on the advisory board for Novoxel, Cynosure, and Acclaro.

The ophthalmologist credited with developing botulinum toxin (Botox) for medical use has died at the age of 89, his family confirmed to National Public Radio.

Four decades ago, Alan Brown Scott, MD, a native of Berkeley, Calif., turned the drug, once a deadly poison, into a revolutionary treatment for obscure eye diseases. It later became a well-known blockbuster treatment for reducing the appearance of wrinkles and treating hyperhidrosis (excessive sweating). Other approved medical uses include treatment of overactive bladder and urinary incontinence.

According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, its popularity for cosmetic use was boosted further during the pandemic and it was the No. 1 minimally invasive cosmetic procedure performed in 2020. Among the 13.3 million procedures, 4.4 million involved Botox.

According to Bloomberg Businessweek, Ed Schantz, who was working in the military’s biological weapons program, was the one to first send the toxin to Dr. Scott, who wanted to explore its properties for medical use.

The same Bloomberg article also noted that the original botulinum toxin itself “is so powerful that a tiny amount can suffocate a person by paralyzing the muscles used for breathing.”

Dr. Scott was looking for a way to help his patients avoid extensive surgeries.

“Specifically, he was aiming to treat people with strabismus, or cross-eyes, and blepharospasm, which is an uncontrollable closure of eyes. Today, it’s also used as a treatment to help with migraines, hair loss, and drooling,” NPR reported.

The New York Times once described Botox as “medicine’s answer to duct tape.”

Dr. Scott was the executive director of the Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute in San Francisco when he did his pioneering research with botulinum toxin in the 1970s and 1980s, according to a 2002 article in SFGate.

In 1991, Dr. Scott sold the drug to Allergan, when it was called Oculinum. The next year, the name was officially changed to Botox.

In 2002, Dr. Scott told SFGate, when asked about the more popular use for the drug, “I think that’s a charming, slightly frivolous use,” adding, “but it’s not along the lines of what I was into, applications for serious disorders.”

According to Scientific American in 2016, Dr. Scott, then age 83, kept working on the noncosmetic benefits of botulism-toxin injections for eye-related disorders at the Strabismus Research Foundation,

He told Scientific American he was proud that his efforts “are directly helpful to people.”

“There are interesting and difficult problems still to be solved, and I’m a practicing physician and I see them every day,” he said.

Dr. Scott’s daughter, Ann Scott, told NPR: “He definitely loved his work and he was also a really great father.” She said her dad involved his children in his research and work.

She added, “He was a really calm, more of a quiet reserved person,” and said he was committed to teaching his students, many of them international students.

“That was what he really loved,” she said.

Dr. Scott, who died Dec. 16, was in intensive care for the last 10 days from an unspecified illness, his daughter told NPR.

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

The ophthalmologist credited with developing botulinum toxin (Botox) for medical use has died at the age of 89, his family confirmed to National Public Radio.

Four decades ago, Alan Brown Scott, MD, a native of Berkeley, Calif., turned the drug, once a deadly poison, into a revolutionary treatment for obscure eye diseases. It later became a well-known blockbuster treatment for reducing the appearance of wrinkles and treating hyperhidrosis (excessive sweating). Other approved medical uses include treatment of overactive bladder and urinary incontinence.

According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, its popularity for cosmetic use was boosted further during the pandemic and it was the No. 1 minimally invasive cosmetic procedure performed in 2020. Among the 13.3 million procedures, 4.4 million involved Botox.

According to Bloomberg Businessweek, Ed Schantz, who was working in the military’s biological weapons program, was the one to first send the toxin to Dr. Scott, who wanted to explore its properties for medical use.

The same Bloomberg article also noted that the original botulinum toxin itself “is so powerful that a tiny amount can suffocate a person by paralyzing the muscles used for breathing.”

Dr. Scott was looking for a way to help his patients avoid extensive surgeries.

“Specifically, he was aiming to treat people with strabismus, or cross-eyes, and blepharospasm, which is an uncontrollable closure of eyes. Today, it’s also used as a treatment to help with migraines, hair loss, and drooling,” NPR reported.

The New York Times once described Botox as “medicine’s answer to duct tape.”

Dr. Scott was the executive director of the Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute in San Francisco when he did his pioneering research with botulinum toxin in the 1970s and 1980s, according to a 2002 article in SFGate.

In 1991, Dr. Scott sold the drug to Allergan, when it was called Oculinum. The next year, the name was officially changed to Botox.

In 2002, Dr. Scott told SFGate, when asked about the more popular use for the drug, “I think that’s a charming, slightly frivolous use,” adding, “but it’s not along the lines of what I was into, applications for serious disorders.”

According to Scientific American in 2016, Dr. Scott, then age 83, kept working on the noncosmetic benefits of botulism-toxin injections for eye-related disorders at the Strabismus Research Foundation,

He told Scientific American he was proud that his efforts “are directly helpful to people.”

“There are interesting and difficult problems still to be solved, and I’m a practicing physician and I see them every day,” he said.

Dr. Scott’s daughter, Ann Scott, told NPR: “He definitely loved his work and he was also a really great father.” She said her dad involved his children in his research and work.

She added, “He was a really calm, more of a quiet reserved person,” and said he was committed to teaching his students, many of them international students.

“That was what he really loved,” she said.

Dr. Scott, who died Dec. 16, was in intensive care for the last 10 days from an unspecified illness, his daughter told NPR.

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

The ophthalmologist credited with developing botulinum toxin (Botox) for medical use has died at the age of 89, his family confirmed to National Public Radio.

Four decades ago, Alan Brown Scott, MD, a native of Berkeley, Calif., turned the drug, once a deadly poison, into a revolutionary treatment for obscure eye diseases. It later became a well-known blockbuster treatment for reducing the appearance of wrinkles and treating hyperhidrosis (excessive sweating). Other approved medical uses include treatment of overactive bladder and urinary incontinence.

According to the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, its popularity for cosmetic use was boosted further during the pandemic and it was the No. 1 minimally invasive cosmetic procedure performed in 2020. Among the 13.3 million procedures, 4.4 million involved Botox.

According to Bloomberg Businessweek, Ed Schantz, who was working in the military’s biological weapons program, was the one to first send the toxin to Dr. Scott, who wanted to explore its properties for medical use.

The same Bloomberg article also noted that the original botulinum toxin itself “is so powerful that a tiny amount can suffocate a person by paralyzing the muscles used for breathing.”

Dr. Scott was looking for a way to help his patients avoid extensive surgeries.

“Specifically, he was aiming to treat people with strabismus, or cross-eyes, and blepharospasm, which is an uncontrollable closure of eyes. Today, it’s also used as a treatment to help with migraines, hair loss, and drooling,” NPR reported.

The New York Times once described Botox as “medicine’s answer to duct tape.”

Dr. Scott was the executive director of the Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute in San Francisco when he did his pioneering research with botulinum toxin in the 1970s and 1980s, according to a 2002 article in SFGate.

In 1991, Dr. Scott sold the drug to Allergan, when it was called Oculinum. The next year, the name was officially changed to Botox.

In 2002, Dr. Scott told SFGate, when asked about the more popular use for the drug, “I think that’s a charming, slightly frivolous use,” adding, “but it’s not along the lines of what I was into, applications for serious disorders.”

According to Scientific American in 2016, Dr. Scott, then age 83, kept working on the noncosmetic benefits of botulism-toxin injections for eye-related disorders at the Strabismus Research Foundation,

He told Scientific American he was proud that his efforts “are directly helpful to people.”

“There are interesting and difficult problems still to be solved, and I’m a practicing physician and I see them every day,” he said.

Dr. Scott’s daughter, Ann Scott, told NPR: “He definitely loved his work and he was also a really great father.” She said her dad involved his children in his research and work.

She added, “He was a really calm, more of a quiet reserved person,” and said he was committed to teaching his students, many of them international students.

“That was what he really loved,” she said.

Dr. Scott, who died Dec. 16, was in intensive care for the last 10 days from an unspecified illness, his daughter told NPR.

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

Editors at the BMJ have released an urgent request to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and parent company Meta regarding a recent “fact-check” on the medical trade journal’s article about questionable Pfizer vaccine trial practices.

According to an open letter written by outgoing BMJ editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee, MD, and incoming editor-in-chief Kamran Abbasi, MD, Facebook hired a third-party contractor to evaluate the article’s findings. This resulted in “inaccurate, incompetent, and irresponsible” conclusions that “should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as the BMJ for reliable medical information.”

The article in question investigated data integrity concerns at Pfizer vaccine clinical trial sites. In September 2020, the letter states, a former employee of the research group involved in Pfizer’s main vaccine trials, Ventavia, reached out to the BMJ and “began providing ... dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.” According to the company’s website, Ventavia “played a significant part in [COVID-19 clinical trial] recruitment” and “has received recognition by Pfizer for their contribution to vaccine trials.”

It was previously reported that the whistle-blower is a former regional director who was involved in Pfizer’s vaccine trials in Texas during the fall of 2020. She alleges “the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase 3 trial.”

The images provided to the BMJ “showed needles discarded in a plastic biohazard bag instead of a sharps container box” and another displayed “vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants.”

Despite informing Ventavia, the director’s concerns went unaddressed. She then filed a complaint with the Food and Drug Administration and was subsequently fired the same day. The FDA did not investigate the director’s allegations, said Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi, even though the evidence “revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety.”
 

Article labeled as ‘hoax,’ without pointing out errors

The BMJ hired an investigative reporter to follow up on the clinical trial claims. The findings were published in an article on Nov. 2, 2021, after the article “went through ... the usual high-level legal and editorial oversight and peer review,” according to the journal.

However, by Nov. 10, the journal began receiving complaints from readers unable to share the article on social media. Others had their posts flagged with warnings, such as “missing context ... independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Administrators of various Facebook groups were notified that posts containing the article were “partly false.”

Readers were informed that Facebook contractor Lead Stories performed the article’s “fact check.” Lead Stories is “an award-winning innovative fact checking and debunking website” and “an active part of Facebook’s partnership with third-party fact checkers” – with the latter granting them “access to listings of content that has been flagged as potentially false by Facebook’s systems or its users.” The company said they “decide independently if we want to fact check it or not.”

Lead Stories stated that they “can enter our fact checks into a tool provided by Facebook and Facebook then uses our data to help slow down the spread of false information on its platform.” Although the contractor is compensated, Lead Stories claims they have “no say or influence over what we fact check or what our conclusions are.”

Both editors question the validity of the fact check performed by Lead Stories, as it failed to provide any “assertions of fact” as to what the BMJ got wrong. Moreover, the editors take issue with Lead Stories referring to the journal as a “news blog” and using the phrase “hoax-alert” in the URL when publishing the story on its site.

The BMJ has reached out to Lead Stories and Facebook, said the letter, but Lead Stories refuses to “change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.” Requests for Facebook to remove the “fact-checking” label and allow “readers to freely share the article on [Facebook’s] platform” have been unfruitful.

Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi expressed concern that other “high quality information provider[s] have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime.” In November, Instagram censored Cochrane, an international provider of independent systematic medical reviews. Instagram, also owned by Meta, prohibited users from tagging Cochrane because the organization “repeatedly posted ... false content about COVID-19 or vaccines.” Cochrane refuted the allegations.

While “fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades,” said the editors, Meta has “apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task.” They urged the company to reconsider its fact-checking strategy and review the issues that contributed to the error.

This news organization reached out to Meta for comment but did not receive a response at press time.

Lead Stories has posted a reply (Lead Stories’ Response To BMJ Open Letter Objecting To A Lead Stories Fact Check) to the BMJ’s complaint on its website.

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

Editors at the BMJ have released an urgent request to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and parent company Meta regarding a recent “fact-check” on the medical trade journal’s article about questionable Pfizer vaccine trial practices.

According to an open letter written by outgoing BMJ editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee, MD, and incoming editor-in-chief Kamran Abbasi, MD, Facebook hired a third-party contractor to evaluate the article’s findings. This resulted in “inaccurate, incompetent, and irresponsible” conclusions that “should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as the BMJ for reliable medical information.”

The article in question investigated data integrity concerns at Pfizer vaccine clinical trial sites. In September 2020, the letter states, a former employee of the research group involved in Pfizer’s main vaccine trials, Ventavia, reached out to the BMJ and “began providing ... dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.” According to the company’s website, Ventavia “played a significant part in [COVID-19 clinical trial] recruitment” and “has received recognition by Pfizer for their contribution to vaccine trials.”

It was previously reported that the whistle-blower is a former regional director who was involved in Pfizer’s vaccine trials in Texas during the fall of 2020. She alleges “the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase 3 trial.”

The images provided to the BMJ “showed needles discarded in a plastic biohazard bag instead of a sharps container box” and another displayed “vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants.”

Despite informing Ventavia, the director’s concerns went unaddressed. She then filed a complaint with the Food and Drug Administration and was subsequently fired the same day. The FDA did not investigate the director’s allegations, said Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi, even though the evidence “revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety.”
 

Article labeled as ‘hoax,’ without pointing out errors

The BMJ hired an investigative reporter to follow up on the clinical trial claims. The findings were published in an article on Nov. 2, 2021, after the article “went through ... the usual high-level legal and editorial oversight and peer review,” according to the journal.

However, by Nov. 10, the journal began receiving complaints from readers unable to share the article on social media. Others had their posts flagged with warnings, such as “missing context ... independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Administrators of various Facebook groups were notified that posts containing the article were “partly false.”

Readers were informed that Facebook contractor Lead Stories performed the article’s “fact check.” Lead Stories is “an award-winning innovative fact checking and debunking website” and “an active part of Facebook’s partnership with third-party fact checkers” – with the latter granting them “access to listings of content that has been flagged as potentially false by Facebook’s systems or its users.” The company said they “decide independently if we want to fact check it or not.”

Lead Stories stated that they “can enter our fact checks into a tool provided by Facebook and Facebook then uses our data to help slow down the spread of false information on its platform.” Although the contractor is compensated, Lead Stories claims they have “no say or influence over what we fact check or what our conclusions are.”

Both editors question the validity of the fact check performed by Lead Stories, as it failed to provide any “assertions of fact” as to what the BMJ got wrong. Moreover, the editors take issue with Lead Stories referring to the journal as a “news blog” and using the phrase “hoax-alert” in the URL when publishing the story on its site.

The BMJ has reached out to Lead Stories and Facebook, said the letter, but Lead Stories refuses to “change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.” Requests for Facebook to remove the “fact-checking” label and allow “readers to freely share the article on [Facebook’s] platform” have been unfruitful.

Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi expressed concern that other “high quality information provider[s] have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime.” In November, Instagram censored Cochrane, an international provider of independent systematic medical reviews. Instagram, also owned by Meta, prohibited users from tagging Cochrane because the organization “repeatedly posted ... false content about COVID-19 or vaccines.” Cochrane refuted the allegations.

While “fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades,” said the editors, Meta has “apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task.” They urged the company to reconsider its fact-checking strategy and review the issues that contributed to the error.

This news organization reached out to Meta for comment but did not receive a response at press time.

Lead Stories has posted a reply (Lead Stories’ Response To BMJ Open Letter Objecting To A Lead Stories Fact Check) to the BMJ’s complaint on its website.

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

Editors at the BMJ have released an urgent request to Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and parent company Meta regarding a recent “fact-check” on the medical trade journal’s article about questionable Pfizer vaccine trial practices.

According to an open letter written by outgoing BMJ editor-in-chief Fiona Godlee, MD, and incoming editor-in-chief Kamran Abbasi, MD, Facebook hired a third-party contractor to evaluate the article’s findings. This resulted in “inaccurate, incompetent, and irresponsible” conclusions that “should be of concern to anyone who values and relies on sources such as the BMJ for reliable medical information.”

The article in question investigated data integrity concerns at Pfizer vaccine clinical trial sites. In September 2020, the letter states, a former employee of the research group involved in Pfizer’s main vaccine trials, Ventavia, reached out to the BMJ and “began providing ... dozens of internal company documents, photos, audio recordings, and emails.” According to the company’s website, Ventavia “played a significant part in [COVID-19 clinical trial] recruitment” and “has received recognition by Pfizer for their contribution to vaccine trials.”

It was previously reported that the whistle-blower is a former regional director who was involved in Pfizer’s vaccine trials in Texas during the fall of 2020. She alleges “the company falsified data, unblinded patients, employed inadequately trained vaccinators, and was slow to follow up on adverse events reported in Pfizer’s pivotal phase 3 trial.”

The images provided to the BMJ “showed needles discarded in a plastic biohazard bag instead of a sharps container box” and another displayed “vaccine packaging materials with trial participants’ identification numbers written on them left out in the open, potentially unblinding participants.”

Despite informing Ventavia, the director’s concerns went unaddressed. She then filed a complaint with the Food and Drug Administration and was subsequently fired the same day. The FDA did not investigate the director’s allegations, said Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi, even though the evidence “revealed a host of poor clinical trial research practices occurring at Ventavia that could impact data integrity and patient safety.”
 

Article labeled as ‘hoax,’ without pointing out errors

The BMJ hired an investigative reporter to follow up on the clinical trial claims. The findings were published in an article on Nov. 2, 2021, after the article “went through ... the usual high-level legal and editorial oversight and peer review,” according to the journal.

However, by Nov. 10, the journal began receiving complaints from readers unable to share the article on social media. Others had their posts flagged with warnings, such as “missing context ... independent fact-checkers say this information could mislead people.” Administrators of various Facebook groups were notified that posts containing the article were “partly false.”

Readers were informed that Facebook contractor Lead Stories performed the article’s “fact check.” Lead Stories is “an award-winning innovative fact checking and debunking website” and “an active part of Facebook’s partnership with third-party fact checkers” – with the latter granting them “access to listings of content that has been flagged as potentially false by Facebook’s systems or its users.” The company said they “decide independently if we want to fact check it or not.”

Lead Stories stated that they “can enter our fact checks into a tool provided by Facebook and Facebook then uses our data to help slow down the spread of false information on its platform.” Although the contractor is compensated, Lead Stories claims they have “no say or influence over what we fact check or what our conclusions are.”

Both editors question the validity of the fact check performed by Lead Stories, as it failed to provide any “assertions of fact” as to what the BMJ got wrong. Moreover, the editors take issue with Lead Stories referring to the journal as a “news blog” and using the phrase “hoax-alert” in the URL when publishing the story on its site.

The BMJ has reached out to Lead Stories and Facebook, said the letter, but Lead Stories refuses to “change anything about their article or actions that have led to Facebook flagging our article.” Requests for Facebook to remove the “fact-checking” label and allow “readers to freely share the article on [Facebook’s] platform” have been unfruitful.

Dr. Godlee and Dr. Abbasi expressed concern that other “high quality information provider[s] have been affected by the incompetence of Meta’s fact checking regime.” In November, Instagram censored Cochrane, an international provider of independent systematic medical reviews. Instagram, also owned by Meta, prohibited users from tagging Cochrane because the organization “repeatedly posted ... false content about COVID-19 or vaccines.” Cochrane refuted the allegations.

While “fact checking has been a staple of good journalism for decades,” said the editors, Meta has “apparently delegated responsibility to people incompetent in carrying out this crucial task.” They urged the company to reconsider its fact-checking strategy and review the issues that contributed to the error.

This news organization reached out to Meta for comment but did not receive a response at press time.

Lead Stories has posted a reply (Lead Stories’ Response To BMJ Open Letter Objecting To A Lead Stories Fact Check) to the BMJ’s complaint on its website.

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