Dermatology News

Top infectious disease officials expect a surge of COVID-19 cases after the holidays and say Omicron will soon take over as the dominant strain in the United States.

The best way to stay protected is by getting vaccinated and boosted, they said.

“For the unvaccinated, you’re looking at a winter of severe illness and death – for yourselves, families, and the hospitals who may soon overwhelm,” White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said at a news briefing Dec. 17. “We need the American people to do their part.”

The Omicron variant has been detected in at least 39 states and 75 countries, according to CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD.

The strain is more transmissible than the already highly infectious Delta variant, and although there was early evidence that it caused more mild disease, she said that is likely because many of those infected have been vaccinated and boosted.

“Although Delta continues to circulate widely in the United States, Omicron is increasing rapidly and we expect it to become the dominant strain in the United States, as it has in other countries, in the coming weeks,” Dr. Walensky said.

The United States is averaging close to 1,300 deaths from COVID-19 each day. New cases, deaths, and hospitalizations are higher now than in the previous winter – before vaccines were so widely available. The New York Times reported on Dec. 17 that new infections in Connecticut and Maine have grown 150% in the past 2 weeks, and Ohio and Indiana are seeing hospitalization rates nearing the worst of 2020-2021’s winter surge.

Dueling reports released recently gave cause for relief and concern about Omicron.

A study from South Africa released on Dec. 14 shows lower hospitalizations during the first 3 weeks of the Omicron wave than during earlier waves from other variants. That’s the good news.

The concerning news is out of the United Kingdom, where Imperial College London reported Dec. 17 that the risk of reinfection with COVID-19 from Omicron is more than 5 times as high and that cases of Omicron-based COVID-19 are doubling every 2 days.

What’s more, the study “finds no evidence of Omicron having lower severity than Delta, judged by either the proportion of people testing positive who report symptoms, or by the proportion of cases seeking hospital care after infection. However, hospitalization data remains very limited at this time,” the researchers said.

“We have no evidence that the virus itself is more mild,” Eric Topol, MD, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-in-chief of Medscape, told PBS NewsHour. “Until we have that, we have to assume that people who don’t have any protection are highly vulnerable to getting very ill.”

The White House COVID-19 team continues to urge parents and guardians to get their children vaccinated, especially in anticipation of a post-holiday spike. Dr. Walensky said the CDC’s vaccine advisory board met on Dec. 16 to continue the safety discussion about COVID-19 vaccinations in children.

So far, 20 million children under 17 and 5 million under 11 have received their shots.

“Looking specifically at vaccine safety data from over 50,000 children 5-11 years old, we found no evidence of serious safety concerns,” Dr. Walensky said.

Top infectious disease expert Anthony S. Fauci, MD, highlighted the importance of getting vaccinated and boosted to avoid serious disease from Delta and Omicron.

“We’re in a situation where we are now facing a very important Delta surge and we are looking over our shoulder at an oncoming Omicron surge,” he said. “The optimum protection is fully vaccinated plus a boost.”

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

Top infectious disease officials expect a surge of COVID-19 cases after the holidays and say Omicron will soon take over as the dominant strain in the United States.

The best way to stay protected is by getting vaccinated and boosted, they said.

“For the unvaccinated, you’re looking at a winter of severe illness and death – for yourselves, families, and the hospitals who may soon overwhelm,” White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said at a news briefing Dec. 17. “We need the American people to do their part.”

The Omicron variant has been detected in at least 39 states and 75 countries, according to CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD.

The strain is more transmissible than the already highly infectious Delta variant, and although there was early evidence that it caused more mild disease, she said that is likely because many of those infected have been vaccinated and boosted.

“Although Delta continues to circulate widely in the United States, Omicron is increasing rapidly and we expect it to become the dominant strain in the United States, as it has in other countries, in the coming weeks,” Dr. Walensky said.

The United States is averaging close to 1,300 deaths from COVID-19 each day. New cases, deaths, and hospitalizations are higher now than in the previous winter – before vaccines were so widely available. The New York Times reported on Dec. 17 that new infections in Connecticut and Maine have grown 150% in the past 2 weeks, and Ohio and Indiana are seeing hospitalization rates nearing the worst of 2020-2021’s winter surge.

Dueling reports released recently gave cause for relief and concern about Omicron.

A study from South Africa released on Dec. 14 shows lower hospitalizations during the first 3 weeks of the Omicron wave than during earlier waves from other variants. That’s the good news.

The concerning news is out of the United Kingdom, where Imperial College London reported Dec. 17 that the risk of reinfection with COVID-19 from Omicron is more than 5 times as high and that cases of Omicron-based COVID-19 are doubling every 2 days.

What’s more, the study “finds no evidence of Omicron having lower severity than Delta, judged by either the proportion of people testing positive who report symptoms, or by the proportion of cases seeking hospital care after infection. However, hospitalization data remains very limited at this time,” the researchers said.

“We have no evidence that the virus itself is more mild,” Eric Topol, MD, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-in-chief of Medscape, told PBS NewsHour. “Until we have that, we have to assume that people who don’t have any protection are highly vulnerable to getting very ill.”

The White House COVID-19 team continues to urge parents and guardians to get their children vaccinated, especially in anticipation of a post-holiday spike. Dr. Walensky said the CDC’s vaccine advisory board met on Dec. 16 to continue the safety discussion about COVID-19 vaccinations in children.

So far, 20 million children under 17 and 5 million under 11 have received their shots.

“Looking specifically at vaccine safety data from over 50,000 children 5-11 years old, we found no evidence of serious safety concerns,” Dr. Walensky said.

Top infectious disease expert Anthony S. Fauci, MD, highlighted the importance of getting vaccinated and boosted to avoid serious disease from Delta and Omicron.

“We’re in a situation where we are now facing a very important Delta surge and we are looking over our shoulder at an oncoming Omicron surge,” he said. “The optimum protection is fully vaccinated plus a boost.”

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

Top infectious disease officials expect a surge of COVID-19 cases after the holidays and say Omicron will soon take over as the dominant strain in the United States.

The best way to stay protected is by getting vaccinated and boosted, they said.

“For the unvaccinated, you’re looking at a winter of severe illness and death – for yourselves, families, and the hospitals who may soon overwhelm,” White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator Jeff Zients said at a news briefing Dec. 17. “We need the American people to do their part.”

The Omicron variant has been detected in at least 39 states and 75 countries, according to CDC director Rochelle Walensky, MD.

The strain is more transmissible than the already highly infectious Delta variant, and although there was early evidence that it caused more mild disease, she said that is likely because many of those infected have been vaccinated and boosted.

“Although Delta continues to circulate widely in the United States, Omicron is increasing rapidly and we expect it to become the dominant strain in the United States, as it has in other countries, in the coming weeks,” Dr. Walensky said.

The United States is averaging close to 1,300 deaths from COVID-19 each day. New cases, deaths, and hospitalizations are higher now than in the previous winter – before vaccines were so widely available. The New York Times reported on Dec. 17 that new infections in Connecticut and Maine have grown 150% in the past 2 weeks, and Ohio and Indiana are seeing hospitalization rates nearing the worst of 2020-2021’s winter surge.

Dueling reports released recently gave cause for relief and concern about Omicron.

A study from South Africa released on Dec. 14 shows lower hospitalizations during the first 3 weeks of the Omicron wave than during earlier waves from other variants. That’s the good news.

The concerning news is out of the United Kingdom, where Imperial College London reported Dec. 17 that the risk of reinfection with COVID-19 from Omicron is more than 5 times as high and that cases of Omicron-based COVID-19 are doubling every 2 days.

What’s more, the study “finds no evidence of Omicron having lower severity than Delta, judged by either the proportion of people testing positive who report symptoms, or by the proportion of cases seeking hospital care after infection. However, hospitalization data remains very limited at this time,” the researchers said.

“We have no evidence that the virus itself is more mild,” Eric Topol, MD, executive vice president of Scripps Research and editor-in-chief of Medscape, told PBS NewsHour. “Until we have that, we have to assume that people who don’t have any protection are highly vulnerable to getting very ill.”

The White House COVID-19 team continues to urge parents and guardians to get their children vaccinated, especially in anticipation of a post-holiday spike. Dr. Walensky said the CDC’s vaccine advisory board met on Dec. 16 to continue the safety discussion about COVID-19 vaccinations in children.

So far, 20 million children under 17 and 5 million under 11 have received their shots.

“Looking specifically at vaccine safety data from over 50,000 children 5-11 years old, we found no evidence of serious safety concerns,” Dr. Walensky said.

Top infectious disease expert Anthony S. Fauci, MD, highlighted the importance of getting vaccinated and boosted to avoid serious disease from Delta and Omicron.

“We’re in a situation where we are now facing a very important Delta surge and we are looking over our shoulder at an oncoming Omicron surge,” he said. “The optimum protection is fully vaccinated plus a boost.”

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

The first large population study to investigate the association between different COVID-19 vaccines types and cardiac effects and adverse events shows a small increase in the risk for acute myocarditis with both the mRNA-based vaccines and – in what may a first in the literature – an adenovirus-vector vaccine.

Ivan Pantic/Getty Images

The excess risk was seen following the first dose of the ChAdOc1 (AstraZeneca/Oxford), the adenovirus-based vaccine, and the mRNA-based BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech). It was observed after first and second doses of the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine.

The incidence rate ratios for myocarditis 1-7 days after the first AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna injections were 1.76, 1.45, and 8.38, respectively, and 23.1 after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“There’s a bit more uncertainty and worry about mRNA vaccines because it’s quite a new vector for vaccination and, therefore, there’s been more focus on the potential side effects,” said Nicholas Mills, MD.

“But it doesn’t surprise me the signal is present for all types of vaccines because they’re designed to generate a systemic immune response and that is, unfortunately, where you can cause small risks for immune-mediated illnesses like myocarditis,” Dr. Mills, from the University of Edinburgh, told this news organization. Dr. Mills is a coauthor on the study, published Dec. 14 in Nature Medicine.

To put the risks in context, the group estimated between 1 and 10 additional myocarditis hospitalizations or deaths per 1 million people vaccinated, but 40 excess myocarditis events per million following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.

As reported, rates of excess myocarditis events associated with a first dose were 2 per million injections of the AstraZeneca vaccine, 1 per million for the Pfizer vaccine, and 6 per million with the Moderna vaccine.

Following a second dose, there were 10 additional myocarditis events per million people receiving the Moderna vaccine and none among recipients of the AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccines.

“It was particularly seen within the first 7 days of the first dose, which is very consistent with what we see in people who have viral myocarditis,” Dr. Mills said. “So it looks like a real signal but it’s very small.”

The results are in line with previous studies of the Pfizer vaccine in Israel and studies of the Moderna vaccine in the United States, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.

“What this paper does is confirm that cardiovascular complications – and they are only looking at a small component of those cardiovascular complications – are markedly higher with the COVID-19 infection than with the vaccines,” she said.

It also adds a new twist to the search for the mechanisms of myocarditis, which has focused on the immunogenicity of the RNA in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines but also hypothesized that molecular mimicry between the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and cell antigens, antibody production against cardiac proteins, and testosterone may play a role.

“But now it doesn’t look like the risk is solely confined to the mRNA vaccine platform because it’s also happening with the adenovirus,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “The mechanisms require future experimental and clinical research and we’ll need more granular data with cohorts that are closely followed up as well as subclinical follow-up.”

James de Lemos, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry, said he was also not surprised by a myocarditis signal with AstraZeneca’s adenovirus vaccine.

“Looking at relative risks has biological implications, but the clinical and public health implications are that the absolute risk with the adenovirus is trivial. And you see that with their estimations of absolute risk where it’s literally sort of a needle in the haystack of 1 or 2 per million,” he said in an interview.
 

Large-scale data

The investigators examined the rates of hospital admission or death from myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmia in the 28 days following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or infection by linking the English National Immunisation Database of COVID-19 vaccination with a national patient-level health care database of 38.6 million people, aged 16 years or older, vaccinated from Dec.1, 2020, to Aug. 24, 2021.

The number of people admitted to the hospital or who died during the study period was 1,615 for myocarditis, 1,574 for pericarditis, and 385,508 for cardiac arrhythmia.

There was no evidence of an increased risk for pericarditis or cardiac arrhythmia following vaccination, except for arrhythmia in the 28 days following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine (IRR, 1.46).

In contrast, the risk was increased for pericarditis (IRR, 2.79) and cardiac arrhythmia (IRR, 5.35) in the 28 days following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.

Although the scale of the analysis allows for more precise estimates than what’s been possible in smaller data sets, there is the challenge of diagnosing COVID-19 from billing codes and the potential for ascertainment bias, noted Dr. de Lemos.  

“Having said that, I think it’s a really important study, because it’s the first study to put the incidence in context in the same general population the risks of myocarditis with various vaccines and with COVID-19,” he said.

“That’s really important and provides a lot of reassurance for those who are trying to balance the risks and benefits of vaccination.”
 

Analyses by sex and age

A subgroup analysis by age showed increased risks for myocarditis with the mRNA vaccines only in those younger than 40, whereas no association was found with the Oxford adenovirus vaccine.

“We’re not seeing any signal here that would make us change the recommendation for vaccination in children as a consequence of this risk,” Dr. Mills said during a press briefing.

Dr. Bozkurt pointed out, however, that the estimated excess in myocarditis events following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine in these younger adults reportedly exceeded that for SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 per million vs. 10 per million).

“For that age group, it’s concerning and needs further clarification. This hasn’t been seen before,” she said.

The average age was 39 years for those receiving two doses of the Moderna vaccine and 55 for recipients of the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines. The Moderna vaccine wasn’t rolled out until April 2021 in the United Kingdom, the authors noted, so the number of patients who received this vaccine is lower.

Although reports have suggested young males are at greater risk for myocarditis after vaccination, an analysis by sex found that women had an increased risk for myocarditis after a first dose of the AstraZeneca (IRR, 1.40) and Pfizer (IRR, 1.54) vaccines and following a positive COVID-19 test result (IRR, 11.00).

“Women being at increased risk is rather a new message,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “But the incidence rate ratios are being compared against the unvaccinated, so when you see the increase in women, it doesn’t mean it’s increased against men. It would be helpful for sex-specific incidence rate ratios to be reported for younger age subgroups, such as ages 16-20 and 20-30, to determine whether there’s an increased risk for males compared to females at younger ages.”

Age and sex differences are huge questions, but “I think we’ll learn a lot about myocarditis in general from what is going to be an explosion of research into the vaccine-associated causes,” Dr. de Lemos said.

“That will help us understand myocarditis more broadly and prepare us for the next generation of vaccines, which inevitably will be mRNA based.”

Dr. Mills reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Bozkurt reported consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical-events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. De Lemos reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The first large population study to investigate the association between different COVID-19 vaccines types and cardiac effects and adverse events shows a small increase in the risk for acute myocarditis with both the mRNA-based vaccines and – in what may a first in the literature – an adenovirus-vector vaccine.

Ivan Pantic/Getty Images

The excess risk was seen following the first dose of the ChAdOc1 (AstraZeneca/Oxford), the adenovirus-based vaccine, and the mRNA-based BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech). It was observed after first and second doses of the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine.

The incidence rate ratios for myocarditis 1-7 days after the first AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna injections were 1.76, 1.45, and 8.38, respectively, and 23.1 after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“There’s a bit more uncertainty and worry about mRNA vaccines because it’s quite a new vector for vaccination and, therefore, there’s been more focus on the potential side effects,” said Nicholas Mills, MD.

“But it doesn’t surprise me the signal is present for all types of vaccines because they’re designed to generate a systemic immune response and that is, unfortunately, where you can cause small risks for immune-mediated illnesses like myocarditis,” Dr. Mills, from the University of Edinburgh, told this news organization. Dr. Mills is a coauthor on the study, published Dec. 14 in Nature Medicine.

To put the risks in context, the group estimated between 1 and 10 additional myocarditis hospitalizations or deaths per 1 million people vaccinated, but 40 excess myocarditis events per million following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.

As reported, rates of excess myocarditis events associated with a first dose were 2 per million injections of the AstraZeneca vaccine, 1 per million for the Pfizer vaccine, and 6 per million with the Moderna vaccine.

Following a second dose, there were 10 additional myocarditis events per million people receiving the Moderna vaccine and none among recipients of the AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccines.

“It was particularly seen within the first 7 days of the first dose, which is very consistent with what we see in people who have viral myocarditis,” Dr. Mills said. “So it looks like a real signal but it’s very small.”

The results are in line with previous studies of the Pfizer vaccine in Israel and studies of the Moderna vaccine in the United States, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.

“What this paper does is confirm that cardiovascular complications – and they are only looking at a small component of those cardiovascular complications – are markedly higher with the COVID-19 infection than with the vaccines,” she said.

It also adds a new twist to the search for the mechanisms of myocarditis, which has focused on the immunogenicity of the RNA in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines but also hypothesized that molecular mimicry between the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and cell antigens, antibody production against cardiac proteins, and testosterone may play a role.

“But now it doesn’t look like the risk is solely confined to the mRNA vaccine platform because it’s also happening with the adenovirus,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “The mechanisms require future experimental and clinical research and we’ll need more granular data with cohorts that are closely followed up as well as subclinical follow-up.”

James de Lemos, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry, said he was also not surprised by a myocarditis signal with AstraZeneca’s adenovirus vaccine.

“Looking at relative risks has biological implications, but the clinical and public health implications are that the absolute risk with the adenovirus is trivial. And you see that with their estimations of absolute risk where it’s literally sort of a needle in the haystack of 1 or 2 per million,” he said in an interview.
 

Large-scale data

The investigators examined the rates of hospital admission or death from myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmia in the 28 days following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or infection by linking the English National Immunisation Database of COVID-19 vaccination with a national patient-level health care database of 38.6 million people, aged 16 years or older, vaccinated from Dec.1, 2020, to Aug. 24, 2021.

The number of people admitted to the hospital or who died during the study period was 1,615 for myocarditis, 1,574 for pericarditis, and 385,508 for cardiac arrhythmia.

There was no evidence of an increased risk for pericarditis or cardiac arrhythmia following vaccination, except for arrhythmia in the 28 days following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine (IRR, 1.46).

In contrast, the risk was increased for pericarditis (IRR, 2.79) and cardiac arrhythmia (IRR, 5.35) in the 28 days following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.

Although the scale of the analysis allows for more precise estimates than what’s been possible in smaller data sets, there is the challenge of diagnosing COVID-19 from billing codes and the potential for ascertainment bias, noted Dr. de Lemos.  

“Having said that, I think it’s a really important study, because it’s the first study to put the incidence in context in the same general population the risks of myocarditis with various vaccines and with COVID-19,” he said.

“That’s really important and provides a lot of reassurance for those who are trying to balance the risks and benefits of vaccination.”
 

Analyses by sex and age

A subgroup analysis by age showed increased risks for myocarditis with the mRNA vaccines only in those younger than 40, whereas no association was found with the Oxford adenovirus vaccine.

“We’re not seeing any signal here that would make us change the recommendation for vaccination in children as a consequence of this risk,” Dr. Mills said during a press briefing.

Dr. Bozkurt pointed out, however, that the estimated excess in myocarditis events following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine in these younger adults reportedly exceeded that for SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 per million vs. 10 per million).

“For that age group, it’s concerning and needs further clarification. This hasn’t been seen before,” she said.

The average age was 39 years for those receiving two doses of the Moderna vaccine and 55 for recipients of the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines. The Moderna vaccine wasn’t rolled out until April 2021 in the United Kingdom, the authors noted, so the number of patients who received this vaccine is lower.

Although reports have suggested young males are at greater risk for myocarditis after vaccination, an analysis by sex found that women had an increased risk for myocarditis after a first dose of the AstraZeneca (IRR, 1.40) and Pfizer (IRR, 1.54) vaccines and following a positive COVID-19 test result (IRR, 11.00).

“Women being at increased risk is rather a new message,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “But the incidence rate ratios are being compared against the unvaccinated, so when you see the increase in women, it doesn’t mean it’s increased against men. It would be helpful for sex-specific incidence rate ratios to be reported for younger age subgroups, such as ages 16-20 and 20-30, to determine whether there’s an increased risk for males compared to females at younger ages.”

Age and sex differences are huge questions, but “I think we’ll learn a lot about myocarditis in general from what is going to be an explosion of research into the vaccine-associated causes,” Dr. de Lemos said.

“That will help us understand myocarditis more broadly and prepare us for the next generation of vaccines, which inevitably will be mRNA based.”

Dr. Mills reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Bozkurt reported consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical-events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. De Lemos reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

The first large population study to investigate the association between different COVID-19 vaccines types and cardiac effects and adverse events shows a small increase in the risk for acute myocarditis with both the mRNA-based vaccines and – in what may a first in the literature – an adenovirus-vector vaccine.

Ivan Pantic/Getty Images

The excess risk was seen following the first dose of the ChAdOc1 (AstraZeneca/Oxford), the adenovirus-based vaccine, and the mRNA-based BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech). It was observed after first and second doses of the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine.

The incidence rate ratios for myocarditis 1-7 days after the first AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Moderna injections were 1.76, 1.45, and 8.38, respectively, and 23.1 after the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.

“There’s a bit more uncertainty and worry about mRNA vaccines because it’s quite a new vector for vaccination and, therefore, there’s been more focus on the potential side effects,” said Nicholas Mills, MD.

“But it doesn’t surprise me the signal is present for all types of vaccines because they’re designed to generate a systemic immune response and that is, unfortunately, where you can cause small risks for immune-mediated illnesses like myocarditis,” Dr. Mills, from the University of Edinburgh, told this news organization. Dr. Mills is a coauthor on the study, published Dec. 14 in Nature Medicine.

To put the risks in context, the group estimated between 1 and 10 additional myocarditis hospitalizations or deaths per 1 million people vaccinated, but 40 excess myocarditis events per million following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.

As reported, rates of excess myocarditis events associated with a first dose were 2 per million injections of the AstraZeneca vaccine, 1 per million for the Pfizer vaccine, and 6 per million with the Moderna vaccine.

Following a second dose, there were 10 additional myocarditis events per million people receiving the Moderna vaccine and none among recipients of the AstraZeneca or Pfizer vaccines.

“It was particularly seen within the first 7 days of the first dose, which is very consistent with what we see in people who have viral myocarditis,” Dr. Mills said. “So it looks like a real signal but it’s very small.”

The results are in line with previous studies of the Pfizer vaccine in Israel and studies of the Moderna vaccine in the United States, Biykem Bozkurt, MD, PhD, professor of medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, told this news organization.

“What this paper does is confirm that cardiovascular complications – and they are only looking at a small component of those cardiovascular complications – are markedly higher with the COVID-19 infection than with the vaccines,” she said.

It also adds a new twist to the search for the mechanisms of myocarditis, which has focused on the immunogenicity of the RNA in the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines but also hypothesized that molecular mimicry between the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein and cell antigens, antibody production against cardiac proteins, and testosterone may play a role.

“But now it doesn’t look like the risk is solely confined to the mRNA vaccine platform because it’s also happening with the adenovirus,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “The mechanisms require future experimental and clinical research and we’ll need more granular data with cohorts that are closely followed up as well as subclinical follow-up.”

James de Lemos, MD, professor of medicine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, and cochair of the American Heart Association’s COVID-19 CVD Registry, said he was also not surprised by a myocarditis signal with AstraZeneca’s adenovirus vaccine.

“Looking at relative risks has biological implications, but the clinical and public health implications are that the absolute risk with the adenovirus is trivial. And you see that with their estimations of absolute risk where it’s literally sort of a needle in the haystack of 1 or 2 per million,” he said in an interview.
 

Large-scale data

The investigators examined the rates of hospital admission or death from myocarditis, pericarditis, and cardiac arrhythmia in the 28 days following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination or infection by linking the English National Immunisation Database of COVID-19 vaccination with a national patient-level health care database of 38.6 million people, aged 16 years or older, vaccinated from Dec.1, 2020, to Aug. 24, 2021.

The number of people admitted to the hospital or who died during the study period was 1,615 for myocarditis, 1,574 for pericarditis, and 385,508 for cardiac arrhythmia.

There was no evidence of an increased risk for pericarditis or cardiac arrhythmia following vaccination, except for arrhythmia in the 28 days following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine (IRR, 1.46).

In contrast, the risk was increased for pericarditis (IRR, 2.79) and cardiac arrhythmia (IRR, 5.35) in the 28 days following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result.

Although the scale of the analysis allows for more precise estimates than what’s been possible in smaller data sets, there is the challenge of diagnosing COVID-19 from billing codes and the potential for ascertainment bias, noted Dr. de Lemos.  

“Having said that, I think it’s a really important study, because it’s the first study to put the incidence in context in the same general population the risks of myocarditis with various vaccines and with COVID-19,” he said.

“That’s really important and provides a lot of reassurance for those who are trying to balance the risks and benefits of vaccination.”
 

Analyses by sex and age

A subgroup analysis by age showed increased risks for myocarditis with the mRNA vaccines only in those younger than 40, whereas no association was found with the Oxford adenovirus vaccine.

“We’re not seeing any signal here that would make us change the recommendation for vaccination in children as a consequence of this risk,” Dr. Mills said during a press briefing.

Dr. Bozkurt pointed out, however, that the estimated excess in myocarditis events following a second dose of the Moderna vaccine in these younger adults reportedly exceeded that for SARS-CoV-2 infection (15 per million vs. 10 per million).

“For that age group, it’s concerning and needs further clarification. This hasn’t been seen before,” she said.

The average age was 39 years for those receiving two doses of the Moderna vaccine and 55 for recipients of the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines. The Moderna vaccine wasn’t rolled out until April 2021 in the United Kingdom, the authors noted, so the number of patients who received this vaccine is lower.

Although reports have suggested young males are at greater risk for myocarditis after vaccination, an analysis by sex found that women had an increased risk for myocarditis after a first dose of the AstraZeneca (IRR, 1.40) and Pfizer (IRR, 1.54) vaccines and following a positive COVID-19 test result (IRR, 11.00).

“Women being at increased risk is rather a new message,” Dr. Bozkurt said. “But the incidence rate ratios are being compared against the unvaccinated, so when you see the increase in women, it doesn’t mean it’s increased against men. It would be helpful for sex-specific incidence rate ratios to be reported for younger age subgroups, such as ages 16-20 and 20-30, to determine whether there’s an increased risk for males compared to females at younger ages.”

Age and sex differences are huge questions, but “I think we’ll learn a lot about myocarditis in general from what is going to be an explosion of research into the vaccine-associated causes,” Dr. de Lemos said.

“That will help us understand myocarditis more broadly and prepare us for the next generation of vaccines, which inevitably will be mRNA based.”

Dr. Mills reported having no relevant disclosures. Dr. Bozkurt reported consulting for Bayer and scPharmaceuticals and serving on a clinical-events committee for a trial supported by Abbott Pharmaceuticals and on a data and safety monitoring board for a trial supported by Liva Nova Pharmaceuticals. Dr. De Lemos reported having no relevant conflicts of interest.

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

A cluster analysis of circulating plasma biomarkers in prurigo nodularis (PN) has identified two disease endotypes with inflammatory and noninflammatory biomarker profiles.

The findings confirm clinical observations of disease heterogeneity, and highlight that PN “involves a spectrum of neuroimmune dysfunction, where patients can be at either end of the spectrum [toward either immune or neural dysregulation],” said senior author Shawn G. Kwatra, MD, of the department of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “This is the beginning of personalized medicine in prurigo nodularis.”

He and others have long observed significant clinical heterogeneity both in the presentation of PN – with the nodules in African American patients, for instance, appearing larger, thicker, and more fibrotic – and in patients’ response to immunomodulating and neuromodulating therapies.

To avoid the introduction of bias, the researchers used an unsupervised machine-learning approach to analyze the levels of 12 inflammatory biomarkers in 20 patients with PN and in matched healthy controls. The biomarkers were chosen based on their demonstrated dysregulation in PN and other inflammatory dermatoses.

The researchers then conducted a population-level analysis using multicenter electronic medical record data to explore inflammatory markers and verify findings from the cluster analysis. The study was published online Oct. 27, 2021, in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

One cluster of the 20 patients had higher levels of nine inflammatory biomarkers representing multiple immune axes: Higher interleukin-1 alpha, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-10, IL-17A, IL-22, and IL-25. This cluster had a higher percentage of Black patients, a higher severity of itch, and lower quality of life scores, the authors report in the preprint.

The other cluster – without such an inflammatory profile – had fewer Black patients and a higher percentage of patients with myelopathy (e.g. spinal stenosis, spinal trauma, degenerative disc disease). The rates of inflammatory comorbidities and of immune- and neuromodulating treatments at the time of blood draw were relatively equivalent between the two clusters.

In the subsequent population-level analysis, using data from a global health research network of EMRs from almost 50 health care organizations, Black patients with PN were found to have higher erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, ferritin, and eosinophils, and lower transferrin, than White patients with PN. (The analysis included only Black and White patients.)

There are no Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies for PN, and “clinicians need to be really creative in managing these patients,” Dr. Kwatra said.

“There may be suggestions at the bedside that patients have more immune dysregulation, or maybe I’ll see increased circulating blood eosinophils,” he said. “And there are those who don’t seem to have any immune dysregulation and have more features of neurosensitization ... who may have a history of neck pain or back injury.”

The existence of endotypes in PN suggests that patients may benefit from personalized therapies with either immunomodulating or neuromodulating treatments, he and his colleagues wrote. “Further neuroimmune phenotyping studies of PN may pave the way for a future precision medicine management approach.”

Studies of PN conducted in Europe have been almost exclusively in White patients, Dr. Kwatra noted, even though PN has been shown to disproportionately affect Black and other racial/ethnic-minority patients.

Black patients with PN were found to have the highest all-cause mortality over 20 years post diagnosis in a separate analysis of over 22,000 patients with PN. Using data from the same health research network, Dr. Kwatra and coinvestigators stratified patients by race/ethnicity and compared each subgroup with a corresponding subgroup of similar race/ethnicity to control for inherent differences in mortality.

Overall, patients with PN had higher all-cause mortality than controls (hazard ratio, 1.70), likely because of a high comorbidity burden, they wrote in their research letter. Black patients with PN had the highest mortality (HR, 2.07), followed by White (HR, 1.74) and Hispanic (HR, 1.62) patients.

PN may exacerbate existing racial disparities in the social determinants of health, and Black patients may suffer from greater systemic inflammation, Dr. Kwatra and coauthors wrote. Certainly, he said, these findings, as well as the finding of a distinct inflammatory signature in Black patients with PN, support “that the disease burden is much higher” in these patients.

Dr Kwatra disclosed that he is an advisory board member/consultant for Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals and has received grant funding from several companies. His research is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Grants from the Dermatology Foundation and the Skin of Color Society also helped fund the cluster analysis.

A cluster analysis of circulating plasma biomarkers in prurigo nodularis (PN) has identified two disease endotypes with inflammatory and noninflammatory biomarker profiles.

The findings confirm clinical observations of disease heterogeneity, and highlight that PN “involves a spectrum of neuroimmune dysfunction, where patients can be at either end of the spectrum [toward either immune or neural dysregulation],” said senior author Shawn G. Kwatra, MD, of the department of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “This is the beginning of personalized medicine in prurigo nodularis.”

He and others have long observed significant clinical heterogeneity both in the presentation of PN – with the nodules in African American patients, for instance, appearing larger, thicker, and more fibrotic – and in patients’ response to immunomodulating and neuromodulating therapies.

To avoid the introduction of bias, the researchers used an unsupervised machine-learning approach to analyze the levels of 12 inflammatory biomarkers in 20 patients with PN and in matched healthy controls. The biomarkers were chosen based on their demonstrated dysregulation in PN and other inflammatory dermatoses.

The researchers then conducted a population-level analysis using multicenter electronic medical record data to explore inflammatory markers and verify findings from the cluster analysis. The study was published online Oct. 27, 2021, in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

One cluster of the 20 patients had higher levels of nine inflammatory biomarkers representing multiple immune axes: Higher interleukin-1 alpha, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-10, IL-17A, IL-22, and IL-25. This cluster had a higher percentage of Black patients, a higher severity of itch, and lower quality of life scores, the authors report in the preprint.

The other cluster – without such an inflammatory profile – had fewer Black patients and a higher percentage of patients with myelopathy (e.g. spinal stenosis, spinal trauma, degenerative disc disease). The rates of inflammatory comorbidities and of immune- and neuromodulating treatments at the time of blood draw were relatively equivalent between the two clusters.

In the subsequent population-level analysis, using data from a global health research network of EMRs from almost 50 health care organizations, Black patients with PN were found to have higher erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, ferritin, and eosinophils, and lower transferrin, than White patients with PN. (The analysis included only Black and White patients.)

There are no Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies for PN, and “clinicians need to be really creative in managing these patients,” Dr. Kwatra said.

“There may be suggestions at the bedside that patients have more immune dysregulation, or maybe I’ll see increased circulating blood eosinophils,” he said. “And there are those who don’t seem to have any immune dysregulation and have more features of neurosensitization ... who may have a history of neck pain or back injury.”

The existence of endotypes in PN suggests that patients may benefit from personalized therapies with either immunomodulating or neuromodulating treatments, he and his colleagues wrote. “Further neuroimmune phenotyping studies of PN may pave the way for a future precision medicine management approach.”

Studies of PN conducted in Europe have been almost exclusively in White patients, Dr. Kwatra noted, even though PN has been shown to disproportionately affect Black and other racial/ethnic-minority patients.

Black patients with PN were found to have the highest all-cause mortality over 20 years post diagnosis in a separate analysis of over 22,000 patients with PN. Using data from the same health research network, Dr. Kwatra and coinvestigators stratified patients by race/ethnicity and compared each subgroup with a corresponding subgroup of similar race/ethnicity to control for inherent differences in mortality.

Overall, patients with PN had higher all-cause mortality than controls (hazard ratio, 1.70), likely because of a high comorbidity burden, they wrote in their research letter. Black patients with PN had the highest mortality (HR, 2.07), followed by White (HR, 1.74) and Hispanic (HR, 1.62) patients.

PN may exacerbate existing racial disparities in the social determinants of health, and Black patients may suffer from greater systemic inflammation, Dr. Kwatra and coauthors wrote. Certainly, he said, these findings, as well as the finding of a distinct inflammatory signature in Black patients with PN, support “that the disease burden is much higher” in these patients.

Dr Kwatra disclosed that he is an advisory board member/consultant for Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals and has received grant funding from several companies. His research is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Grants from the Dermatology Foundation and the Skin of Color Society also helped fund the cluster analysis.

A cluster analysis of circulating plasma biomarkers in prurigo nodularis (PN) has identified two disease endotypes with inflammatory and noninflammatory biomarker profiles.

The findings confirm clinical observations of disease heterogeneity, and highlight that PN “involves a spectrum of neuroimmune dysfunction, where patients can be at either end of the spectrum [toward either immune or neural dysregulation],” said senior author Shawn G. Kwatra, MD, of the department of dermatology at Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore. “This is the beginning of personalized medicine in prurigo nodularis.”

He and others have long observed significant clinical heterogeneity both in the presentation of PN – with the nodules in African American patients, for instance, appearing larger, thicker, and more fibrotic – and in patients’ response to immunomodulating and neuromodulating therapies.

To avoid the introduction of bias, the researchers used an unsupervised machine-learning approach to analyze the levels of 12 inflammatory biomarkers in 20 patients with PN and in matched healthy controls. The biomarkers were chosen based on their demonstrated dysregulation in PN and other inflammatory dermatoses.

The researchers then conducted a population-level analysis using multicenter electronic medical record data to explore inflammatory markers and verify findings from the cluster analysis. The study was published online Oct. 27, 2021, in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology.

One cluster of the 20 patients had higher levels of nine inflammatory biomarkers representing multiple immune axes: Higher interleukin-1 alpha, IL-4, IL-5, IL-6, IL-10, IL-17A, IL-22, and IL-25. This cluster had a higher percentage of Black patients, a higher severity of itch, and lower quality of life scores, the authors report in the preprint.

The other cluster – without such an inflammatory profile – had fewer Black patients and a higher percentage of patients with myelopathy (e.g. spinal stenosis, spinal trauma, degenerative disc disease). The rates of inflammatory comorbidities and of immune- and neuromodulating treatments at the time of blood draw were relatively equivalent between the two clusters.

In the subsequent population-level analysis, using data from a global health research network of EMRs from almost 50 health care organizations, Black patients with PN were found to have higher erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, ferritin, and eosinophils, and lower transferrin, than White patients with PN. (The analysis included only Black and White patients.)

There are no Food and Drug Administration–approved therapies for PN, and “clinicians need to be really creative in managing these patients,” Dr. Kwatra said.

“There may be suggestions at the bedside that patients have more immune dysregulation, or maybe I’ll see increased circulating blood eosinophils,” he said. “And there are those who don’t seem to have any immune dysregulation and have more features of neurosensitization ... who may have a history of neck pain or back injury.”

The existence of endotypes in PN suggests that patients may benefit from personalized therapies with either immunomodulating or neuromodulating treatments, he and his colleagues wrote. “Further neuroimmune phenotyping studies of PN may pave the way for a future precision medicine management approach.”

Studies of PN conducted in Europe have been almost exclusively in White patients, Dr. Kwatra noted, even though PN has been shown to disproportionately affect Black and other racial/ethnic-minority patients.

Black patients with PN were found to have the highest all-cause mortality over 20 years post diagnosis in a separate analysis of over 22,000 patients with PN. Using data from the same health research network, Dr. Kwatra and coinvestigators stratified patients by race/ethnicity and compared each subgroup with a corresponding subgroup of similar race/ethnicity to control for inherent differences in mortality.

Overall, patients with PN had higher all-cause mortality than controls (hazard ratio, 1.70), likely because of a high comorbidity burden, they wrote in their research letter. Black patients with PN had the highest mortality (HR, 2.07), followed by White (HR, 1.74) and Hispanic (HR, 1.62) patients.

PN may exacerbate existing racial disparities in the social determinants of health, and Black patients may suffer from greater systemic inflammation, Dr. Kwatra and coauthors wrote. Certainly, he said, these findings, as well as the finding of a distinct inflammatory signature in Black patients with PN, support “that the disease burden is much higher” in these patients.

Dr Kwatra disclosed that he is an advisory board member/consultant for Celldex Therapeutics, Galderma, Incyte, Pfizer, Regeneron, and Kiniksa Pharmaceuticals and has received grant funding from several companies. His research is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases. Grants from the Dermatology Foundation and the Skin of Color Society also helped fund the cluster analysis.

Use of vascular lasers in the Medicare population is increasing, primarily among dermatologists. In addition, as a proportion of Medicare charges submitted that were reimbursed, the highest reimbursements were for dermatologists and those in the Western geographic region.

Those are among the key findings from an analysis that aimed to characterize trends in use and reimbursement patterns of vascular lasers in the Medicare-insured population.

“There are several modalities for vascular laser treatment, including the pulse dye laser, the frequency doubled KTP laser, and others,” presenting author Partik Singh, MD, MBA, said during a virtual abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “Laser treatment of vascular lesions may sometimes be covered by insurance, depending on the indication, but little is known about how and which clinicians are taking advantage of this covered treatment.”

Dr. Singh, a 2nd-year dermatology resident at the University of Rochester Medical Center, and coauthor Mara Weinstein Velez, MD, extracted data from the 2012-2018 Medicare Public Use File, which includes 100% fee-for-service, non–Medicare Advantage claims based on CPT codes, yet no information on patient data, clinical context, or indications. Outcomes of interest were total vascular laser claims per year, annual vascular laser claims per clinician, annual clinicians using vascular lasers, accepted reimbursements defined by the allowed charge or the submitted charge to Medicare, and clinical specialties and geographic location.

The researchers found that more than half of clinicians who used vascular lasers during the study period were dermatologists (55%), followed by general surgeons (6%), family practice/internal medicine physicians (5% each) and various others. Use of vascular lasers among all clinicians increased 10.5% annually during the study period, from 3,786 to 6,883, and was most pronounced among dermatologists, whose use increased 18.4% annually, from 1,878 to 5,182. “Nondermatologists did not have a big change in their overall utilization rate, but they did have a steady utilization of vascular lasers, roughly at almost 2,000 claims per year,” Dr. Singh said.

The researchers also observed that the use of vascular lasers on a per-clinician basis increased 7.4% annually among all clinicians during the study period, from 77.3 to 118.7. This was mostly driven by dermatologists, whose per-clinician use increased 10.4% annually, from 81.7 to 148.7. Use by nondermatologists remained about stable, with just a 0.1% increase annually, from 73.4 to 74. In addition, the number of clinicians who billed for vascular laser procedures increased 2.9% annually between 2012 and 2018, from 49 to 58. This growth was driven mostly by dermatologists, who increased their billing for vascular laser procedures by 7.2% annually, from 23 to 35 clinicians.

In other findings, dermatologists were reimbursed at 68.3% of submitted charges, compared with 59.3% of charges submitted by other clinicians (P = .0001), and reimbursement rates were greatest in the Western geographic region of the United States vs. the Northeast, Midwest, and Southern regions (73.1% vs. 50.2%, 65.4%, and 55.3%, respectively; P < .0001).

“Use of vascular lasers is increasing primarily among dermatologists, though there is steady use of these procedures by nondermatologists,” Dr. Singh concluded. “Medicare charges were more often fully reimbursed when billed by dermatologists and those in the Western U.S., perhaps suggesting a better familiarity with appropriate indications and better administrative resources for coverage of vascular laser procedures.”

After the meeting, Dr. Singh acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the fact that it “was limited only to Medicare Part B fee-for-service claims, not including Medicare Advantage,” he told this news organization. “Our conclusions do not necessarily hold true for Medicaid or commercial insurers, for instance. Moreover, this dataset doesn’t provide patient-specific information, such as the indication for the procedure. Further studies are needed to characterize utilization of various lasers in not only Medicare beneficiaries, but also those with Medicaid, private insurance, and patients paying out-of-pocket. Additionally, study is also needed to explain why these differences in reimbursement hold true.”

The researchers reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Use of vascular lasers in the Medicare population is increasing, primarily among dermatologists. In addition, as a proportion of Medicare charges submitted that were reimbursed, the highest reimbursements were for dermatologists and those in the Western geographic region.

Those are among the key findings from an analysis that aimed to characterize trends in use and reimbursement patterns of vascular lasers in the Medicare-insured population.

“There are several modalities for vascular laser treatment, including the pulse dye laser, the frequency doubled KTP laser, and others,” presenting author Partik Singh, MD, MBA, said during a virtual abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “Laser treatment of vascular lesions may sometimes be covered by insurance, depending on the indication, but little is known about how and which clinicians are taking advantage of this covered treatment.”

Dr. Singh, a 2nd-year dermatology resident at the University of Rochester Medical Center, and coauthor Mara Weinstein Velez, MD, extracted data from the 2012-2018 Medicare Public Use File, which includes 100% fee-for-service, non–Medicare Advantage claims based on CPT codes, yet no information on patient data, clinical context, or indications. Outcomes of interest were total vascular laser claims per year, annual vascular laser claims per clinician, annual clinicians using vascular lasers, accepted reimbursements defined by the allowed charge or the submitted charge to Medicare, and clinical specialties and geographic location.

The researchers found that more than half of clinicians who used vascular lasers during the study period were dermatologists (55%), followed by general surgeons (6%), family practice/internal medicine physicians (5% each) and various others. Use of vascular lasers among all clinicians increased 10.5% annually during the study period, from 3,786 to 6,883, and was most pronounced among dermatologists, whose use increased 18.4% annually, from 1,878 to 5,182. “Nondermatologists did not have a big change in their overall utilization rate, but they did have a steady utilization of vascular lasers, roughly at almost 2,000 claims per year,” Dr. Singh said.

The researchers also observed that the use of vascular lasers on a per-clinician basis increased 7.4% annually among all clinicians during the study period, from 77.3 to 118.7. This was mostly driven by dermatologists, whose per-clinician use increased 10.4% annually, from 81.7 to 148.7. Use by nondermatologists remained about stable, with just a 0.1% increase annually, from 73.4 to 74. In addition, the number of clinicians who billed for vascular laser procedures increased 2.9% annually between 2012 and 2018, from 49 to 58. This growth was driven mostly by dermatologists, who increased their billing for vascular laser procedures by 7.2% annually, from 23 to 35 clinicians.

In other findings, dermatologists were reimbursed at 68.3% of submitted charges, compared with 59.3% of charges submitted by other clinicians (P = .0001), and reimbursement rates were greatest in the Western geographic region of the United States vs. the Northeast, Midwest, and Southern regions (73.1% vs. 50.2%, 65.4%, and 55.3%, respectively; P < .0001).

“Use of vascular lasers is increasing primarily among dermatologists, though there is steady use of these procedures by nondermatologists,” Dr. Singh concluded. “Medicare charges were more often fully reimbursed when billed by dermatologists and those in the Western U.S., perhaps suggesting a better familiarity with appropriate indications and better administrative resources for coverage of vascular laser procedures.”

After the meeting, Dr. Singh acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the fact that it “was limited only to Medicare Part B fee-for-service claims, not including Medicare Advantage,” he told this news organization. “Our conclusions do not necessarily hold true for Medicaid or commercial insurers, for instance. Moreover, this dataset doesn’t provide patient-specific information, such as the indication for the procedure. Further studies are needed to characterize utilization of various lasers in not only Medicare beneficiaries, but also those with Medicaid, private insurance, and patients paying out-of-pocket. Additionally, study is also needed to explain why these differences in reimbursement hold true.”

The researchers reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

Use of vascular lasers in the Medicare population is increasing, primarily among dermatologists. In addition, as a proportion of Medicare charges submitted that were reimbursed, the highest reimbursements were for dermatologists and those in the Western geographic region.

Those are among the key findings from an analysis that aimed to characterize trends in use and reimbursement patterns of vascular lasers in the Medicare-insured population.

“There are several modalities for vascular laser treatment, including the pulse dye laser, the frequency doubled KTP laser, and others,” presenting author Partik Singh, MD, MBA, said during a virtual abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery. “Laser treatment of vascular lesions may sometimes be covered by insurance, depending on the indication, but little is known about how and which clinicians are taking advantage of this covered treatment.”

Dr. Singh, a 2nd-year dermatology resident at the University of Rochester Medical Center, and coauthor Mara Weinstein Velez, MD, extracted data from the 2012-2018 Medicare Public Use File, which includes 100% fee-for-service, non–Medicare Advantage claims based on CPT codes, yet no information on patient data, clinical context, or indications. Outcomes of interest were total vascular laser claims per year, annual vascular laser claims per clinician, annual clinicians using vascular lasers, accepted reimbursements defined by the allowed charge or the submitted charge to Medicare, and clinical specialties and geographic location.

The researchers found that more than half of clinicians who used vascular lasers during the study period were dermatologists (55%), followed by general surgeons (6%), family practice/internal medicine physicians (5% each) and various others. Use of vascular lasers among all clinicians increased 10.5% annually during the study period, from 3,786 to 6,883, and was most pronounced among dermatologists, whose use increased 18.4% annually, from 1,878 to 5,182. “Nondermatologists did not have a big change in their overall utilization rate, but they did have a steady utilization of vascular lasers, roughly at almost 2,000 claims per year,” Dr. Singh said.

The researchers also observed that the use of vascular lasers on a per-clinician basis increased 7.4% annually among all clinicians during the study period, from 77.3 to 118.7. This was mostly driven by dermatologists, whose per-clinician use increased 10.4% annually, from 81.7 to 148.7. Use by nondermatologists remained about stable, with just a 0.1% increase annually, from 73.4 to 74. In addition, the number of clinicians who billed for vascular laser procedures increased 2.9% annually between 2012 and 2018, from 49 to 58. This growth was driven mostly by dermatologists, who increased their billing for vascular laser procedures by 7.2% annually, from 23 to 35 clinicians.

In other findings, dermatologists were reimbursed at 68.3% of submitted charges, compared with 59.3% of charges submitted by other clinicians (P = .0001), and reimbursement rates were greatest in the Western geographic region of the United States vs. the Northeast, Midwest, and Southern regions (73.1% vs. 50.2%, 65.4%, and 55.3%, respectively; P < .0001).

“Use of vascular lasers is increasing primarily among dermatologists, though there is steady use of these procedures by nondermatologists,” Dr. Singh concluded. “Medicare charges were more often fully reimbursed when billed by dermatologists and those in the Western U.S., perhaps suggesting a better familiarity with appropriate indications and better administrative resources for coverage of vascular laser procedures.”

After the meeting, Dr. Singh acknowledged certain limitations of the analysis, including the fact that it “was limited only to Medicare Part B fee-for-service claims, not including Medicare Advantage,” he told this news organization. “Our conclusions do not necessarily hold true for Medicaid or commercial insurers, for instance. Moreover, this dataset doesn’t provide patient-specific information, such as the indication for the procedure. Further studies are needed to characterize utilization of various lasers in not only Medicare beneficiaries, but also those with Medicaid, private insurance, and patients paying out-of-pocket. Additionally, study is also needed to explain why these differences in reimbursement hold true.”

The researchers reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

There is an increased incidence of locally staged Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) among patients who live in rural areas of the United States, compared with those in urban and metropolitan areas, yet overall survival is worse in rural areas.

This paradox was discovered in an analysis of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program that primary author Bryan T. Carroll, MD, PhD, and colleagues presented during a virtual abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.

“MCC is a rare and aggressive neoplasm of the skin with high mortality,” said coauthor Emma Larson, MD, a dermatology clinical research fellow at University Hospitals of Cleveland. “Previous studies have demonstrated that MCC survival is lower in low–dermatologist density areas. Associations are difficult to characterize without historical staging data aggregated from large registries. We hypothesized that decreased MCC survival is associated with rural counties.”

The researchers used 18 registries from the November 2019 SEER database to retrospectively evaluate adults who were diagnosed with MCC between 2004 and 2015 as confirmed by positive histology. Study endpoints were SEER historic stage at diagnosis and 5-year survival. MCC cases were stratified by 2013 USDA urban-rural continuum codes, which defines metropolitan counties as those with a population of 1 million or more, urban counties as those with a population of less than 1 million, and rural counties as nonmetropolitan counties not adjacent to a metropolitan area.

A total of 6,291 cases with a mean age of 75 years were included in the final analysis: 3,750 from metro areas, 2,235 from urban areas, and 306 from rural areas. A higher proportion of MCC patients from rural areas were male (69% vs. 62% from metro areas and 64% from urban areas) and white (97% vs. 95% and 96%, respectively). “This may contribute to differences in MCC care,” Dr. Larson said. “However, we also found that there is an increased incidence of locally staged disease in rural areas (51%) than in metro (44%) or urban (45%) areas (P = .02). In addition, fewer lymph node surgeries were performed in rural (50%) and urban (51%) areas than in metro areas (45%; P = .01).”

Overall survival was worse among patients in rural areas (a mean of 34 months), compared with those in urban (a mean of 41 months) and metro areas (a mean of 47 months; P = .02). “This may be due to the fact that rural counties have the higher risk factors for MCC incidence and death, but when we account for the confounders, including sex, age, race, and MCC stage, we still found a difference in overall survival in rural counties, compared to metro and urban counties,” Dr. Larson said.

Dr. Carroll, an associate professor of dermatology at University Hospitals of Cleveland, characterized the finding as “not what you’d expect with a higher incidence of local disease. Therefore, there is the potential for mis-staging in rural counties, where we did see that the interrogation of lymph nodes was done less frequently than in urban centers, which were more aligned with National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines during this time period. Still, after correction, rural location is still associated with a higher MCC mortality. There is a need for us to further interrogate what the causes are for this disparity in care between rural and urban centers.”

The other study authors were Dustin DeMeo and Christian Scheufele, MD. The researchers reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

There is an increased incidence of locally staged Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) among patients who live in rural areas of the United States, compared with those in urban and metropolitan areas, yet overall survival is worse in rural areas.

This paradox was discovered in an analysis of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program that primary author Bryan T. Carroll, MD, PhD, and colleagues presented during a virtual abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.

“MCC is a rare and aggressive neoplasm of the skin with high mortality,” said coauthor Emma Larson, MD, a dermatology clinical research fellow at University Hospitals of Cleveland. “Previous studies have demonstrated that MCC survival is lower in low–dermatologist density areas. Associations are difficult to characterize without historical staging data aggregated from large registries. We hypothesized that decreased MCC survival is associated with rural counties.”

The researchers used 18 registries from the November 2019 SEER database to retrospectively evaluate adults who were diagnosed with MCC between 2004 and 2015 as confirmed by positive histology. Study endpoints were SEER historic stage at diagnosis and 5-year survival. MCC cases were stratified by 2013 USDA urban-rural continuum codes, which defines metropolitan counties as those with a population of 1 million or more, urban counties as those with a population of less than 1 million, and rural counties as nonmetropolitan counties not adjacent to a metropolitan area.

A total of 6,291 cases with a mean age of 75 years were included in the final analysis: 3,750 from metro areas, 2,235 from urban areas, and 306 from rural areas. A higher proportion of MCC patients from rural areas were male (69% vs. 62% from metro areas and 64% from urban areas) and white (97% vs. 95% and 96%, respectively). “This may contribute to differences in MCC care,” Dr. Larson said. “However, we also found that there is an increased incidence of locally staged disease in rural areas (51%) than in metro (44%) or urban (45%) areas (P = .02). In addition, fewer lymph node surgeries were performed in rural (50%) and urban (51%) areas than in metro areas (45%; P = .01).”

Overall survival was worse among patients in rural areas (a mean of 34 months), compared with those in urban (a mean of 41 months) and metro areas (a mean of 47 months; P = .02). “This may be due to the fact that rural counties have the higher risk factors for MCC incidence and death, but when we account for the confounders, including sex, age, race, and MCC stage, we still found a difference in overall survival in rural counties, compared to metro and urban counties,” Dr. Larson said.

Dr. Carroll, an associate professor of dermatology at University Hospitals of Cleveland, characterized the finding as “not what you’d expect with a higher incidence of local disease. Therefore, there is the potential for mis-staging in rural counties, where we did see that the interrogation of lymph nodes was done less frequently than in urban centers, which were more aligned with National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines during this time period. Still, after correction, rural location is still associated with a higher MCC mortality. There is a need for us to further interrogate what the causes are for this disparity in care between rural and urban centers.”

The other study authors were Dustin DeMeo and Christian Scheufele, MD. The researchers reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

There is an increased incidence of locally staged Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) among patients who live in rural areas of the United States, compared with those in urban and metropolitan areas, yet overall survival is worse in rural areas.

This paradox was discovered in an analysis of data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program that primary author Bryan T. Carroll, MD, PhD, and colleagues presented during a virtual abstract session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery.

“MCC is a rare and aggressive neoplasm of the skin with high mortality,” said coauthor Emma Larson, MD, a dermatology clinical research fellow at University Hospitals of Cleveland. “Previous studies have demonstrated that MCC survival is lower in low–dermatologist density areas. Associations are difficult to characterize without historical staging data aggregated from large registries. We hypothesized that decreased MCC survival is associated with rural counties.”

The researchers used 18 registries from the November 2019 SEER database to retrospectively evaluate adults who were diagnosed with MCC between 2004 and 2015 as confirmed by positive histology. Study endpoints were SEER historic stage at diagnosis and 5-year survival. MCC cases were stratified by 2013 USDA urban-rural continuum codes, which defines metropolitan counties as those with a population of 1 million or more, urban counties as those with a population of less than 1 million, and rural counties as nonmetropolitan counties not adjacent to a metropolitan area.

A total of 6,291 cases with a mean age of 75 years were included in the final analysis: 3,750 from metro areas, 2,235 from urban areas, and 306 from rural areas. A higher proportion of MCC patients from rural areas were male (69% vs. 62% from metro areas and 64% from urban areas) and white (97% vs. 95% and 96%, respectively). “This may contribute to differences in MCC care,” Dr. Larson said. “However, we also found that there is an increased incidence of locally staged disease in rural areas (51%) than in metro (44%) or urban (45%) areas (P = .02). In addition, fewer lymph node surgeries were performed in rural (50%) and urban (51%) areas than in metro areas (45%; P = .01).”

Overall survival was worse among patients in rural areas (a mean of 34 months), compared with those in urban (a mean of 41 months) and metro areas (a mean of 47 months; P = .02). “This may be due to the fact that rural counties have the higher risk factors for MCC incidence and death, but when we account for the confounders, including sex, age, race, and MCC stage, we still found a difference in overall survival in rural counties, compared to metro and urban counties,” Dr. Larson said.

Dr. Carroll, an associate professor of dermatology at University Hospitals of Cleveland, characterized the finding as “not what you’d expect with a higher incidence of local disease. Therefore, there is the potential for mis-staging in rural counties, where we did see that the interrogation of lymph nodes was done less frequently than in urban centers, which were more aligned with National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines during this time period. Still, after correction, rural location is still associated with a higher MCC mortality. There is a need for us to further interrogate what the causes are for this disparity in care between rural and urban centers.”

The other study authors were Dustin DeMeo and Christian Scheufele, MD. The researchers reported having no relevant financial disclosures.

dbrunk@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has accepted a Biologics License Application for spesolimab, a selective antibody that blocks interleukin-36 receptors, for the treatment of flares in patients with generalized pustular psoriasis, according to a statement from manufacturer Boehringer Ingelheim. The FDA also granted Priority Review to spesolimab. Priority Review is a designation granted to medications that would offer significant improvement over the currently available treatments.

Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP), though rare, is a potentially life-threatening condition that is distinct from plaque psoriasis. Throughout the course of the disease, which is caused by the accumulation of neutrophils in the skin, patients may experience persistent disease with intermittent flares or relapsing disease with recurrent flares. The neutrophil accumulation results in the eruption of sterile, yet painful pustules across all parts of the body.

“While the severity of GPP flares can vary, if left untreated they can be life threatening due to complications such as sepsis and multisystem organ failure,” and have a significant impact on quality of life, according to the company statement.

The FDA also has granted spesolimab an Orphan Drug Designation for the treatment of GPP, and a Breakthrough Therapy Designation for the treatment of GPP flares in adults.

A marketing authorization application for spesolimab for the treatment of GPP was accepted for evaluation by the European Medicines Agency in October 2021, according to a company press release issued at that time.

A protocol for a phase 2 study of spesolimab versus placebo for treating acute flares in GPP patients was published in October in BMJ Open, after a phase 1 proof-of-concept study published in 2019 showed the potential of an IL-36 receptor antagonist to improve disease scores in adults with GPP.

More information is available on the Boehringer Ingelheim website.

dermnews@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has accepted a Biologics License Application for spesolimab, a selective antibody that blocks interleukin-36 receptors, for the treatment of flares in patients with generalized pustular psoriasis, according to a statement from manufacturer Boehringer Ingelheim. The FDA also granted Priority Review to spesolimab. Priority Review is a designation granted to medications that would offer significant improvement over the currently available treatments.

Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP), though rare, is a potentially life-threatening condition that is distinct from plaque psoriasis. Throughout the course of the disease, which is caused by the accumulation of neutrophils in the skin, patients may experience persistent disease with intermittent flares or relapsing disease with recurrent flares. The neutrophil accumulation results in the eruption of sterile, yet painful pustules across all parts of the body.

“While the severity of GPP flares can vary, if left untreated they can be life threatening due to complications such as sepsis and multisystem organ failure,” and have a significant impact on quality of life, according to the company statement.

The FDA also has granted spesolimab an Orphan Drug Designation for the treatment of GPP, and a Breakthrough Therapy Designation for the treatment of GPP flares in adults.

A marketing authorization application for spesolimab for the treatment of GPP was accepted for evaluation by the European Medicines Agency in October 2021, according to a company press release issued at that time.

A protocol for a phase 2 study of spesolimab versus placebo for treating acute flares in GPP patients was published in October in BMJ Open, after a phase 1 proof-of-concept study published in 2019 showed the potential of an IL-36 receptor antagonist to improve disease scores in adults with GPP.

More information is available on the Boehringer Ingelheim website.

dermnews@mdedge.com

The Food and Drug Administration has accepted a Biologics License Application for spesolimab, a selective antibody that blocks interleukin-36 receptors, for the treatment of flares in patients with generalized pustular psoriasis, according to a statement from manufacturer Boehringer Ingelheim. The FDA also granted Priority Review to spesolimab. Priority Review is a designation granted to medications that would offer significant improvement over the currently available treatments.

Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP), though rare, is a potentially life-threatening condition that is distinct from plaque psoriasis. Throughout the course of the disease, which is caused by the accumulation of neutrophils in the skin, patients may experience persistent disease with intermittent flares or relapsing disease with recurrent flares. The neutrophil accumulation results in the eruption of sterile, yet painful pustules across all parts of the body.

“While the severity of GPP flares can vary, if left untreated they can be life threatening due to complications such as sepsis and multisystem organ failure,” and have a significant impact on quality of life, according to the company statement.

The FDA also has granted spesolimab an Orphan Drug Designation for the treatment of GPP, and a Breakthrough Therapy Designation for the treatment of GPP flares in adults.

A marketing authorization application for spesolimab for the treatment of GPP was accepted for evaluation by the European Medicines Agency in October 2021, according to a company press release issued at that time.

A protocol for a phase 2 study of spesolimab versus placebo for treating acute flares in GPP patients was published in October in BMJ Open, after a phase 1 proof-of-concept study published in 2019 showed the potential of an IL-36 receptor antagonist to improve disease scores in adults with GPP.

More information is available on the Boehringer Ingelheim website.

dermnews@mdedge.com

A young woman is having her lip swabbed with an unknown substance, smiling, on the TikTok video. Seconds later, another young woman, wearing gloves, pushes a hyaluron pen against the first woman’s lips, who, in the next cut, is smiling, happy. “My first syringe down and already 1,000x more confident,” the caption reads.

That video is one of thousands showing hyaluron pen use on TikTok. The pens are sold online and are unapproved – which led to a Food and Drug Administration warning in October 2021 that use could cause bleeding, infection, blood vessel occlusion that could result in blindness or stroke, allergic reactions, and other injuries.

The warning has not stopped many TikTokkers, who also use the medium to promote all sorts of skin and aesthetic products and procedures, a large number unproven, unapproved, or ill advised. As TikTok has become one of the most widely used social media platforms, millions of mostly teenagers regularly log on for skin care advice, which, more often than not, comes from “skinfluencers,” aestheticians, and other laypeople, not board-certified dermatologists.

The suggested “hacks” can be harmless or ineffective, but they also can be misleading, fraudulent, or even dangerous.
 

Skinfluencers take the lead

TikTok has a reported 1 billion monthly users. Two-thirds are aged 10-29 years, according to data reported in February 2021 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology by David X. Zheng, BA, and colleagues at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and the department of dermatology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Visitors consume information in video bits that run from 15 seconds to up to 3 minutes and can follow their favorite TikTokkers, browse for people or hashtags with a search function, or click on content recommended by the platform, which uses algorithms based on the user’s viewing habits to determine what might be of interest.

Some of the biggest “skinfluencers” have millions of followers: Hyram Yarbro, (@skincarebyhyram) for instance, has 6.6 million followers and his own line of skin care products at Sephora. Mr. Yarbro is seen as a no-nonsense debunker of skin care myths, as is British influencer James Welsh, who has 124,000 followers.

“The reason why people trust your average influencer person who’s not a doctor is because they’re relatable,” said Muneeb Shah, MD, a dermatology resident at Atlantic Dermatology in Wilmington, N.C. – known to his 11.4 million TikTok followers as @dermdoctor.

To Sandra Lee, MD, the popularity of nonprofessionals is easy to explain. “You have to think about the fact that a lot of people can’t see dermatologists – they don’t have the money, they don’t have the time to travel there, they don’t have health insurance, or they’re scared of doctors, so they’re willing to try to find an answer, and one of the easiest ways, one of the more entertaining ways to get information, is on social media.”

Dr. Lee is in private practice in Upland, Calif., but is better known as “Dr. Pimple Popper,” through her television show of the same name and her social media accounts, including on TikTok, where she has 14.4 million followers after having started in 2020.

“We’re all looking for that no-down-time, no-expense, no-lines, no-wrinkles, stay-young-forever magic bullet,” said Dr. Lee.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, agreed that people are looking for a quick fix. They don’t want to wait 12 weeks for an acne medication or 16 weeks for a biologic to work. “They want something simple, easy, do-it-yourself,” and “natural,” he said.

Laypeople are still the dominant producers – and have the most views – of dermatology content.

Morgan Nguyen, BA, at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues looked at hashtags for the top 10 dermatologic diagnoses and procedures and analyzed the content of the first 40 TikTok videos in each category. About half the videos were produced by an individual, and 39% by a health care provider, according to the study, published in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology. About 40% of the videos were educational, focusing on skin care, procedures, and disease treatment.

Viewership was highest for videos by laypeople, followed by those produced by business or industry accounts. Those produced by health care providers received only 18% of the views.

The most popular videos were about dermatologic diagnoses, with 2.5 billion views, followed by dermatologic procedures, with 708 million views.

Ms. Nguyen noted in the study that the most liked and most viewed posts were related to #skincare but that board-certified dermatologists produced only 2.5% of the #skincare videos.


 

Dermatologists take to TikTok

Some dermatologists have started their own TikTok accounts, seeking both to counteract misinformation and provide education.

Dr. Shah has become one of the top influencers on the platform. In a year-end wrap, TikTok put Dr. Shah at No. 7 on its top creators list for 2021.

MDedge

Doris Day, MD, who goes by @drdorisday on TikTok, agreed with Dr. Lee. “There are so many creative ways you can convey information with it that’s different than what you have on Instagram,” said Dr. Day, who is in private practice in New York. And, she added, “it does really lend itself to getting points out super-fast.”

Dermatologists on TikTok also said they like the “duets” and the “stitch” features, which allow users to add on to an existing video, essentially chiming in or responding to what might have already been posted, in a side-by-side format.

Dr. Shah said he often duets videos that have questionable content. “It allows me to directly respond to people. A lot of times, if something is going really viral and it’s not accurate, you’ll have a response from me or one of the other doctors” within hours or days.

Dr. Shah’s duets are labeled with “DermDoctor Reacts” or “DermDoctor Explains.” In one duet, with more than 2.8 million views, the upper half of the video is someone squeezing a blackhead, while Dr. Shah, in the bottom half, in green scrubs, opines over some hip-hop music: “This is just a blackhead. But once it gets to this point, they do need to be extracted because topical treatments won’t help.”

TikTok trends gone bad

And some people are being hurt by emulating what they see on TikTok.

Dr. Friedman had a patient with extreme irritant contact dermatitis, “almost like chemical burns to her underarms,” he said. He determined that she saw a video “hack” that recommended using baking soda to stop hyperhidrosis. The patient used so much that it burned her skin.

In 2020, do-it-yourself freckles – with henna or sewing needles impregnated with ink – went viral. Tilly Whitfeld, a 21-year-old reality TV star on Australia’s Big Brother show, told the New York Times that she tried it at home after seeing a TikTok video. She ordered brown tattoo ink online and later found out that it was contaminated with lead, according to the Times. Ms. Whitfeld developed an infection and temporary vision loss and has permanent scarring.

She has since put out a cautionary TikTok video that’s been viewed some 300,000 times.

TikTokkers have also flocked to the idea of using sunscreen to “contour” the face. Selected areas are left without sunscreen to burn or tan. In a duet, a plastic surgeon shakes his head as a young woman explains that “it works.”

Scalp-popping – in which the hair is yanked so hard that it pulls the galea off the skull – has been mostly shut down by TikTok. A search of “scalp popping” brings up the message: “Learn how to recognize harmful challenges and hoaxes.” At-home mole and skin tag removal, pimple-popping, and supposed acne cures such as drinking chlorophyll are all avidly documented and shared on TikTok.

Dr. Shah had a back-and-forth video dialog with someone who had stubbed a toe and then drilled a hole into the nail to drain the hematoma. In a reaction video, Dr. Shah said it was likely to turn into an infection. When it did, the man revealed the infection in a video where he tagged Dr. Shah and later posted a video at the podiatrist’s office having his nail removed, again tagging Dr. Shah.

“I think that pretty much no procedure for skin is good to do at home,” said Dr. Shah, who repeatedly admonishes against mole removal by a nonphysician. He tells followers that “it’s extremely dangerous – not only is it going to cause scarring, but you are potentially discarding a cancerous lesion.”

Unfortunately, most will not follow the advice, said Dr. Shah. That’s especially true of pimple-popping. Aiming for the least harm, he suggests in some TikTok videos that poppers keep the area clean, wear gloves, and consult a physician to get an antibiotic prescription. “You might as well at least guide them in the right direction,” he added.

Dr. Lee believes that lack of access to physicians, insurance, or money may play into how TikTok trends evolve. “Probably those people who injected their lips with this air gun thing, maybe they didn’t have the money necessarily to get filler,” she said.

Also, she noted, while TikTok may try to police its content, creators are incentivized to be outrageous. “The more inflammatory your post is, the more engagement you get.”

Dr. Shah thinks TikTok is self-correcting. “If you’re not being ethical or contradicting yourself, putting out information that’s not accurate, people are going to catch on very quickly,” he said. “The only value, the only currency you have on social media is the trust that you build with people that follow you.”
 

What it takes to be a TikTokker

For dermatologists, conveying their credentials and experience is one way to build that currency. Dr. Lee advised fellow doctors on TikTok to “showcase your training and how many years it took to become a dermatologist.”

Plunging into TikTok is not for everyone, though. It’s time consuming, said Dr. Lee, who now devotes most of her nonclinical time to TikTok. She creates her own content, leaving others to manage her Instagram account.

Many of those in the medical field who have dived into TikTok are residents, like Dr. Shah. “They are attuned to it and understand it more,” said Dr. Lee. “It’s harder for a lot of us who are older, who really weren’t involved that much in social media at all. It’s very hard to jump in.” There’s a learning curve, and it takes hours to create a single video. “You have to enjoy it and it has to be a part of your life,” she said.

Dr. Shah started experimenting with TikTok at the beginning of the pandemic in 2020 and has never turned back. Fast-talking, curious, and with an infectious sense of fun, he shares tidbits about his personal life – putting his wife in some of his videos – and always seems upbeat.

He said that, as his following grew, users began to see him as an authority figure and started “tagging” him more often, seeking his opinion on other videos. Although still a resident, he believes he has specialized knowledge to share. “Even if you’re not the world’s leading expert in a particular topic, you’re still adding value for the person who doesn’t know much.”

Dr. Shah also occasionally does promotional TikToks, identified as sponsored content. He said he only works with companies that he believes have legitimate products. “You do have to monetize at some point,” he said, noting that many dermatologists, himself included, are trading clinic time for TikTok. “There’s no universe where they can do this for free.”

Product endorsements are likely more rewarding for influencers and other users like Dr. Shah than the remuneration from TikTok, the company. The platform pays user accounts $20 per 1 million views, Dr. Shah said. “Financially, it’s not a big winner for a practicing dermatologist, but the educational outreach is worthwhile.”

To be successful also means understanding what drives viewership.

Using “trending” sounds has “been shown to increase the likelihood of a video amassing millions of views” and may increase engagement with dermatologists’ TikTok videos, wrote Bina Kassamali, BA, and colleagues at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and the Ponce Health Science University School of Medicine in Ponce, Puerto Rico, in a letter published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in July 2021.

Certain content is more likely to engage viewers. In their analysis of top trending dermatologic hashtags, acne-related content was viewed 6.7 billion times, followed by alopecia, with 1.1 billion views. Psoriasis content had 84 million views, putting it eighth on the list of topics.

Dermatologists are still cracking TikTok. They are accumulating more followers on TikTok than on Instagram but have greater engagement on Instagram reels, wrote Mindy D. Szeto, MS, and colleagues at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and Rocky Vista University in Parker, Colo., in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in April 2021.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Shah had the highest engagement rate on TikTok, according to Ms. Szeto. The engagement rate is calculated as (likes + comments per post)/(total followers) x 100.

“TikTok may currently be the leading avenue for audience education by dermatologist influencers,” they wrote, urging dermatologists to use the platform to answer the call as more of the public “continues to turn to social media for medical advice.”

Dr. Day said she will keep trying to build her TikTok audience. She has just 239 followers, compared with her 44,500 on Instagram. “The more I do TikTok, the more I do any of these mediums, the better I get at it,” she said. “We just have to put a little time and effort into it and try to get more followers and just keep sharing the information.”

Dr. Friedman sees it as a positive that some dermatologists have taken to TikTok to dispel myths and put “good information out there in small bites.” But to be more effective, they need more followers.

“The truth is that 14-year-old is probably going to listen more to a Hyram than a dermatologist,” he said. “Maybe we need to work with these other individuals who know how to take these messages and convert them to a language that can be digested by a 14-year-old, by a 12-year-old, by a 23-year-old. We need to come to the table together and not fight.”

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

A young woman is having her lip swabbed with an unknown substance, smiling, on the TikTok video. Seconds later, another young woman, wearing gloves, pushes a hyaluron pen against the first woman’s lips, who, in the next cut, is smiling, happy. “My first syringe down and already 1,000x more confident,” the caption reads.

That video is one of thousands showing hyaluron pen use on TikTok. The pens are sold online and are unapproved – which led to a Food and Drug Administration warning in October 2021 that use could cause bleeding, infection, blood vessel occlusion that could result in blindness or stroke, allergic reactions, and other injuries.

The warning has not stopped many TikTokkers, who also use the medium to promote all sorts of skin and aesthetic products and procedures, a large number unproven, unapproved, or ill advised. As TikTok has become one of the most widely used social media platforms, millions of mostly teenagers regularly log on for skin care advice, which, more often than not, comes from “skinfluencers,” aestheticians, and other laypeople, not board-certified dermatologists.

The suggested “hacks” can be harmless or ineffective, but they also can be misleading, fraudulent, or even dangerous.
 

Skinfluencers take the lead

TikTok has a reported 1 billion monthly users. Two-thirds are aged 10-29 years, according to data reported in February 2021 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology by David X. Zheng, BA, and colleagues at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and the department of dermatology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Visitors consume information in video bits that run from 15 seconds to up to 3 minutes and can follow their favorite TikTokkers, browse for people or hashtags with a search function, or click on content recommended by the platform, which uses algorithms based on the user’s viewing habits to determine what might be of interest.

Some of the biggest “skinfluencers” have millions of followers: Hyram Yarbro, (@skincarebyhyram) for instance, has 6.6 million followers and his own line of skin care products at Sephora. Mr. Yarbro is seen as a no-nonsense debunker of skin care myths, as is British influencer James Welsh, who has 124,000 followers.

“The reason why people trust your average influencer person who’s not a doctor is because they’re relatable,” said Muneeb Shah, MD, a dermatology resident at Atlantic Dermatology in Wilmington, N.C. – known to his 11.4 million TikTok followers as @dermdoctor.

To Sandra Lee, MD, the popularity of nonprofessionals is easy to explain. “You have to think about the fact that a lot of people can’t see dermatologists – they don’t have the money, they don’t have the time to travel there, they don’t have health insurance, or they’re scared of doctors, so they’re willing to try to find an answer, and one of the easiest ways, one of the more entertaining ways to get information, is on social media.”

Dr. Lee is in private practice in Upland, Calif., but is better known as “Dr. Pimple Popper,” through her television show of the same name and her social media accounts, including on TikTok, where she has 14.4 million followers after having started in 2020.

“We’re all looking for that no-down-time, no-expense, no-lines, no-wrinkles, stay-young-forever magic bullet,” said Dr. Lee.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, agreed that people are looking for a quick fix. They don’t want to wait 12 weeks for an acne medication or 16 weeks for a biologic to work. “They want something simple, easy, do-it-yourself,” and “natural,” he said.

Laypeople are still the dominant producers – and have the most views – of dermatology content.

Morgan Nguyen, BA, at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues looked at hashtags for the top 10 dermatologic diagnoses and procedures and analyzed the content of the first 40 TikTok videos in each category. About half the videos were produced by an individual, and 39% by a health care provider, according to the study, published in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology. About 40% of the videos were educational, focusing on skin care, procedures, and disease treatment.

Viewership was highest for videos by laypeople, followed by those produced by business or industry accounts. Those produced by health care providers received only 18% of the views.

The most popular videos were about dermatologic diagnoses, with 2.5 billion views, followed by dermatologic procedures, with 708 million views.

Ms. Nguyen noted in the study that the most liked and most viewed posts were related to #skincare but that board-certified dermatologists produced only 2.5% of the #skincare videos.


 

Dermatologists take to TikTok

Some dermatologists have started their own TikTok accounts, seeking both to counteract misinformation and provide education.

Dr. Shah has become one of the top influencers on the platform. In a year-end wrap, TikTok put Dr. Shah at No. 7 on its top creators list for 2021.

MDedge

Doris Day, MD, who goes by @drdorisday on TikTok, agreed with Dr. Lee. “There are so many creative ways you can convey information with it that’s different than what you have on Instagram,” said Dr. Day, who is in private practice in New York. And, she added, “it does really lend itself to getting points out super-fast.”

Dermatologists on TikTok also said they like the “duets” and the “stitch” features, which allow users to add on to an existing video, essentially chiming in or responding to what might have already been posted, in a side-by-side format.

Dr. Shah said he often duets videos that have questionable content. “It allows me to directly respond to people. A lot of times, if something is going really viral and it’s not accurate, you’ll have a response from me or one of the other doctors” within hours or days.

Dr. Shah’s duets are labeled with “DermDoctor Reacts” or “DermDoctor Explains.” In one duet, with more than 2.8 million views, the upper half of the video is someone squeezing a blackhead, while Dr. Shah, in the bottom half, in green scrubs, opines over some hip-hop music: “This is just a blackhead. But once it gets to this point, they do need to be extracted because topical treatments won’t help.”

TikTok trends gone bad

And some people are being hurt by emulating what they see on TikTok.

Dr. Friedman had a patient with extreme irritant contact dermatitis, “almost like chemical burns to her underarms,” he said. He determined that she saw a video “hack” that recommended using baking soda to stop hyperhidrosis. The patient used so much that it burned her skin.

In 2020, do-it-yourself freckles – with henna or sewing needles impregnated with ink – went viral. Tilly Whitfeld, a 21-year-old reality TV star on Australia’s Big Brother show, told the New York Times that she tried it at home after seeing a TikTok video. She ordered brown tattoo ink online and later found out that it was contaminated with lead, according to the Times. Ms. Whitfeld developed an infection and temporary vision loss and has permanent scarring.

She has since put out a cautionary TikTok video that’s been viewed some 300,000 times.

TikTokkers have also flocked to the idea of using sunscreen to “contour” the face. Selected areas are left without sunscreen to burn or tan. In a duet, a plastic surgeon shakes his head as a young woman explains that “it works.”

Scalp-popping – in which the hair is yanked so hard that it pulls the galea off the skull – has been mostly shut down by TikTok. A search of “scalp popping” brings up the message: “Learn how to recognize harmful challenges and hoaxes.” At-home mole and skin tag removal, pimple-popping, and supposed acne cures such as drinking chlorophyll are all avidly documented and shared on TikTok.

Dr. Shah had a back-and-forth video dialog with someone who had stubbed a toe and then drilled a hole into the nail to drain the hematoma. In a reaction video, Dr. Shah said it was likely to turn into an infection. When it did, the man revealed the infection in a video where he tagged Dr. Shah and later posted a video at the podiatrist’s office having his nail removed, again tagging Dr. Shah.

“I think that pretty much no procedure for skin is good to do at home,” said Dr. Shah, who repeatedly admonishes against mole removal by a nonphysician. He tells followers that “it’s extremely dangerous – not only is it going to cause scarring, but you are potentially discarding a cancerous lesion.”

Unfortunately, most will not follow the advice, said Dr. Shah. That’s especially true of pimple-popping. Aiming for the least harm, he suggests in some TikTok videos that poppers keep the area clean, wear gloves, and consult a physician to get an antibiotic prescription. “You might as well at least guide them in the right direction,” he added.

Dr. Lee believes that lack of access to physicians, insurance, or money may play into how TikTok trends evolve. “Probably those people who injected their lips with this air gun thing, maybe they didn’t have the money necessarily to get filler,” she said.

Also, she noted, while TikTok may try to police its content, creators are incentivized to be outrageous. “The more inflammatory your post is, the more engagement you get.”

Dr. Shah thinks TikTok is self-correcting. “If you’re not being ethical or contradicting yourself, putting out information that’s not accurate, people are going to catch on very quickly,” he said. “The only value, the only currency you have on social media is the trust that you build with people that follow you.”
 

What it takes to be a TikTokker

For dermatologists, conveying their credentials and experience is one way to build that currency. Dr. Lee advised fellow doctors on TikTok to “showcase your training and how many years it took to become a dermatologist.”

Plunging into TikTok is not for everyone, though. It’s time consuming, said Dr. Lee, who now devotes most of her nonclinical time to TikTok. She creates her own content, leaving others to manage her Instagram account.

Many of those in the medical field who have dived into TikTok are residents, like Dr. Shah. “They are attuned to it and understand it more,” said Dr. Lee. “It’s harder for a lot of us who are older, who really weren’t involved that much in social media at all. It’s very hard to jump in.” There’s a learning curve, and it takes hours to create a single video. “You have to enjoy it and it has to be a part of your life,” she said.

Dr. Shah started experimenting with TikTok at the beginning of the pandemic in 2020 and has never turned back. Fast-talking, curious, and with an infectious sense of fun, he shares tidbits about his personal life – putting his wife in some of his videos – and always seems upbeat.

He said that, as his following grew, users began to see him as an authority figure and started “tagging” him more often, seeking his opinion on other videos. Although still a resident, he believes he has specialized knowledge to share. “Even if you’re not the world’s leading expert in a particular topic, you’re still adding value for the person who doesn’t know much.”

Dr. Shah also occasionally does promotional TikToks, identified as sponsored content. He said he only works with companies that he believes have legitimate products. “You do have to monetize at some point,” he said, noting that many dermatologists, himself included, are trading clinic time for TikTok. “There’s no universe where they can do this for free.”

Product endorsements are likely more rewarding for influencers and other users like Dr. Shah than the remuneration from TikTok, the company. The platform pays user accounts $20 per 1 million views, Dr. Shah said. “Financially, it’s not a big winner for a practicing dermatologist, but the educational outreach is worthwhile.”

To be successful also means understanding what drives viewership.

Using “trending” sounds has “been shown to increase the likelihood of a video amassing millions of views” and may increase engagement with dermatologists’ TikTok videos, wrote Bina Kassamali, BA, and colleagues at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and the Ponce Health Science University School of Medicine in Ponce, Puerto Rico, in a letter published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in July 2021.

Certain content is more likely to engage viewers. In their analysis of top trending dermatologic hashtags, acne-related content was viewed 6.7 billion times, followed by alopecia, with 1.1 billion views. Psoriasis content had 84 million views, putting it eighth on the list of topics.

Dermatologists are still cracking TikTok. They are accumulating more followers on TikTok than on Instagram but have greater engagement on Instagram reels, wrote Mindy D. Szeto, MS, and colleagues at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and Rocky Vista University in Parker, Colo., in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in April 2021.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Shah had the highest engagement rate on TikTok, according to Ms. Szeto. The engagement rate is calculated as (likes + comments per post)/(total followers) x 100.

“TikTok may currently be the leading avenue for audience education by dermatologist influencers,” they wrote, urging dermatologists to use the platform to answer the call as more of the public “continues to turn to social media for medical advice.”

Dr. Day said she will keep trying to build her TikTok audience. She has just 239 followers, compared with her 44,500 on Instagram. “The more I do TikTok, the more I do any of these mediums, the better I get at it,” she said. “We just have to put a little time and effort into it and try to get more followers and just keep sharing the information.”

Dr. Friedman sees it as a positive that some dermatologists have taken to TikTok to dispel myths and put “good information out there in small bites.” But to be more effective, they need more followers.

“The truth is that 14-year-old is probably going to listen more to a Hyram than a dermatologist,” he said. “Maybe we need to work with these other individuals who know how to take these messages and convert them to a language that can be digested by a 14-year-old, by a 12-year-old, by a 23-year-old. We need to come to the table together and not fight.”

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

A young woman is having her lip swabbed with an unknown substance, smiling, on the TikTok video. Seconds later, another young woman, wearing gloves, pushes a hyaluron pen against the first woman’s lips, who, in the next cut, is smiling, happy. “My first syringe down and already 1,000x more confident,” the caption reads.

That video is one of thousands showing hyaluron pen use on TikTok. The pens are sold online and are unapproved – which led to a Food and Drug Administration warning in October 2021 that use could cause bleeding, infection, blood vessel occlusion that could result in blindness or stroke, allergic reactions, and other injuries.

The warning has not stopped many TikTokkers, who also use the medium to promote all sorts of skin and aesthetic products and procedures, a large number unproven, unapproved, or ill advised. As TikTok has become one of the most widely used social media platforms, millions of mostly teenagers regularly log on for skin care advice, which, more often than not, comes from “skinfluencers,” aestheticians, and other laypeople, not board-certified dermatologists.

The suggested “hacks” can be harmless or ineffective, but they also can be misleading, fraudulent, or even dangerous.
 

Skinfluencers take the lead

TikTok has a reported 1 billion monthly users. Two-thirds are aged 10-29 years, according to data reported in February 2021 in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology by David X. Zheng, BA, and colleagues at Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, and the department of dermatology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Visitors consume information in video bits that run from 15 seconds to up to 3 minutes and can follow their favorite TikTokkers, browse for people or hashtags with a search function, or click on content recommended by the platform, which uses algorithms based on the user’s viewing habits to determine what might be of interest.

Some of the biggest “skinfluencers” have millions of followers: Hyram Yarbro, (@skincarebyhyram) for instance, has 6.6 million followers and his own line of skin care products at Sephora. Mr. Yarbro is seen as a no-nonsense debunker of skin care myths, as is British influencer James Welsh, who has 124,000 followers.

“The reason why people trust your average influencer person who’s not a doctor is because they’re relatable,” said Muneeb Shah, MD, a dermatology resident at Atlantic Dermatology in Wilmington, N.C. – known to his 11.4 million TikTok followers as @dermdoctor.

To Sandra Lee, MD, the popularity of nonprofessionals is easy to explain. “You have to think about the fact that a lot of people can’t see dermatologists – they don’t have the money, they don’t have the time to travel there, they don’t have health insurance, or they’re scared of doctors, so they’re willing to try to find an answer, and one of the easiest ways, one of the more entertaining ways to get information, is on social media.”

Dr. Lee is in private practice in Upland, Calif., but is better known as “Dr. Pimple Popper,” through her television show of the same name and her social media accounts, including on TikTok, where she has 14.4 million followers after having started in 2020.

“We’re all looking for that no-down-time, no-expense, no-lines, no-wrinkles, stay-young-forever magic bullet,” said Dr. Lee.

Adam Friedman, MD, professor and chair of dermatology at George Washington University, Washington, agreed that people are looking for a quick fix. They don’t want to wait 12 weeks for an acne medication or 16 weeks for a biologic to work. “They want something simple, easy, do-it-yourself,” and “natural,” he said.

Laypeople are still the dominant producers – and have the most views – of dermatology content.

Morgan Nguyen, BA, at Northwestern University, Chicago, and colleagues looked at hashtags for the top 10 dermatologic diagnoses and procedures and analyzed the content of the first 40 TikTok videos in each category. About half the videos were produced by an individual, and 39% by a health care provider, according to the study, published in the International Journal of Women’s Dermatology. About 40% of the videos were educational, focusing on skin care, procedures, and disease treatment.

Viewership was highest for videos by laypeople, followed by those produced by business or industry accounts. Those produced by health care providers received only 18% of the views.

The most popular videos were about dermatologic diagnoses, with 2.5 billion views, followed by dermatologic procedures, with 708 million views.

Ms. Nguyen noted in the study that the most liked and most viewed posts were related to #skincare but that board-certified dermatologists produced only 2.5% of the #skincare videos.


 

Dermatologists take to TikTok

Some dermatologists have started their own TikTok accounts, seeking both to counteract misinformation and provide education.

Dr. Shah has become one of the top influencers on the platform. In a year-end wrap, TikTok put Dr. Shah at No. 7 on its top creators list for 2021.

MDedge

Doris Day, MD, who goes by @drdorisday on TikTok, agreed with Dr. Lee. “There are so many creative ways you can convey information with it that’s different than what you have on Instagram,” said Dr. Day, who is in private practice in New York. And, she added, “it does really lend itself to getting points out super-fast.”

Dermatologists on TikTok also said they like the “duets” and the “stitch” features, which allow users to add on to an existing video, essentially chiming in or responding to what might have already been posted, in a side-by-side format.

Dr. Shah said he often duets videos that have questionable content. “It allows me to directly respond to people. A lot of times, if something is going really viral and it’s not accurate, you’ll have a response from me or one of the other doctors” within hours or days.

Dr. Shah’s duets are labeled with “DermDoctor Reacts” or “DermDoctor Explains.” In one duet, with more than 2.8 million views, the upper half of the video is someone squeezing a blackhead, while Dr. Shah, in the bottom half, in green scrubs, opines over some hip-hop music: “This is just a blackhead. But once it gets to this point, they do need to be extracted because topical treatments won’t help.”

TikTok trends gone bad

And some people are being hurt by emulating what they see on TikTok.

Dr. Friedman had a patient with extreme irritant contact dermatitis, “almost like chemical burns to her underarms,” he said. He determined that she saw a video “hack” that recommended using baking soda to stop hyperhidrosis. The patient used so much that it burned her skin.

In 2020, do-it-yourself freckles – with henna or sewing needles impregnated with ink – went viral. Tilly Whitfeld, a 21-year-old reality TV star on Australia’s Big Brother show, told the New York Times that she tried it at home after seeing a TikTok video. She ordered brown tattoo ink online and later found out that it was contaminated with lead, according to the Times. Ms. Whitfeld developed an infection and temporary vision loss and has permanent scarring.

She has since put out a cautionary TikTok video that’s been viewed some 300,000 times.

TikTokkers have also flocked to the idea of using sunscreen to “contour” the face. Selected areas are left without sunscreen to burn or tan. In a duet, a plastic surgeon shakes his head as a young woman explains that “it works.”

Scalp-popping – in which the hair is yanked so hard that it pulls the galea off the skull – has been mostly shut down by TikTok. A search of “scalp popping” brings up the message: “Learn how to recognize harmful challenges and hoaxes.” At-home mole and skin tag removal, pimple-popping, and supposed acne cures such as drinking chlorophyll are all avidly documented and shared on TikTok.

Dr. Shah had a back-and-forth video dialog with someone who had stubbed a toe and then drilled a hole into the nail to drain the hematoma. In a reaction video, Dr. Shah said it was likely to turn into an infection. When it did, the man revealed the infection in a video where he tagged Dr. Shah and later posted a video at the podiatrist’s office having his nail removed, again tagging Dr. Shah.

“I think that pretty much no procedure for skin is good to do at home,” said Dr. Shah, who repeatedly admonishes against mole removal by a nonphysician. He tells followers that “it’s extremely dangerous – not only is it going to cause scarring, but you are potentially discarding a cancerous lesion.”

Unfortunately, most will not follow the advice, said Dr. Shah. That’s especially true of pimple-popping. Aiming for the least harm, he suggests in some TikTok videos that poppers keep the area clean, wear gloves, and consult a physician to get an antibiotic prescription. “You might as well at least guide them in the right direction,” he added.

Dr. Lee believes that lack of access to physicians, insurance, or money may play into how TikTok trends evolve. “Probably those people who injected their lips with this air gun thing, maybe they didn’t have the money necessarily to get filler,” she said.

Also, she noted, while TikTok may try to police its content, creators are incentivized to be outrageous. “The more inflammatory your post is, the more engagement you get.”

Dr. Shah thinks TikTok is self-correcting. “If you’re not being ethical or contradicting yourself, putting out information that’s not accurate, people are going to catch on very quickly,” he said. “The only value, the only currency you have on social media is the trust that you build with people that follow you.”
 

What it takes to be a TikTokker

For dermatologists, conveying their credentials and experience is one way to build that currency. Dr. Lee advised fellow doctors on TikTok to “showcase your training and how many years it took to become a dermatologist.”

Plunging into TikTok is not for everyone, though. It’s time consuming, said Dr. Lee, who now devotes most of her nonclinical time to TikTok. She creates her own content, leaving others to manage her Instagram account.

Many of those in the medical field who have dived into TikTok are residents, like Dr. Shah. “They are attuned to it and understand it more,” said Dr. Lee. “It’s harder for a lot of us who are older, who really weren’t involved that much in social media at all. It’s very hard to jump in.” There’s a learning curve, and it takes hours to create a single video. “You have to enjoy it and it has to be a part of your life,” she said.

Dr. Shah started experimenting with TikTok at the beginning of the pandemic in 2020 and has never turned back. Fast-talking, curious, and with an infectious sense of fun, he shares tidbits about his personal life – putting his wife in some of his videos – and always seems upbeat.

He said that, as his following grew, users began to see him as an authority figure and started “tagging” him more often, seeking his opinion on other videos. Although still a resident, he believes he has specialized knowledge to share. “Even if you’re not the world’s leading expert in a particular topic, you’re still adding value for the person who doesn’t know much.”

Dr. Shah also occasionally does promotional TikToks, identified as sponsored content. He said he only works with companies that he believes have legitimate products. “You do have to monetize at some point,” he said, noting that many dermatologists, himself included, are trading clinic time for TikTok. “There’s no universe where they can do this for free.”

Product endorsements are likely more rewarding for influencers and other users like Dr. Shah than the remuneration from TikTok, the company. The platform pays user accounts $20 per 1 million views, Dr. Shah said. “Financially, it’s not a big winner for a practicing dermatologist, but the educational outreach is worthwhile.”

To be successful also means understanding what drives viewership.

Using “trending” sounds has “been shown to increase the likelihood of a video amassing millions of views” and may increase engagement with dermatologists’ TikTok videos, wrote Bina Kassamali, BA, and colleagues at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and the Ponce Health Science University School of Medicine in Ponce, Puerto Rico, in a letter published in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in July 2021.

Certain content is more likely to engage viewers. In their analysis of top trending dermatologic hashtags, acne-related content was viewed 6.7 billion times, followed by alopecia, with 1.1 billion views. Psoriasis content had 84 million views, putting it eighth on the list of topics.

Dermatologists are still cracking TikTok. They are accumulating more followers on TikTok than on Instagram but have greater engagement on Instagram reels, wrote Mindy D. Szeto, MS, and colleagues at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora, and Rocky Vista University in Parker, Colo., in the Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology in April 2021.

Dr. Lee and Dr. Shah had the highest engagement rate on TikTok, according to Ms. Szeto. The engagement rate is calculated as (likes + comments per post)/(total followers) x 100.

“TikTok may currently be the leading avenue for audience education by dermatologist influencers,” they wrote, urging dermatologists to use the platform to answer the call as more of the public “continues to turn to social media for medical advice.”

Dr. Day said she will keep trying to build her TikTok audience. She has just 239 followers, compared with her 44,500 on Instagram. “The more I do TikTok, the more I do any of these mediums, the better I get at it,” she said. “We just have to put a little time and effort into it and try to get more followers and just keep sharing the information.”

Dr. Friedman sees it as a positive that some dermatologists have taken to TikTok to dispel myths and put “good information out there in small bites.” But to be more effective, they need more followers.

“The truth is that 14-year-old is probably going to listen more to a Hyram than a dermatologist,” he said. “Maybe we need to work with these other individuals who know how to take these messages and convert them to a language that can be digested by a 14-year-old, by a 12-year-old, by a 23-year-old. We need to come to the table together and not fight.”

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

A panel of experts that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the use of vaccines said the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should be the preferred shots for adults in the United States because the Johnson & Johnson shot carries the risk of a rare but potentially fatal side effect that causes blood clots and bleeding in the brain.

In an emergency meeting on December 16, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, voted unanimously (15-0) to state a preference for the mRNA vaccines over the Johnson & Johnson shot. The vote came after the panel heard a safety update on cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTS, a condition that causes large clots that deplete the blood of platelets, resulting in uncontrolled bleeding.

The move brings the United States in line with other wealthy countries. In May, Denmark dropped the Johnson & Johnson shot from its vaccination program because of this risk. Australia and Greece have limited the use of a similar vaccine, made by AstraZeneca, in younger people because of the TTS risk. Both vaccines use the envelope of a different kind of virus, called an adenovirus, to sneak the vaccine instructions into cells. On Dec. 16, health officials said they had determined that TTS was likely due to a class effect, meaning it happens with all adenovirus vector vaccines.

The risk of dying from TTS after a Johnson & Johnson shot is extremely rare. There is an estimated 1 death for every 2 million doses of the vaccine given in the general population. That risk is higher for women ages 30 to 49, rising to about 2 deaths for every 1 million doses given in this age group. There’s no question that the Johnson & Johnson shot has saved many more lives than it has taken, experts said

Still, the committee previously paused the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in April after the first cases of TTS came to light. That pause was lifted just 10 days later, after a new warning was added to the vaccine’s label to raise awareness of the risk.

In updating the safety information on Johnson & Johnson, the panel noted that the warning label had not sufficiently lowered the risk of death from TTS. Doctors seem to be aware of the condition because none of the patients who had developed TTS had been treated with the blood thinner heparin, which can make the syndrome worse. But patients continued to die even after the label was added, the panel noted, because TTS can progress so quickly that doctors simply don’t have time to treat it.

For that reason, and because there are other, safer vaccines available, the panel decided to make what’s called a preferential statement, saying the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines should be preferred over Johnson & Johnson.

The statement leaves the J&J vaccine on the market and available to patients who are at risk of a severe allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccines. It also means that people can still choose the J&J vaccine if they still want it after being informed about the risks.

About 17 million first doses and 900,000 second doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have been given in the United States. Through the end of August, 54 cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) have occurred after the J&J shots in the United States. Nearly half of those were in women ages 30 to 49. There have been nine deaths from TTS after Johnson & Johnson shots.

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

A panel of experts that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the use of vaccines said the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should be the preferred shots for adults in the United States because the Johnson & Johnson shot carries the risk of a rare but potentially fatal side effect that causes blood clots and bleeding in the brain.

In an emergency meeting on December 16, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, voted unanimously (15-0) to state a preference for the mRNA vaccines over the Johnson & Johnson shot. The vote came after the panel heard a safety update on cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTS, a condition that causes large clots that deplete the blood of platelets, resulting in uncontrolled bleeding.

The move brings the United States in line with other wealthy countries. In May, Denmark dropped the Johnson & Johnson shot from its vaccination program because of this risk. Australia and Greece have limited the use of a similar vaccine, made by AstraZeneca, in younger people because of the TTS risk. Both vaccines use the envelope of a different kind of virus, called an adenovirus, to sneak the vaccine instructions into cells. On Dec. 16, health officials said they had determined that TTS was likely due to a class effect, meaning it happens with all adenovirus vector vaccines.

The risk of dying from TTS after a Johnson & Johnson shot is extremely rare. There is an estimated 1 death for every 2 million doses of the vaccine given in the general population. That risk is higher for women ages 30 to 49, rising to about 2 deaths for every 1 million doses given in this age group. There’s no question that the Johnson & Johnson shot has saved many more lives than it has taken, experts said

Still, the committee previously paused the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in April after the first cases of TTS came to light. That pause was lifted just 10 days later, after a new warning was added to the vaccine’s label to raise awareness of the risk.

In updating the safety information on Johnson & Johnson, the panel noted that the warning label had not sufficiently lowered the risk of death from TTS. Doctors seem to be aware of the condition because none of the patients who had developed TTS had been treated with the blood thinner heparin, which can make the syndrome worse. But patients continued to die even after the label was added, the panel noted, because TTS can progress so quickly that doctors simply don’t have time to treat it.

For that reason, and because there are other, safer vaccines available, the panel decided to make what’s called a preferential statement, saying the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines should be preferred over Johnson & Johnson.

The statement leaves the J&J vaccine on the market and available to patients who are at risk of a severe allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccines. It also means that people can still choose the J&J vaccine if they still want it after being informed about the risks.

About 17 million first doses and 900,000 second doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have been given in the United States. Through the end of August, 54 cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) have occurred after the J&J shots in the United States. Nearly half of those were in women ages 30 to 49. There have been nine deaths from TTS after Johnson & Johnson shots.

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

A panel of experts that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on the use of vaccines said the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines should be the preferred shots for adults in the United States because the Johnson & Johnson shot carries the risk of a rare but potentially fatal side effect that causes blood clots and bleeding in the brain.

In an emergency meeting on December 16, the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, or ACIP, voted unanimously (15-0) to state a preference for the mRNA vaccines over the Johnson & Johnson shot. The vote came after the panel heard a safety update on cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTS, a condition that causes large clots that deplete the blood of platelets, resulting in uncontrolled bleeding.

The move brings the United States in line with other wealthy countries. In May, Denmark dropped the Johnson & Johnson shot from its vaccination program because of this risk. Australia and Greece have limited the use of a similar vaccine, made by AstraZeneca, in younger people because of the TTS risk. Both vaccines use the envelope of a different kind of virus, called an adenovirus, to sneak the vaccine instructions into cells. On Dec. 16, health officials said they had determined that TTS was likely due to a class effect, meaning it happens with all adenovirus vector vaccines.

The risk of dying from TTS after a Johnson & Johnson shot is extremely rare. There is an estimated 1 death for every 2 million doses of the vaccine given in the general population. That risk is higher for women ages 30 to 49, rising to about 2 deaths for every 1 million doses given in this age group. There’s no question that the Johnson & Johnson shot has saved many more lives than it has taken, experts said

Still, the committee previously paused the use of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine in April after the first cases of TTS came to light. That pause was lifted just 10 days later, after a new warning was added to the vaccine’s label to raise awareness of the risk.

In updating the safety information on Johnson & Johnson, the panel noted that the warning label had not sufficiently lowered the risk of death from TTS. Doctors seem to be aware of the condition because none of the patients who had developed TTS had been treated with the blood thinner heparin, which can make the syndrome worse. But patients continued to die even after the label was added, the panel noted, because TTS can progress so quickly that doctors simply don’t have time to treat it.

For that reason, and because there are other, safer vaccines available, the panel decided to make what’s called a preferential statement, saying the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines should be preferred over Johnson & Johnson.

The statement leaves the J&J vaccine on the market and available to patients who are at risk of a severe allergic reaction to the mRNA vaccines. It also means that people can still choose the J&J vaccine if they still want it after being informed about the risks.

About 17 million first doses and 900,000 second doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine have been given in the United States. Through the end of August, 54 cases of thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) have occurred after the J&J shots in the United States. Nearly half of those were in women ages 30 to 49. There have been nine deaths from TTS after Johnson & Johnson shots.

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

Robert M. Califf, MD, plans to take a close look at federal policies on opioid prescriptions in his expected second turn as the top U.S. regulator of medical products, as well as keep closer tabs on the performance of drugs cleared with accelerated approvals.

Catherine Hackett/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Califf on Tuesday fielded questions at a Senate hearing about his nomination by President Joe Biden to serve as administrator of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a role in which he served in the Obama administration. He also spoke about the need to bolster the nation’s ability to maintain an adequate supply of key medical products, including drugs.

Members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which is handling Dr. Califf’s nomination, were largely cordial and supportive during the hearing. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the committee chair, and the panel’s top Republican, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, addressed Dr. Califf during the hearing as if he would soon serve again as the FDA’s leader. Both were among the senators who voted 89-4 to confirm Dr. Califf in a February 2016 vote.

Dr. Califf “was previously confirmed to lead FDA in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and I look forward to working with him again to ensure FDA continues to protect families across the country, uphold the gold standard of safety and effectiveness, and put science and data first,” Sen. Murray said.

Less enthusiastic about Dr. Califf was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who was among the seven senators who did not vote on Dr. Califf’s nomination in 2016.

Sen. Sanders objected in 2016 to Dr. Califf’s ties to the pharmaceutical industry, and he did so again Tuesday. A noted leader in conducting clinical trials, Dr. Califf has worked with many drugmakers. But at the hearing, Dr. Califf said he concurs with Sen. Sanders on an idea strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry.

In response to Sen. Sanders’ question, Dr. Califf said he already is “on record as being in favor of Medicare negotiating with the industry on prices.”

The FDA would not take direct part in negotiations, as this work would be handled by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Democrats want to give Medicare some negotiating authority through their sweeping Build Back Better Act.

People in the United States are dismayed over both the cost of prescription drugs and the widespread distribution of prescription painkillers that helped fuel the current opioid epidemic, Sen. Sanders told Dr. Califf. Many people will be concerned about an FDA commissioner who has benefited from close ties to the industry, Sen. Sanders said.

“How are they going to believe that you’re going to be an independent and strong voice against this enormously powerful, special interest?” Sen. Sanders asked.

“I’m totally with you on the concept that the price of pharmaceuticals is way too high in this country,” Dr. Califf said in reply.

Dr. Califf was paid $2.7 million in salary and bonus by Verily Life Sciences, the biomedical research organization operated by Alphabet, parent company of Google, according to his federal financial disclosure. He also reported holding board positions with pharmaceutical companies AmyriAD and Centessa Pharmaceuticals.

Bloomberg Government reported that Dr. Califf has ties to about 16 other research organizations and biotech companies. Bloomberg Government also said that, in his earlier FDA service, Dr. Califf kept a whiteboard in his office that listed all the activities and projects that required his recusal, citing as a source Howard Sklamberg, who was a deputy commissioner under Dr. Califf.

“He was very, very, very careful,” Mr. Sklamberg, who’s now an attorney at Arnold & Porter LLP, told Bloomberg Government.
 

‘Work to do’ on opioids

Senators looped back repeatedly to the topic of opioids during Dr. Califf’s hearing, reflecting deep concerns about the FDA’s efforts to warn of the risks of prescription painkillers.

There were an estimated 100,306 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending in April, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr. Califf said he plans to focus on what information the FDA conveys to the public about the risks of prescription painkillers, including a look at what the labels for these products say.

“I am committed to do a comprehensive review of the status of opioids, early in my tenure,” Dr. Califf said.

Dr. Califf indicated that physicians are still too quick to provide excess doses of these medicines, despite years of efforts to restrain their use. He said he knows relatives who were given 30-day prescriptions for opioids after minor surgery.

“So I know we have work to do,” Dr. Califf said.

Concerns about the FDA’s previous work in managing opioids has led to protests from a few Democratic senators about the prospect of President Biden nominating the acting FDA commissioner, Janet Woodcock, MD, for the permanent post.

At the hearing, Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) raised the case of the FDA’s approval of the powerful Zohydro painkiller. The agency approved that drug despite an 11-2 vote against it by the FDA’s Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee.

Sen. Luján asked Dr. Califf what he would do if an FDA advisory committee voted “overwhelmingly” against recommending approval of a medicine, as happened in the Zohydro case.

While not mentioned by Sen. Luján in this exchange during the hearing with Dr. Califf, the FDA staff’s rejection of recommendations of advisory committees has been a growing concern among researchers.

The agency last year approved aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen), a drug for Alzheimer’s disease, dismissing the advice of its Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee. That decision triggered the resignation of several members of the panel. The FDA staff also earlier rejected the conclusion the majority of members of the same advisory committee offered in 2016 on eteplirsen (Exondys 51, Sarepta), a drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Dr. Califf told Sen. Luján he had done recent research into how often the FDA staff does not concur with the recommendations of an advisory committee. He said the FDA takes a different course of action in about 25% of cases. In about three-quarters of those cases, the FDA staff opts for a “more stringent” approach regarding allowing the public access to the drug, as opposed to a more generous one as seen in the Zohydro, Aduhelm, and Exondys 51 cases.

Still, Dr. Califf said that when there’s an 11-2 advisory committee vote against recommendation of a product, “the leaders at FDA really need to take a close look” at what’s happening.

Question on accelerated approvals

The FDA’s approval of aducanumab drew attention to a debate already underway about conditional clearances known as accelerated approvals.

The FDA has used this path since the 1990s to speed access to drugs for serious conditions. The trade-off for early access is that the agency sometimes makes the wrong call based on initial findings, and clears a medicine later found not to benefit patients as expected.

The FDA’s cancer division is in the midst of public efforts to address cases where drugmakers have not been able to deliver studies that support accelerated approvals of their oncology drugs. In addition, the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services announced in August that it is reviewing the FDA’s handling of the accelerated approval process.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Sen. Burr grilled Dr. Califf about how he would respond to calls to change how the FDA handles the accelerated-approval process.

“Can you commit to me and to patients who may rely on cutting-edge treatments that you will not support efforts to narrow this pathway or raise the bar for drugs to be approved under those pathways?” Burr asked Califf.

Dr. Califf responded by saying he was “a fan of accelerated approval – for the right conditions.”

Earlier, in his opening statement, Dr. Califf had said his mother benefited directly from the accelerated approval of new drugs for multiple myeloma. Dr. Califf told Sen. Burr that he had spent “countless hours with patient groups” and understands the need to speed the approval of medicines for serious diseases.

But the FDA also has to make sure it holds up its end of the bargain struck with accelerated approvals. This involves checking on how these medicines work once they are marketed.

“We’re accepting that there’s more uncertainty,” Dr. Califf said. “That means we’ve got to have a better system to evaluate these products as they’re used on the market. And I think there are ways that we can do that now. Technology is making this possible in ways that it just was not possible before.”
 

Worries about the medical supply chain

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked Dr. Califf about the vulnerability of the U.S. medical system to disruptions of the supply chain. She raised concerns about China’s dominance in antibiotic manufacturing as an example. She asked if Congress could do more to encourage domestic manufacturing of medical supplies, such as by offering tax incentives.

Dr. Califf told Sen. Collins he shared her concern about the U.S. manufacturing of ingredients used in both branded and generic drugs. He said he recently has served on a committee of the National Academy of Medicine that is examining supply chain issues.

This committee will soon release a report with specific recommendations, Dr. Califf said.

“We don’t have enough competitive entities in what’s become sort of a commodity business” of drug manufacturing, Dr. Califf said. “So we need a number of steps to make the system more resilient.”

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

Robert M. Califf, MD, plans to take a close look at federal policies on opioid prescriptions in his expected second turn as the top U.S. regulator of medical products, as well as keep closer tabs on the performance of drugs cleared with accelerated approvals.

Catherine Hackett/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Califf on Tuesday fielded questions at a Senate hearing about his nomination by President Joe Biden to serve as administrator of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a role in which he served in the Obama administration. He also spoke about the need to bolster the nation’s ability to maintain an adequate supply of key medical products, including drugs.

Members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which is handling Dr. Califf’s nomination, were largely cordial and supportive during the hearing. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the committee chair, and the panel’s top Republican, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, addressed Dr. Califf during the hearing as if he would soon serve again as the FDA’s leader. Both were among the senators who voted 89-4 to confirm Dr. Califf in a February 2016 vote.

Dr. Califf “was previously confirmed to lead FDA in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and I look forward to working with him again to ensure FDA continues to protect families across the country, uphold the gold standard of safety and effectiveness, and put science and data first,” Sen. Murray said.

Less enthusiastic about Dr. Califf was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who was among the seven senators who did not vote on Dr. Califf’s nomination in 2016.

Sen. Sanders objected in 2016 to Dr. Califf’s ties to the pharmaceutical industry, and he did so again Tuesday. A noted leader in conducting clinical trials, Dr. Califf has worked with many drugmakers. But at the hearing, Dr. Califf said he concurs with Sen. Sanders on an idea strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry.

In response to Sen. Sanders’ question, Dr. Califf said he already is “on record as being in favor of Medicare negotiating with the industry on prices.”

The FDA would not take direct part in negotiations, as this work would be handled by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Democrats want to give Medicare some negotiating authority through their sweeping Build Back Better Act.

People in the United States are dismayed over both the cost of prescription drugs and the widespread distribution of prescription painkillers that helped fuel the current opioid epidemic, Sen. Sanders told Dr. Califf. Many people will be concerned about an FDA commissioner who has benefited from close ties to the industry, Sen. Sanders said.

“How are they going to believe that you’re going to be an independent and strong voice against this enormously powerful, special interest?” Sen. Sanders asked.

“I’m totally with you on the concept that the price of pharmaceuticals is way too high in this country,” Dr. Califf said in reply.

Dr. Califf was paid $2.7 million in salary and bonus by Verily Life Sciences, the biomedical research organization operated by Alphabet, parent company of Google, according to his federal financial disclosure. He also reported holding board positions with pharmaceutical companies AmyriAD and Centessa Pharmaceuticals.

Bloomberg Government reported that Dr. Califf has ties to about 16 other research organizations and biotech companies. Bloomberg Government also said that, in his earlier FDA service, Dr. Califf kept a whiteboard in his office that listed all the activities and projects that required his recusal, citing as a source Howard Sklamberg, who was a deputy commissioner under Dr. Califf.

“He was very, very, very careful,” Mr. Sklamberg, who’s now an attorney at Arnold & Porter LLP, told Bloomberg Government.
 

‘Work to do’ on opioids

Senators looped back repeatedly to the topic of opioids during Dr. Califf’s hearing, reflecting deep concerns about the FDA’s efforts to warn of the risks of prescription painkillers.

There were an estimated 100,306 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending in April, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr. Califf said he plans to focus on what information the FDA conveys to the public about the risks of prescription painkillers, including a look at what the labels for these products say.

“I am committed to do a comprehensive review of the status of opioids, early in my tenure,” Dr. Califf said.

Dr. Califf indicated that physicians are still too quick to provide excess doses of these medicines, despite years of efforts to restrain their use. He said he knows relatives who were given 30-day prescriptions for opioids after minor surgery.

“So I know we have work to do,” Dr. Califf said.

Concerns about the FDA’s previous work in managing opioids has led to protests from a few Democratic senators about the prospect of President Biden nominating the acting FDA commissioner, Janet Woodcock, MD, for the permanent post.

At the hearing, Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) raised the case of the FDA’s approval of the powerful Zohydro painkiller. The agency approved that drug despite an 11-2 vote against it by the FDA’s Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee.

Sen. Luján asked Dr. Califf what he would do if an FDA advisory committee voted “overwhelmingly” against recommending approval of a medicine, as happened in the Zohydro case.

While not mentioned by Sen. Luján in this exchange during the hearing with Dr. Califf, the FDA staff’s rejection of recommendations of advisory committees has been a growing concern among researchers.

The agency last year approved aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen), a drug for Alzheimer’s disease, dismissing the advice of its Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee. That decision triggered the resignation of several members of the panel. The FDA staff also earlier rejected the conclusion the majority of members of the same advisory committee offered in 2016 on eteplirsen (Exondys 51, Sarepta), a drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Dr. Califf told Sen. Luján he had done recent research into how often the FDA staff does not concur with the recommendations of an advisory committee. He said the FDA takes a different course of action in about 25% of cases. In about three-quarters of those cases, the FDA staff opts for a “more stringent” approach regarding allowing the public access to the drug, as opposed to a more generous one as seen in the Zohydro, Aduhelm, and Exondys 51 cases.

Still, Dr. Califf said that when there’s an 11-2 advisory committee vote against recommendation of a product, “the leaders at FDA really need to take a close look” at what’s happening.

Question on accelerated approvals

The FDA’s approval of aducanumab drew attention to a debate already underway about conditional clearances known as accelerated approvals.

The FDA has used this path since the 1990s to speed access to drugs for serious conditions. The trade-off for early access is that the agency sometimes makes the wrong call based on initial findings, and clears a medicine later found not to benefit patients as expected.

The FDA’s cancer division is in the midst of public efforts to address cases where drugmakers have not been able to deliver studies that support accelerated approvals of their oncology drugs. In addition, the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services announced in August that it is reviewing the FDA’s handling of the accelerated approval process.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Sen. Burr grilled Dr. Califf about how he would respond to calls to change how the FDA handles the accelerated-approval process.

“Can you commit to me and to patients who may rely on cutting-edge treatments that you will not support efforts to narrow this pathway or raise the bar for drugs to be approved under those pathways?” Burr asked Califf.

Dr. Califf responded by saying he was “a fan of accelerated approval – for the right conditions.”

Earlier, in his opening statement, Dr. Califf had said his mother benefited directly from the accelerated approval of new drugs for multiple myeloma. Dr. Califf told Sen. Burr that he had spent “countless hours with patient groups” and understands the need to speed the approval of medicines for serious diseases.

But the FDA also has to make sure it holds up its end of the bargain struck with accelerated approvals. This involves checking on how these medicines work once they are marketed.

“We’re accepting that there’s more uncertainty,” Dr. Califf said. “That means we’ve got to have a better system to evaluate these products as they’re used on the market. And I think there are ways that we can do that now. Technology is making this possible in ways that it just was not possible before.”
 

Worries about the medical supply chain

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked Dr. Califf about the vulnerability of the U.S. medical system to disruptions of the supply chain. She raised concerns about China’s dominance in antibiotic manufacturing as an example. She asked if Congress could do more to encourage domestic manufacturing of medical supplies, such as by offering tax incentives.

Dr. Califf told Sen. Collins he shared her concern about the U.S. manufacturing of ingredients used in both branded and generic drugs. He said he recently has served on a committee of the National Academy of Medicine that is examining supply chain issues.

This committee will soon release a report with specific recommendations, Dr. Califf said.

“We don’t have enough competitive entities in what’s become sort of a commodity business” of drug manufacturing, Dr. Califf said. “So we need a number of steps to make the system more resilient.”

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

Robert M. Califf, MD, plans to take a close look at federal policies on opioid prescriptions in his expected second turn as the top U.S. regulator of medical products, as well as keep closer tabs on the performance of drugs cleared with accelerated approvals.

Catherine Hackett/Frontline Medical News

Dr. Califf on Tuesday fielded questions at a Senate hearing about his nomination by President Joe Biden to serve as administrator of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, a role in which he served in the Obama administration. He also spoke about the need to bolster the nation’s ability to maintain an adequate supply of key medical products, including drugs.

Members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which is handling Dr. Califf’s nomination, were largely cordial and supportive during the hearing. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the committee chair, and the panel’s top Republican, Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina, addressed Dr. Califf during the hearing as if he would soon serve again as the FDA’s leader. Both were among the senators who voted 89-4 to confirm Dr. Califf in a February 2016 vote.

Dr. Califf “was previously confirmed to lead FDA in an overwhelming bipartisan vote, and I look forward to working with him again to ensure FDA continues to protect families across the country, uphold the gold standard of safety and effectiveness, and put science and data first,” Sen. Murray said.

Less enthusiastic about Dr. Califf was Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), who was among the seven senators who did not vote on Dr. Califf’s nomination in 2016.

Sen. Sanders objected in 2016 to Dr. Califf’s ties to the pharmaceutical industry, and he did so again Tuesday. A noted leader in conducting clinical trials, Dr. Califf has worked with many drugmakers. But at the hearing, Dr. Califf said he concurs with Sen. Sanders on an idea strongly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry.

In response to Sen. Sanders’ question, Dr. Califf said he already is “on record as being in favor of Medicare negotiating with the industry on prices.”

The FDA would not take direct part in negotiations, as this work would be handled by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Democrats want to give Medicare some negotiating authority through their sweeping Build Back Better Act.

People in the United States are dismayed over both the cost of prescription drugs and the widespread distribution of prescription painkillers that helped fuel the current opioid epidemic, Sen. Sanders told Dr. Califf. Many people will be concerned about an FDA commissioner who has benefited from close ties to the industry, Sen. Sanders said.

“How are they going to believe that you’re going to be an independent and strong voice against this enormously powerful, special interest?” Sen. Sanders asked.

“I’m totally with you on the concept that the price of pharmaceuticals is way too high in this country,” Dr. Califf said in reply.

Dr. Califf was paid $2.7 million in salary and bonus by Verily Life Sciences, the biomedical research organization operated by Alphabet, parent company of Google, according to his federal financial disclosure. He also reported holding board positions with pharmaceutical companies AmyriAD and Centessa Pharmaceuticals.

Bloomberg Government reported that Dr. Califf has ties to about 16 other research organizations and biotech companies. Bloomberg Government also said that, in his earlier FDA service, Dr. Califf kept a whiteboard in his office that listed all the activities and projects that required his recusal, citing as a source Howard Sklamberg, who was a deputy commissioner under Dr. Califf.

“He was very, very, very careful,” Mr. Sklamberg, who’s now an attorney at Arnold & Porter LLP, told Bloomberg Government.
 

‘Work to do’ on opioids

Senators looped back repeatedly to the topic of opioids during Dr. Califf’s hearing, reflecting deep concerns about the FDA’s efforts to warn of the risks of prescription painkillers.

There were an estimated 100,306 drug overdose deaths in the United States in the 12 months ending in April, an increase of 28.5% from the 78,056 deaths during the same period the year before, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr. Califf said he plans to focus on what information the FDA conveys to the public about the risks of prescription painkillers, including a look at what the labels for these products say.

“I am committed to do a comprehensive review of the status of opioids, early in my tenure,” Dr. Califf said.

Dr. Califf indicated that physicians are still too quick to provide excess doses of these medicines, despite years of efforts to restrain their use. He said he knows relatives who were given 30-day prescriptions for opioids after minor surgery.

“So I know we have work to do,” Dr. Califf said.

Concerns about the FDA’s previous work in managing opioids has led to protests from a few Democratic senators about the prospect of President Biden nominating the acting FDA commissioner, Janet Woodcock, MD, for the permanent post.

At the hearing, Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) raised the case of the FDA’s approval of the powerful Zohydro painkiller. The agency approved that drug despite an 11-2 vote against it by the FDA’s Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee.

Sen. Luján asked Dr. Califf what he would do if an FDA advisory committee voted “overwhelmingly” against recommending approval of a medicine, as happened in the Zohydro case.

While not mentioned by Sen. Luján in this exchange during the hearing with Dr. Califf, the FDA staff’s rejection of recommendations of advisory committees has been a growing concern among researchers.

The agency last year approved aducanumab (Aduhelm, Biogen), a drug for Alzheimer’s disease, dismissing the advice of its Peripheral and Central Nervous System Drugs Advisory Committee. That decision triggered the resignation of several members of the panel. The FDA staff also earlier rejected the conclusion the majority of members of the same advisory committee offered in 2016 on eteplirsen (Exondys 51, Sarepta), a drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

Dr. Califf told Sen. Luján he had done recent research into how often the FDA staff does not concur with the recommendations of an advisory committee. He said the FDA takes a different course of action in about 25% of cases. In about three-quarters of those cases, the FDA staff opts for a “more stringent” approach regarding allowing the public access to the drug, as opposed to a more generous one as seen in the Zohydro, Aduhelm, and Exondys 51 cases.

Still, Dr. Califf said that when there’s an 11-2 advisory committee vote against recommendation of a product, “the leaders at FDA really need to take a close look” at what’s happening.

Question on accelerated approvals

The FDA’s approval of aducanumab drew attention to a debate already underway about conditional clearances known as accelerated approvals.

The FDA has used this path since the 1990s to speed access to drugs for serious conditions. The trade-off for early access is that the agency sometimes makes the wrong call based on initial findings, and clears a medicine later found not to benefit patients as expected.

The FDA’s cancer division is in the midst of public efforts to address cases where drugmakers have not been able to deliver studies that support accelerated approvals of their oncology drugs. In addition, the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services announced in August that it is reviewing the FDA’s handling of the accelerated approval process.

At Tuesday’s hearing, Sen. Burr grilled Dr. Califf about how he would respond to calls to change how the FDA handles the accelerated-approval process.

“Can you commit to me and to patients who may rely on cutting-edge treatments that you will not support efforts to narrow this pathway or raise the bar for drugs to be approved under those pathways?” Burr asked Califf.

Dr. Califf responded by saying he was “a fan of accelerated approval – for the right conditions.”

Earlier, in his opening statement, Dr. Califf had said his mother benefited directly from the accelerated approval of new drugs for multiple myeloma. Dr. Califf told Sen. Burr that he had spent “countless hours with patient groups” and understands the need to speed the approval of medicines for serious diseases.

But the FDA also has to make sure it holds up its end of the bargain struck with accelerated approvals. This involves checking on how these medicines work once they are marketed.

“We’re accepting that there’s more uncertainty,” Dr. Califf said. “That means we’ve got to have a better system to evaluate these products as they’re used on the market. And I think there are ways that we can do that now. Technology is making this possible in ways that it just was not possible before.”
 

Worries about the medical supply chain

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) asked Dr. Califf about the vulnerability of the U.S. medical system to disruptions of the supply chain. She raised concerns about China’s dominance in antibiotic manufacturing as an example. She asked if Congress could do more to encourage domestic manufacturing of medical supplies, such as by offering tax incentives.

Dr. Califf told Sen. Collins he shared her concern about the U.S. manufacturing of ingredients used in both branded and generic drugs. He said he recently has served on a committee of the National Academy of Medicine that is examining supply chain issues.

This committee will soon release a report with specific recommendations, Dr. Califf said.

“We don’t have enough competitive entities in what’s become sort of a commodity business” of drug manufacturing, Dr. Califf said. “So we need a number of steps to make the system more resilient.”

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

The Food and Drug Administration is convening an emergency meeting Dec. 16 with representatives from the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) to discuss the flawed rollout of the new, gender-neutral approach to the isotretinoin risk mitigation program that launched on Dec. 13, and what can be done to fix it.

By most accounts, the rollout was disastrous, chaotic, and a failure. Dermatologists on Twitter and elsewhere are angry and frustrated, with some calling for a temporary halt to the program until the bugs can be ironed out.

On Twitter Dec. 15, the Academy posted: “Due to the unacceptable situation with #iPLEDGE, the @US_FDA has convened an emergency meeting with AADA representatives tomorrow, December 16.”

The switch to a new platform was met with frustration from physicians, pharmacists, and patients alike. The new website crashed repeatedly, with physicians and patients complaining they got locked out or bounced off the platform when they attempted to follow instructions to enter information. Calls to obtain support from a live person often required hours on hold, several said.

The new approach to the isotretinoin risk-mitigation program itself isn’t under fire. It was welcomed by dermatologists and others who had long requested the change. Instead of three risk categories (females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males), there are now two (those who can get pregnant and those who cannot). Advocates for the change said it will make the experience more inclusive for transgender patients. The previous categories, some contended, were a barrier to access to care.

Because isotretinoin (Absorica, Amnesteem, Claravis, others), an oral retinoid used to treat severe forms of acne, is teratogenic, with a high risk of birth defects, and has also been associated with other health issues, those who take the medication who are able to get pregnant must take contraceptive precautions. The risk evaluation and mitigation program (REMS), mandated by the FDA, stipulates that physicians, patients, and pharmacists prescribing, using, or dispensing the drug must all be registered with requirements that include the use of two forms of an effective contraceptive and regular pregnancy tests by those capable of becoming pregnant.

A day of frustration

Before navigating the new website, a new log-on name was needed, said Ilona J. Frieden, MD, chair of the AADA’s iPLEDGE Workgroup and professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. “They made you create a month-day-year date of personal significance.” When she tried to log on, she got locked out, she said in an interview.

The transition from the old website to the new, which Dr. Frieden said is now administered by a different vendor, was done quickly. The previous website shut down Dec. 10, and the new one launched Dec. 13, the first day for the new approach.

“A slower rollout would have helped,” Dr. Frieden said. While she and other dermatologists said they offered input previously on how to make the transition go more smoothly, no one seemed to want that help. “We did have a listening session with the FDA,” Dr. Frieden said. That was before the scheduled meeting of Dec. 16.

Neil S. Goldberg, MD, a dermatologist in Westchester County, New York, also was frustrated with the rollout. “The week before the transition, one of my staff had to call iPLEDGE. They had a 177-minute wait to get to a human.

“They want us to register patients online now instead of signing forms in the office, but the links to view, download, or print don’t work,” Dr. Goldberg said in an interview.

This was after receiving information from the iPLEDGE REMS program, which stated, “The iPLEDGE REMS website will be updated to a modernized platform. All program materials and educational tools will be now available to you at the click of a button.’’

Dr. Goldberg also received calls from three patients who reported that they couldn’t complete the quiz that is required of patients capable of reproducing to demonstrate their comprehension about risk. Without the completed quiz, required monthly, the prescription can’t be refilled.

“It’s chaotic,” said Howa Yeung, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Emory University, Atlanta. “The change is sudden, it’s a major change in the workflow. The process of reverification [required] is not that hard, but a lot of people have trouble even logging into the platform.”

What would help? To have a human on the phone to help navigate the system, Dr. Yeung said.

The glitches are delaying prescriptions for established patients and new ones as well, Dr. Yeung said. Existing patients who can get pregnant have 7 days after their negative pregnancy test to get their prescription filled. “And over the weekend the website was down,” he said, so that was a 2-day delay.

“The information we have and were told to use doesn’t match what is in their database,” said Mitesh Patel, PharmD, owner of Sunshine Pharmacy in White Plains, N.Y., who said pharmacists are experiencing issues with the new platform similar to those of doctors.

Twitter users had a lot to say, as well. Jack Resneck Jr., MD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, tweeted: “#Accutane has basically been pulled from market by utter incompetence of @SyneosHealth hired by @US_FDA to administer risk mgmt program.”

Dr. Resneck, president-elect of the American Medical Association, noted the crashed website, help line with 6-hour hold times, and patients unable to get the drug.

Adewole Adamson, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Texas, Austin, tweeted, “Dermatologists around the US are BIG mad about the current accutane debacle brought on by @SyneosHealth and @US_FDA. What a disaster for patient care!”

Are fixes in sight?

On Tuesday, Dec. 14, AADA President Kenneth J. Tomecki, MD, issued a statement expressing disappointment about the transition.

AAD

“In advance of this transition, the AADA engaged the FDA and the iPLEDGE administrator, Syneos Health, about the numerous workflow concerns raised by dermatologists and how the impending changes would threaten patient access to necessary medication. Those concerns have become a reality across the country and we’re working to ensure patients can maintain safe and appropriate access to the treatment they need.”

The AADA, the statement continues, supports efforts to streamline the program while keeping patient safety and incorporating input from physicians.

“We are very aware of the problems with the implementation of the iPLEDGE program,” FDA spokesperson Charlie Kohler said in an email. “We are continuing to work closely with the isotretinoin manufacturers to ensure that they implement a smoothly functioning iPLEDGE REMS program and that patient care is not interrupted.”

“Syneos Health appreciates the concern about iPLEDGE,” said Gary Gatyas, a spokesperson for Syneos Health. “While Syneos Health does not maintain the iPLEDGE system or contact center, we are doing what we can to help the responsible parties with a resolution.” Meanwhile, he recommended that people contact the call center.

He did not respond immediately to questions about who is responsible for maintaining the system and call center.

Dr. Goldberg, Dr. Frieden, and Dr. Yeung have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is convening an emergency meeting Dec. 16 with representatives from the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) to discuss the flawed rollout of the new, gender-neutral approach to the isotretinoin risk mitigation program that launched on Dec. 13, and what can be done to fix it.

By most accounts, the rollout was disastrous, chaotic, and a failure. Dermatologists on Twitter and elsewhere are angry and frustrated, with some calling for a temporary halt to the program until the bugs can be ironed out.

On Twitter Dec. 15, the Academy posted: “Due to the unacceptable situation with #iPLEDGE, the @US_FDA has convened an emergency meeting with AADA representatives tomorrow, December 16.”

The switch to a new platform was met with frustration from physicians, pharmacists, and patients alike. The new website crashed repeatedly, with physicians and patients complaining they got locked out or bounced off the platform when they attempted to follow instructions to enter information. Calls to obtain support from a live person often required hours on hold, several said.

The new approach to the isotretinoin risk-mitigation program itself isn’t under fire. It was welcomed by dermatologists and others who had long requested the change. Instead of three risk categories (females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males), there are now two (those who can get pregnant and those who cannot). Advocates for the change said it will make the experience more inclusive for transgender patients. The previous categories, some contended, were a barrier to access to care.

Because isotretinoin (Absorica, Amnesteem, Claravis, others), an oral retinoid used to treat severe forms of acne, is teratogenic, with a high risk of birth defects, and has also been associated with other health issues, those who take the medication who are able to get pregnant must take contraceptive precautions. The risk evaluation and mitigation program (REMS), mandated by the FDA, stipulates that physicians, patients, and pharmacists prescribing, using, or dispensing the drug must all be registered with requirements that include the use of two forms of an effective contraceptive and regular pregnancy tests by those capable of becoming pregnant.

A day of frustration

Before navigating the new website, a new log-on name was needed, said Ilona J. Frieden, MD, chair of the AADA’s iPLEDGE Workgroup and professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. “They made you create a month-day-year date of personal significance.” When she tried to log on, she got locked out, she said in an interview.

The transition from the old website to the new, which Dr. Frieden said is now administered by a different vendor, was done quickly. The previous website shut down Dec. 10, and the new one launched Dec. 13, the first day for the new approach.

“A slower rollout would have helped,” Dr. Frieden said. While she and other dermatologists said they offered input previously on how to make the transition go more smoothly, no one seemed to want that help. “We did have a listening session with the FDA,” Dr. Frieden said. That was before the scheduled meeting of Dec. 16.

Neil S. Goldberg, MD, a dermatologist in Westchester County, New York, also was frustrated with the rollout. “The week before the transition, one of my staff had to call iPLEDGE. They had a 177-minute wait to get to a human.

“They want us to register patients online now instead of signing forms in the office, but the links to view, download, or print don’t work,” Dr. Goldberg said in an interview.

This was after receiving information from the iPLEDGE REMS program, which stated, “The iPLEDGE REMS website will be updated to a modernized platform. All program materials and educational tools will be now available to you at the click of a button.’’

Dr. Goldberg also received calls from three patients who reported that they couldn’t complete the quiz that is required of patients capable of reproducing to demonstrate their comprehension about risk. Without the completed quiz, required monthly, the prescription can’t be refilled.

“It’s chaotic,” said Howa Yeung, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Emory University, Atlanta. “The change is sudden, it’s a major change in the workflow. The process of reverification [required] is not that hard, but a lot of people have trouble even logging into the platform.”

What would help? To have a human on the phone to help navigate the system, Dr. Yeung said.

The glitches are delaying prescriptions for established patients and new ones as well, Dr. Yeung said. Existing patients who can get pregnant have 7 days after their negative pregnancy test to get their prescription filled. “And over the weekend the website was down,” he said, so that was a 2-day delay.

“The information we have and were told to use doesn’t match what is in their database,” said Mitesh Patel, PharmD, owner of Sunshine Pharmacy in White Plains, N.Y., who said pharmacists are experiencing issues with the new platform similar to those of doctors.

Twitter users had a lot to say, as well. Jack Resneck Jr., MD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, tweeted: “#Accutane has basically been pulled from market by utter incompetence of @SyneosHealth hired by @US_FDA to administer risk mgmt program.”

Dr. Resneck, president-elect of the American Medical Association, noted the crashed website, help line with 6-hour hold times, and patients unable to get the drug.

Adewole Adamson, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Texas, Austin, tweeted, “Dermatologists around the US are BIG mad about the current accutane debacle brought on by @SyneosHealth and @US_FDA. What a disaster for patient care!”

Are fixes in sight?

On Tuesday, Dec. 14, AADA President Kenneth J. Tomecki, MD, issued a statement expressing disappointment about the transition.

AAD

“In advance of this transition, the AADA engaged the FDA and the iPLEDGE administrator, Syneos Health, about the numerous workflow concerns raised by dermatologists and how the impending changes would threaten patient access to necessary medication. Those concerns have become a reality across the country and we’re working to ensure patients can maintain safe and appropriate access to the treatment they need.”

The AADA, the statement continues, supports efforts to streamline the program while keeping patient safety and incorporating input from physicians.

“We are very aware of the problems with the implementation of the iPLEDGE program,” FDA spokesperson Charlie Kohler said in an email. “We are continuing to work closely with the isotretinoin manufacturers to ensure that they implement a smoothly functioning iPLEDGE REMS program and that patient care is not interrupted.”

“Syneos Health appreciates the concern about iPLEDGE,” said Gary Gatyas, a spokesperson for Syneos Health. “While Syneos Health does not maintain the iPLEDGE system or contact center, we are doing what we can to help the responsible parties with a resolution.” Meanwhile, he recommended that people contact the call center.

He did not respond immediately to questions about who is responsible for maintaining the system and call center.

Dr. Goldberg, Dr. Frieden, and Dr. Yeung have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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

The Food and Drug Administration is convening an emergency meeting Dec. 16 with representatives from the American Academy of Dermatology Association (AADA) to discuss the flawed rollout of the new, gender-neutral approach to the isotretinoin risk mitigation program that launched on Dec. 13, and what can be done to fix it.

By most accounts, the rollout was disastrous, chaotic, and a failure. Dermatologists on Twitter and elsewhere are angry and frustrated, with some calling for a temporary halt to the program until the bugs can be ironed out.

On Twitter Dec. 15, the Academy posted: “Due to the unacceptable situation with #iPLEDGE, the @US_FDA has convened an emergency meeting with AADA representatives tomorrow, December 16.”

The switch to a new platform was met with frustration from physicians, pharmacists, and patients alike. The new website crashed repeatedly, with physicians and patients complaining they got locked out or bounced off the platform when they attempted to follow instructions to enter information. Calls to obtain support from a live person often required hours on hold, several said.

The new approach to the isotretinoin risk-mitigation program itself isn’t under fire. It was welcomed by dermatologists and others who had long requested the change. Instead of three risk categories (females of reproductive potential, females not of reproductive potential, and males), there are now two (those who can get pregnant and those who cannot). Advocates for the change said it will make the experience more inclusive for transgender patients. The previous categories, some contended, were a barrier to access to care.

Because isotretinoin (Absorica, Amnesteem, Claravis, others), an oral retinoid used to treat severe forms of acne, is teratogenic, with a high risk of birth defects, and has also been associated with other health issues, those who take the medication who are able to get pregnant must take contraceptive precautions. The risk evaluation and mitigation program (REMS), mandated by the FDA, stipulates that physicians, patients, and pharmacists prescribing, using, or dispensing the drug must all be registered with requirements that include the use of two forms of an effective contraceptive and regular pregnancy tests by those capable of becoming pregnant.

A day of frustration

Before navigating the new website, a new log-on name was needed, said Ilona J. Frieden, MD, chair of the AADA’s iPLEDGE Workgroup and professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco. “They made you create a month-day-year date of personal significance.” When she tried to log on, she got locked out, she said in an interview.

The transition from the old website to the new, which Dr. Frieden said is now administered by a different vendor, was done quickly. The previous website shut down Dec. 10, and the new one launched Dec. 13, the first day for the new approach.

“A slower rollout would have helped,” Dr. Frieden said. While she and other dermatologists said they offered input previously on how to make the transition go more smoothly, no one seemed to want that help. “We did have a listening session with the FDA,” Dr. Frieden said. That was before the scheduled meeting of Dec. 16.

Neil S. Goldberg, MD, a dermatologist in Westchester County, New York, also was frustrated with the rollout. “The week before the transition, one of my staff had to call iPLEDGE. They had a 177-minute wait to get to a human.

“They want us to register patients online now instead of signing forms in the office, but the links to view, download, or print don’t work,” Dr. Goldberg said in an interview.

This was after receiving information from the iPLEDGE REMS program, which stated, “The iPLEDGE REMS website will be updated to a modernized platform. All program materials and educational tools will be now available to you at the click of a button.’’

Dr. Goldberg also received calls from three patients who reported that they couldn’t complete the quiz that is required of patients capable of reproducing to demonstrate their comprehension about risk. Without the completed quiz, required monthly, the prescription can’t be refilled.

“It’s chaotic,” said Howa Yeung, MD, assistant professor of dermatology at Emory University, Atlanta. “The change is sudden, it’s a major change in the workflow. The process of reverification [required] is not that hard, but a lot of people have trouble even logging into the platform.”

What would help? To have a human on the phone to help navigate the system, Dr. Yeung said.

The glitches are delaying prescriptions for established patients and new ones as well, Dr. Yeung said. Existing patients who can get pregnant have 7 days after their negative pregnancy test to get their prescription filled. “And over the weekend the website was down,” he said, so that was a 2-day delay.

“The information we have and were told to use doesn’t match what is in their database,” said Mitesh Patel, PharmD, owner of Sunshine Pharmacy in White Plains, N.Y., who said pharmacists are experiencing issues with the new platform similar to those of doctors.

Twitter users had a lot to say, as well. Jack Resneck Jr., MD, professor of dermatology at the University of California, San Francisco, tweeted: “#Accutane has basically been pulled from market by utter incompetence of @SyneosHealth hired by @US_FDA to administer risk mgmt program.”

Dr. Resneck, president-elect of the American Medical Association, noted the crashed website, help line with 6-hour hold times, and patients unable to get the drug.

Adewole Adamson, MD, a dermatologist at the University of Texas, Austin, tweeted, “Dermatologists around the US are BIG mad about the current accutane debacle brought on by @SyneosHealth and @US_FDA. What a disaster for patient care!”

Are fixes in sight?

On Tuesday, Dec. 14, AADA President Kenneth J. Tomecki, MD, issued a statement expressing disappointment about the transition.

AAD

“In advance of this transition, the AADA engaged the FDA and the iPLEDGE administrator, Syneos Health, about the numerous workflow concerns raised by dermatologists and how the impending changes would threaten patient access to necessary medication. Those concerns have become a reality across the country and we’re working to ensure patients can maintain safe and appropriate access to the treatment they need.”

The AADA, the statement continues, supports efforts to streamline the program while keeping patient safety and incorporating input from physicians.

“We are very aware of the problems with the implementation of the iPLEDGE program,” FDA spokesperson Charlie Kohler said in an email. “We are continuing to work closely with the isotretinoin manufacturers to ensure that they implement a smoothly functioning iPLEDGE REMS program and that patient care is not interrupted.”

“Syneos Health appreciates the concern about iPLEDGE,” said Gary Gatyas, a spokesperson for Syneos Health. “While Syneos Health does not maintain the iPLEDGE system or contact center, we are doing what we can to help the responsible parties with a resolution.” Meanwhile, he recommended that people contact the call center.

He did not respond immediately to questions about who is responsible for maintaining the system and call center.

Dr. Goldberg, Dr. Frieden, and Dr. Yeung have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

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