Pediatric News

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved ustekinumab-stba (Steqeyma) as a biosimilar to the interleukin-12 and -23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of adults with active Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis and for both children aged ≥ 6 years and adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or active psoriatic arthritis.

This is the seventh ustekinumab biosimilar approved by the FDA. The biosimilar, developed by Celltrion, has a license entry date in February 2025 as part of the settlement and license agreement with the manufacturer of the reference biologic, Johnson & Johnson.

Ustekinumab-stba will be available in two formulations: A subcutaneous injection in two strengths — a 45 mg/0.5 mL or 90 mg/1 mL solution in a single-dose, prefilled syringe — and an intravenous infusion of a 130 mg/26 mL (5 mg/mL) solution in a single-dose vial.

“The approval of Steqeyma reflects Celltrion’s continued investment in providing treatment options to patients diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis,” said Thomas Nusbickel, Chief Commercial Officer at Celltrion USA, Jersey City, New Jersey, in a press release.

The FDA has previously approved the company’s adalimumab biosimilar Yuflyma and its infliximab biosimilar Zymfentra.

The full prescribing information for ustekinumab-stba is available here.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved ustekinumab-stba (Steqeyma) as a biosimilar to the interleukin-12 and -23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of adults with active Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis and for both children aged ≥ 6 years and adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or active psoriatic arthritis.

This is the seventh ustekinumab biosimilar approved by the FDA. The biosimilar, developed by Celltrion, has a license entry date in February 2025 as part of the settlement and license agreement with the manufacturer of the reference biologic, Johnson & Johnson.

Ustekinumab-stba will be available in two formulations: A subcutaneous injection in two strengths — a 45 mg/0.5 mL or 90 mg/1 mL solution in a single-dose, prefilled syringe — and an intravenous infusion of a 130 mg/26 mL (5 mg/mL) solution in a single-dose vial.

“The approval of Steqeyma reflects Celltrion’s continued investment in providing treatment options to patients diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis,” said Thomas Nusbickel, Chief Commercial Officer at Celltrion USA, Jersey City, New Jersey, in a press release.

The FDA has previously approved the company’s adalimumab biosimilar Yuflyma and its infliximab biosimilar Zymfentra.

The full prescribing information for ustekinumab-stba is available here.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved ustekinumab-stba (Steqeyma) as a biosimilar to the interleukin-12 and -23 inhibitor ustekinumab (Stelara) for the treatment of adults with active Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis and for both children aged ≥ 6 years and adults with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis or active psoriatic arthritis.

This is the seventh ustekinumab biosimilar approved by the FDA. The biosimilar, developed by Celltrion, has a license entry date in February 2025 as part of the settlement and license agreement with the manufacturer of the reference biologic, Johnson & Johnson.

Ustekinumab-stba will be available in two formulations: A subcutaneous injection in two strengths — a 45 mg/0.5 mL or 90 mg/1 mL solution in a single-dose, prefilled syringe — and an intravenous infusion of a 130 mg/26 mL (5 mg/mL) solution in a single-dose vial.

“The approval of Steqeyma reflects Celltrion’s continued investment in providing treatment options to patients diagnosed with ulcerative colitis, Crohn’s disease, psoriasis, and psoriatic arthritis,” said Thomas Nusbickel, Chief Commercial Officer at Celltrion USA, Jersey City, New Jersey, in a press release.

The FDA has previously approved the company’s adalimumab biosimilar Yuflyma and its infliximab biosimilar Zymfentra.

The full prescribing information for ustekinumab-stba is available here.

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

OVIEDO, SPAIN – In April 2023, the Navarra Pharmacovigilance Center (NPC) became aware of a case involving an infant who developed progressive hair growth on their back, legs, and thighs (hypertrichosis) over the course of 2 months. During an interview with the family, it was revealed that the infant’s father had been using 5% topical minoxidil to treat androgenic alopecia, and he had taken a leave of absence from work to care for his child. After the medication was discontinued, the infant’s symptoms fully regressed. Specialists from the NPC presented the case at the 13th Spanish Pharmacovigilance Congress in November 2024.

A review of similar cases reported in the Spanish Pharmacovigilance System database identified six additional cases with the same characteristics, all involving infants whose caregivers were using minoxidil. Four more cases were found through the European pharmacovigilance database EudraVigilance and a review of scientific literature, bringing the total to 11 cases.

According to the Navarra Pharmacovigilance Bulletin, these cases are concerning as they highlight the exposure of vulnerable infants to a medication not indicated for their age group. Additionally, the condition can cause significant stress for the families of the affected children.

 

Mechanism of Transmission Unclear

The exact mechanism by which caregivers transfer minoxidil to infants is not fully understood. In the newly identified cases, specialists suspect the drug was transmitted through direct or indirect contact. Accidental ingestion is also a possibility if the infant’s hands touched treated areas on the caregiver’s skin and were then brought to the mouth.

The NPC explained that infants’ skin is more permeable because of the thinner stratum corneum and a higher surface area/body weight ratio, making them more susceptible to absorbing topically applied medications.

 

Regulatory Changes and Precautions

In light of these findings, the European Medicines Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee concluded that, starting in October 2024, product information for medications containing minoxidil should be updated. Specifically, new information must be added to the package insert warning about the risk for hypertrichosis in infants following accidental exposure to minoxidil.

The NPC emphasizes the importance of caregivers being aware of the risks associated with topical medications like minoxidil. Recommended precautions include thoroughly washing hands after applying the product and covering treated areas to prevent direct contact with infants’ skin.

Healthcare professionals should also be aware of this risk and consider it when diagnosing hypertrichosis in infants. Recognizing the connection can prevent unnecessary testing for the infant and alleviate stress for the family.

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

OVIEDO, SPAIN – In April 2023, the Navarra Pharmacovigilance Center (NPC) became aware of a case involving an infant who developed progressive hair growth on their back, legs, and thighs (hypertrichosis) over the course of 2 months. During an interview with the family, it was revealed that the infant’s father had been using 5% topical minoxidil to treat androgenic alopecia, and he had taken a leave of absence from work to care for his child. After the medication was discontinued, the infant’s symptoms fully regressed. Specialists from the NPC presented the case at the 13th Spanish Pharmacovigilance Congress in November 2024.

A review of similar cases reported in the Spanish Pharmacovigilance System database identified six additional cases with the same characteristics, all involving infants whose caregivers were using minoxidil. Four more cases were found through the European pharmacovigilance database EudraVigilance and a review of scientific literature, bringing the total to 11 cases.

According to the Navarra Pharmacovigilance Bulletin, these cases are concerning as they highlight the exposure of vulnerable infants to a medication not indicated for their age group. Additionally, the condition can cause significant stress for the families of the affected children.

 

Mechanism of Transmission Unclear

The exact mechanism by which caregivers transfer minoxidil to infants is not fully understood. In the newly identified cases, specialists suspect the drug was transmitted through direct or indirect contact. Accidental ingestion is also a possibility if the infant’s hands touched treated areas on the caregiver’s skin and were then brought to the mouth.

The NPC explained that infants’ skin is more permeable because of the thinner stratum corneum and a higher surface area/body weight ratio, making them more susceptible to absorbing topically applied medications.

 

Regulatory Changes and Precautions

In light of these findings, the European Medicines Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee concluded that, starting in October 2024, product information for medications containing minoxidil should be updated. Specifically, new information must be added to the package insert warning about the risk for hypertrichosis in infants following accidental exposure to minoxidil.

The NPC emphasizes the importance of caregivers being aware of the risks associated with topical medications like minoxidil. Recommended precautions include thoroughly washing hands after applying the product and covering treated areas to prevent direct contact with infants’ skin.

Healthcare professionals should also be aware of this risk and consider it when diagnosing hypertrichosis in infants. Recognizing the connection can prevent unnecessary testing for the infant and alleviate stress for the family.

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

OVIEDO, SPAIN – In April 2023, the Navarra Pharmacovigilance Center (NPC) became aware of a case involving an infant who developed progressive hair growth on their back, legs, and thighs (hypertrichosis) over the course of 2 months. During an interview with the family, it was revealed that the infant’s father had been using 5% topical minoxidil to treat androgenic alopecia, and he had taken a leave of absence from work to care for his child. After the medication was discontinued, the infant’s symptoms fully regressed. Specialists from the NPC presented the case at the 13th Spanish Pharmacovigilance Congress in November 2024.

A review of similar cases reported in the Spanish Pharmacovigilance System database identified six additional cases with the same characteristics, all involving infants whose caregivers were using minoxidil. Four more cases were found through the European pharmacovigilance database EudraVigilance and a review of scientific literature, bringing the total to 11 cases.

According to the Navarra Pharmacovigilance Bulletin, these cases are concerning as they highlight the exposure of vulnerable infants to a medication not indicated for their age group. Additionally, the condition can cause significant stress for the families of the affected children.

 

Mechanism of Transmission Unclear

The exact mechanism by which caregivers transfer minoxidil to infants is not fully understood. In the newly identified cases, specialists suspect the drug was transmitted through direct or indirect contact. Accidental ingestion is also a possibility if the infant’s hands touched treated areas on the caregiver’s skin and were then brought to the mouth.

The NPC explained that infants’ skin is more permeable because of the thinner stratum corneum and a higher surface area/body weight ratio, making them more susceptible to absorbing topically applied medications.

 

Regulatory Changes and Precautions

In light of these findings, the European Medicines Agency’s Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee concluded that, starting in October 2024, product information for medications containing minoxidil should be updated. Specifically, new information must be added to the package insert warning about the risk for hypertrichosis in infants following accidental exposure to minoxidil.

The NPC emphasizes the importance of caregivers being aware of the risks associated with topical medications like minoxidil. Recommended precautions include thoroughly washing hands after applying the product and covering treated areas to prevent direct contact with infants’ skin.

Healthcare professionals should also be aware of this risk and consider it when diagnosing hypertrichosis in infants. Recognizing the connection can prevent unnecessary testing for the infant and alleviate stress for the family.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Oh, insurance claim denials. When patient care or treatment is warranted by a specific diagnosis, I wish insurers would just reimburse it without any hassle. That’s not reality. Let’s talk about insurance claim denials, how they’re rising and harming patient care, and what we can do about it. That’s kind of complicated.

Rising Trend in Claim Denials and Financial Impact

First, denials are increasing. Experian Health surveyed provider revenue cycle leaders— that’s a fancy term for people who manage billing and insurance claims — and 75% said that denials are increasing. This is up from 42% a few years ago. Those surveyed also said that reimbursement times and errors in claims are also increasing, and changes in policy are happening more frequently. This all adds to the problem. 

Aside from being time-consuming and annoying, claim denials take a toll on hospitals and patients. One analysis, which made headlines everywhere, showed that hospitals and health systems spent nearly $20 billion in 2022 trying to repeal overturned claims. This analysis was done by Premier, a health insurance performance company.

 

Breakdown of Denial Rates and Costs

Let’s do some quick whiteboard math. Health insurance companies get about 3 billion claims per year. According to surveys, about 15% of those claims are denied, so that leaves us with 450 million denied claims. Hospitals spend, on average, $43.84 per denied claim in administrative fees trying to get them overturned.

That’s about $19.7 billion spent on claim denials. Here’s the gut punch: Around 54% of those claims are ultimately paid, so that leaves us with $10.7 billion that we definitely should have saved. 

 

Common Reasons for Denials

Let’s take a look at major causes and what’s going on. 

Insurance denial rates are all over the place. It depends on state and plan. According to one analysis, the average for in-network claim denials across some states was 4% to 5%. It was 40% in Mississippi. According to HealthCare.gov, in 2021, around 17% of in-network claims were denied. 

The most common reasons were excluded services, a lack of referral or preauthorization, or a medical treatment not being deemed necessary. Then there’s the black box of “other,” just some arbitrary reason to make a claim denial. 

Many times, these denials are done by an algorithm, not by individual people. 

What’s more, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that private insurers, including Medicare Advantage plans, were more likely to deny claims than public options. 

When broken down, the problem was higher among employer-sponsored and marketplace insurance, and less so with Medicare and Medicaid. 

 

Impact on Patient Care

Many consumers don’t truly understand what their health insurance covers and what’s going to be out of pocket, and many people don’t know that they have appeal rights. They don’t know who to call for help either. 

The ACA set up Consumer Assistance Programs (CAPs), which are designed to help people navigate health insurance problems. By law, private insurers have to share data with CAPs. Yet, only 3% of people who had trouble with health insurance claims called a CAP for help.

We all know some of the downstream effects of this problem. Patients may skip or delay treatments if they can’t get insurance to cover it or it’s too expensive. When post-acute care, such as transfer to a skilled nursing facility or rehab center, isn’t covered and we’re trying to discharge patients from the hospital, hospital stays become lengthened, which means they’re more expensive, and this comes with its own set of complications.

 

How Can We Address This?

I’m genuinely curious about what you all have done to efficiently address this problem. I’m looking at this publication from the American Health Information Management Association about major reasons for denial. We’ve already talked about a lack of preauthorization or procedures not being covered, but there are also reasons such as missing or incorrect information, duplicate claims, and not filing within the appropriate time.

Also, if treatments or procedures are bundled, they can’t be filed separately. 

Preventing all of this would take a large effort. Healthcare systems would have to have a dedicated team, who would understand all the major reasons for denials, identify common patterns, and then fill everything out with accurate information, with referrals, with preauthorizations, high-specificity codes, and the correct modifiers — and do all of this within the filing deadline every time. 

You would need physicians on board, but also people from IT, finance, compliance, case management, registration, and probably a bunch of other people who are already stretched too thin. 

Perhaps our government can do more to hold insurers accountable and make sure plans, such as Medicare Advantage, are holding up their end of the public health bargain.

It’s an uphill $20 billion battle, but I’m optimistic. What about you? What’s your unfiltered take on claim denials? What more can we be doing?

Dr. Patel is a clinical instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; pediatric hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork-Presbyterian, New York City, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Francisco. He reported a conflict of interest with Medumo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Oh, insurance claim denials. When patient care or treatment is warranted by a specific diagnosis, I wish insurers would just reimburse it without any hassle. That’s not reality. Let’s talk about insurance claim denials, how they’re rising and harming patient care, and what we can do about it. That’s kind of complicated.

Rising Trend in Claim Denials and Financial Impact

First, denials are increasing. Experian Health surveyed provider revenue cycle leaders— that’s a fancy term for people who manage billing and insurance claims — and 75% said that denials are increasing. This is up from 42% a few years ago. Those surveyed also said that reimbursement times and errors in claims are also increasing, and changes in policy are happening more frequently. This all adds to the problem. 

Aside from being time-consuming and annoying, claim denials take a toll on hospitals and patients. One analysis, which made headlines everywhere, showed that hospitals and health systems spent nearly $20 billion in 2022 trying to repeal overturned claims. This analysis was done by Premier, a health insurance performance company.

 

Breakdown of Denial Rates and Costs

Let’s do some quick whiteboard math. Health insurance companies get about 3 billion claims per year. According to surveys, about 15% of those claims are denied, so that leaves us with 450 million denied claims. Hospitals spend, on average, $43.84 per denied claim in administrative fees trying to get them overturned.

That’s about $19.7 billion spent on claim denials. Here’s the gut punch: Around 54% of those claims are ultimately paid, so that leaves us with $10.7 billion that we definitely should have saved. 

 

Common Reasons for Denials

Let’s take a look at major causes and what’s going on. 

Insurance denial rates are all over the place. It depends on state and plan. According to one analysis, the average for in-network claim denials across some states was 4% to 5%. It was 40% in Mississippi. According to HealthCare.gov, in 2021, around 17% of in-network claims were denied. 

The most common reasons were excluded services, a lack of referral or preauthorization, or a medical treatment not being deemed necessary. Then there’s the black box of “other,” just some arbitrary reason to make a claim denial. 

Many times, these denials are done by an algorithm, not by individual people. 

What’s more, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that private insurers, including Medicare Advantage plans, were more likely to deny claims than public options. 

When broken down, the problem was higher among employer-sponsored and marketplace insurance, and less so with Medicare and Medicaid. 

 

Impact on Patient Care

Many consumers don’t truly understand what their health insurance covers and what’s going to be out of pocket, and many people don’t know that they have appeal rights. They don’t know who to call for help either. 

The ACA set up Consumer Assistance Programs (CAPs), which are designed to help people navigate health insurance problems. By law, private insurers have to share data with CAPs. Yet, only 3% of people who had trouble with health insurance claims called a CAP for help.

We all know some of the downstream effects of this problem. Patients may skip or delay treatments if they can’t get insurance to cover it or it’s too expensive. When post-acute care, such as transfer to a skilled nursing facility or rehab center, isn’t covered and we’re trying to discharge patients from the hospital, hospital stays become lengthened, which means they’re more expensive, and this comes with its own set of complications.

 

How Can We Address This?

I’m genuinely curious about what you all have done to efficiently address this problem. I’m looking at this publication from the American Health Information Management Association about major reasons for denial. We’ve already talked about a lack of preauthorization or procedures not being covered, but there are also reasons such as missing or incorrect information, duplicate claims, and not filing within the appropriate time.

Also, if treatments or procedures are bundled, they can’t be filed separately. 

Preventing all of this would take a large effort. Healthcare systems would have to have a dedicated team, who would understand all the major reasons for denials, identify common patterns, and then fill everything out with accurate information, with referrals, with preauthorizations, high-specificity codes, and the correct modifiers — and do all of this within the filing deadline every time. 

You would need physicians on board, but also people from IT, finance, compliance, case management, registration, and probably a bunch of other people who are already stretched too thin. 

Perhaps our government can do more to hold insurers accountable and make sure plans, such as Medicare Advantage, are holding up their end of the public health bargain.

It’s an uphill $20 billion battle, but I’m optimistic. What about you? What’s your unfiltered take on claim denials? What more can we be doing?

Dr. Patel is a clinical instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; pediatric hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork-Presbyterian, New York City, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Francisco. He reported a conflict of interest with Medumo.

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

This transcript has been edited for clarity. 

Oh, insurance claim denials. When patient care or treatment is warranted by a specific diagnosis, I wish insurers would just reimburse it without any hassle. That’s not reality. Let’s talk about insurance claim denials, how they’re rising and harming patient care, and what we can do about it. That’s kind of complicated.

Rising Trend in Claim Denials and Financial Impact

First, denials are increasing. Experian Health surveyed provider revenue cycle leaders— that’s a fancy term for people who manage billing and insurance claims — and 75% said that denials are increasing. This is up from 42% a few years ago. Those surveyed also said that reimbursement times and errors in claims are also increasing, and changes in policy are happening more frequently. This all adds to the problem. 

Aside from being time-consuming and annoying, claim denials take a toll on hospitals and patients. One analysis, which made headlines everywhere, showed that hospitals and health systems spent nearly $20 billion in 2022 trying to repeal overturned claims. This analysis was done by Premier, a health insurance performance company.

 

Breakdown of Denial Rates and Costs

Let’s do some quick whiteboard math. Health insurance companies get about 3 billion claims per year. According to surveys, about 15% of those claims are denied, so that leaves us with 450 million denied claims. Hospitals spend, on average, $43.84 per denied claim in administrative fees trying to get them overturned.

That’s about $19.7 billion spent on claim denials. Here’s the gut punch: Around 54% of those claims are ultimately paid, so that leaves us with $10.7 billion that we definitely should have saved. 

 

Common Reasons for Denials

Let’s take a look at major causes and what’s going on. 

Insurance denial rates are all over the place. It depends on state and plan. According to one analysis, the average for in-network claim denials across some states was 4% to 5%. It was 40% in Mississippi. According to HealthCare.gov, in 2021, around 17% of in-network claims were denied. 

The most common reasons were excluded services, a lack of referral or preauthorization, or a medical treatment not being deemed necessary. Then there’s the black box of “other,” just some arbitrary reason to make a claim denial. 

Many times, these denials are done by an algorithm, not by individual people. 

What’s more, a Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that private insurers, including Medicare Advantage plans, were more likely to deny claims than public options. 

When broken down, the problem was higher among employer-sponsored and marketplace insurance, and less so with Medicare and Medicaid. 

 

Impact on Patient Care

Many consumers don’t truly understand what their health insurance covers and what’s going to be out of pocket, and many people don’t know that they have appeal rights. They don’t know who to call for help either. 

The ACA set up Consumer Assistance Programs (CAPs), which are designed to help people navigate health insurance problems. By law, private insurers have to share data with CAPs. Yet, only 3% of people who had trouble with health insurance claims called a CAP for help.

We all know some of the downstream effects of this problem. Patients may skip or delay treatments if they can’t get insurance to cover it or it’s too expensive. When post-acute care, such as transfer to a skilled nursing facility or rehab center, isn’t covered and we’re trying to discharge patients from the hospital, hospital stays become lengthened, which means they’re more expensive, and this comes with its own set of complications.

 

How Can We Address This?

I’m genuinely curious about what you all have done to efficiently address this problem. I’m looking at this publication from the American Health Information Management Association about major reasons for denial. We’ve already talked about a lack of preauthorization or procedures not being covered, but there are also reasons such as missing or incorrect information, duplicate claims, and not filing within the appropriate time.

Also, if treatments or procedures are bundled, they can’t be filed separately. 

Preventing all of this would take a large effort. Healthcare systems would have to have a dedicated team, who would understand all the major reasons for denials, identify common patterns, and then fill everything out with accurate information, with referrals, with preauthorizations, high-specificity codes, and the correct modifiers — and do all of this within the filing deadline every time. 

You would need physicians on board, but also people from IT, finance, compliance, case management, registration, and probably a bunch of other people who are already stretched too thin. 

Perhaps our government can do more to hold insurers accountable and make sure plans, such as Medicare Advantage, are holding up their end of the public health bargain.

It’s an uphill $20 billion battle, but I’m optimistic. What about you? What’s your unfiltered take on claim denials? What more can we be doing?

Dr. Patel is a clinical instructor, Department of Pediatrics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons; pediatric hospitalist, Morgan Stanley Children’s Hospital of NewYork-Presbyterian, New York City, and Benioff Children’s Hospital, University of California, San Francisco. He reported a conflict of interest with Medumo.

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

Alpha-gal syndrome (AGS), a tickborne disease commonly called “red meat allergy,” is a serious, potentially life-threatening allergy to the carbohydrate alpha-gal. The alpha-gal carbohydrate is found in most mammals, though it is not in humans, apes, or old-world monkeys. People with AGS can have allergic reactions when they consume mammalian meat, dairy products, or other products derived from mammals. People often live with this disease for years before receiving a correct diagnosis, greatly impacting their quality of life. The number of suspected cases is also rising. 

More than 110,000 suspected AGS cases were identified between 2010 and 2022, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report.¹ However, because the diagnosis requires a positive test and a clinical exam and some people may not get tested, as many as 450,000 people might be affected by AGS in the United States. Additionally, a CDC survey found that nearly half (42%) of US healthcare providers had never heard of AGS.² Among those who had, less than one third (29%) knew how to diagnose the condition. 

Here are 5 things clinicians need to know about AGS.

 

1. People can develop AGS after being bitten by a tick, primarily the lone star tick (Amblyomma americanum), in the United States.

In the United States, AGS is primarily associated with the bite of a lone star tick, but other kinds of ticks have not been ruled out. The majority of suspected AGS cases in the United States were reported in parts of Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Virginia. The lone star tick is widely distributed with established populations in Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

While AGS is associated with tick bites, more research is needed to understand the role ticks play in starting this condition, and why certain people develop AGS. Anyone can develop AGS, but most cases have been reported in adults. 

Know how to recognize the symptoms of AGS and be prepared to test, diagnose, and manage AGS, particularly in states where lone star ticks are found. 

 

2. Tick bites are only one risk factor for developing AGS. 

Many people are bitten by lone star ticks and will never develop AGS. Scientists are exploring the connection between other risk factors and developing AGS. A recent study has shown that people diagnosed with AGS may be more likely to have a family member who was also diagnosed with AGS, have another food allergy, have an allergy to stinging or biting insects, or have A or O blood types.³ 

Research has also shown that environmental risk factors could contribute to developing AGS,⁴ like living in an area with lone star ticks, remembering finding a tick on themselves, recalling multiple tick bites, living near a wooded forest, spending more time outside, or living in areas with deer, such as larger properties, wooded forests, and properties with shrubs and brush. 

Ask your patient questions about other allergies and history of recent tick bites or outdoor exposure to help determine if testing for AGS is appropriate.

 

3. Symptoms of AGS are consistently inconsistent.

There is a spectrum of how sensitive AGS patients are to alpha-gal, and reactions are often different from person to person, which can make it difficult to diagnose. The first allergic reaction to AGS typically occurs between 1-6 months after a tick bite. Symptoms commonly appear 2-6 hours after being in contact with products containing alpha-gal, like red meat (beef, pork, lamb, venison, rabbit, or other meat from mammals), dairy, and some medications. Symptoms can range from mild to severe and include hives or itchy rash; swelling of the lips, throat, tongue, or eyelids; gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea; heartburn or indigestion; cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing; dizziness or a drop in blood pressure; or anaphylaxis.

Consider AGS if a patient reports waking up in the middle of the night with allergic symptoms after eating alpha-gal containing products for dinner, if allergic reactions are delayed, or if a patient has anaphylaxis of unknown cause, adult-onset allergy, or allergic symptoms and reports a recent tick bite. 

 

4. Diagnosing AGS requires a combination of a blood test and a physical exam.

Diagnosing AGS requires a detailed patient history, physical exam, and a blood test to detect specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies specific to alpha-gal (alpha-gal sIgE). Tests for alpha-gal sIgE antibodies are available at several large commercial laboratories and some academic institutions. Skin tests to identify reactions to allergens like pork or beef may also be used to inform AGS diagnosis. However, a positive alpha-gal sIgE test or skin test does not mean a person has AGS. Many people, particularly those who live in regions with lone star ticks, have positive alpha-gal specific IgE tests without having AGS. 

Consider the test results along with your patient’s symptoms and risk factors.

 

5. There is no treatment for AGS, but people can take prevention steps and AGS can be managed.

People can protect themselves and their family from AGS by preventing tick bites. Encourage your patients to use an Environmental Protection Agency–registered insect repellent outdoors, wear permethrin-treated clothing, and conduct thorough tick checks after outdoor activities. 

Once a person is no longer exposed to alpha-gal containing products, they should no longer experience symptoms. People with AGS should also proactively prevent tick bites. Tick bites can trigger or reactivate AGS.

For patients who have AGS, help manage their symptoms and identify alpha-gal containing products to avoid.

Dr. Kersh is Chief of the Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, and disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

CDC resources:

About Alpha-gal Syndrome | Alpha-gal Syndrome | CDC 

Clinical Testing and Diagnosis for Alpha-gal Syndrome | Alpha-gal Syndrome | CDC 

Clinical Resources | Alpha-gal Syndrome | CDC 

References 

Thompson JM et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:815-820. 

Carpenter A et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:809-814. Taylor ML et al. Ann Allergy, Asthma & Immunol. 2024 Jun;132(6):759.e2-764.e2. Kersh GJ et al. Ann Allergy, Asthma & Immunol. 2023 Apr;130(4):472-478.

Alpha-gal syndrome (AGS), a tickborne disease commonly called “red meat allergy,” is a serious, potentially life-threatening allergy to the carbohydrate alpha-gal. The alpha-gal carbohydrate is found in most mammals, though it is not in humans, apes, or old-world monkeys. People with AGS can have allergic reactions when they consume mammalian meat, dairy products, or other products derived from mammals. People often live with this disease for years before receiving a correct diagnosis, greatly impacting their quality of life. The number of suspected cases is also rising. 

More than 110,000 suspected AGS cases were identified between 2010 and 2022, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report.¹ However, because the diagnosis requires a positive test and a clinical exam and some people may not get tested, as many as 450,000 people might be affected by AGS in the United States. Additionally, a CDC survey found that nearly half (42%) of US healthcare providers had never heard of AGS.² Among those who had, less than one third (29%) knew how to diagnose the condition. 

Here are 5 things clinicians need to know about AGS.

 

1. People can develop AGS after being bitten by a tick, primarily the lone star tick (Amblyomma americanum), in the United States.

In the United States, AGS is primarily associated with the bite of a lone star tick, but other kinds of ticks have not been ruled out. The majority of suspected AGS cases in the United States were reported in parts of Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Virginia. The lone star tick is widely distributed with established populations in Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

While AGS is associated with tick bites, more research is needed to understand the role ticks play in starting this condition, and why certain people develop AGS. Anyone can develop AGS, but most cases have been reported in adults. 

Know how to recognize the symptoms of AGS and be prepared to test, diagnose, and manage AGS, particularly in states where lone star ticks are found. 

 

2. Tick bites are only one risk factor for developing AGS. 

Many people are bitten by lone star ticks and will never develop AGS. Scientists are exploring the connection between other risk factors and developing AGS. A recent study has shown that people diagnosed with AGS may be more likely to have a family member who was also diagnosed with AGS, have another food allergy, have an allergy to stinging or biting insects, or have A or O blood types.³ 

Research has also shown that environmental risk factors could contribute to developing AGS,⁴ like living in an area with lone star ticks, remembering finding a tick on themselves, recalling multiple tick bites, living near a wooded forest, spending more time outside, or living in areas with deer, such as larger properties, wooded forests, and properties with shrubs and brush. 

Ask your patient questions about other allergies and history of recent tick bites or outdoor exposure to help determine if testing for AGS is appropriate.

 

3. Symptoms of AGS are consistently inconsistent.

There is a spectrum of how sensitive AGS patients are to alpha-gal, and reactions are often different from person to person, which can make it difficult to diagnose. The first allergic reaction to AGS typically occurs between 1-6 months after a tick bite. Symptoms commonly appear 2-6 hours after being in contact with products containing alpha-gal, like red meat (beef, pork, lamb, venison, rabbit, or other meat from mammals), dairy, and some medications. Symptoms can range from mild to severe and include hives or itchy rash; swelling of the lips, throat, tongue, or eyelids; gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea; heartburn or indigestion; cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing; dizziness or a drop in blood pressure; or anaphylaxis.

Consider AGS if a patient reports waking up in the middle of the night with allergic symptoms after eating alpha-gal containing products for dinner, if allergic reactions are delayed, or if a patient has anaphylaxis of unknown cause, adult-onset allergy, or allergic symptoms and reports a recent tick bite. 

 

4. Diagnosing AGS requires a combination of a blood test and a physical exam.

Diagnosing AGS requires a detailed patient history, physical exam, and a blood test to detect specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies specific to alpha-gal (alpha-gal sIgE). Tests for alpha-gal sIgE antibodies are available at several large commercial laboratories and some academic institutions. Skin tests to identify reactions to allergens like pork or beef may also be used to inform AGS diagnosis. However, a positive alpha-gal sIgE test or skin test does not mean a person has AGS. Many people, particularly those who live in regions with lone star ticks, have positive alpha-gal specific IgE tests without having AGS. 

Consider the test results along with your patient’s symptoms and risk factors.

 

5. There is no treatment for AGS, but people can take prevention steps and AGS can be managed.

People can protect themselves and their family from AGS by preventing tick bites. Encourage your patients to use an Environmental Protection Agency–registered insect repellent outdoors, wear permethrin-treated clothing, and conduct thorough tick checks after outdoor activities. 

Once a person is no longer exposed to alpha-gal containing products, they should no longer experience symptoms. People with AGS should also proactively prevent tick bites. Tick bites can trigger or reactivate AGS.

For patients who have AGS, help manage their symptoms and identify alpha-gal containing products to avoid.

Dr. Kersh is Chief of the Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, and disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

CDC resources:

About Alpha-gal Syndrome | Alpha-gal Syndrome | CDC 

Clinical Testing and Diagnosis for Alpha-gal Syndrome | Alpha-gal Syndrome | CDC 

Clinical Resources | Alpha-gal Syndrome | CDC 

References 

Thompson JM et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:815-820. 

Carpenter A et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:809-814. Taylor ML et al. Ann Allergy, Asthma & Immunol. 2024 Jun;132(6):759.e2-764.e2. Kersh GJ et al. Ann Allergy, Asthma & Immunol. 2023 Apr;130(4):472-478.

Alpha-gal syndrome (AGS), a tickborne disease commonly called “red meat allergy,” is a serious, potentially life-threatening allergy to the carbohydrate alpha-gal. The alpha-gal carbohydrate is found in most mammals, though it is not in humans, apes, or old-world monkeys. People with AGS can have allergic reactions when they consume mammalian meat, dairy products, or other products derived from mammals. People often live with this disease for years before receiving a correct diagnosis, greatly impacting their quality of life. The number of suspected cases is also rising. 

More than 110,000 suspected AGS cases were identified between 2010 and 2022, according to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report.¹ However, because the diagnosis requires a positive test and a clinical exam and some people may not get tested, as many as 450,000 people might be affected by AGS in the United States. Additionally, a CDC survey found that nearly half (42%) of US healthcare providers had never heard of AGS.² Among those who had, less than one third (29%) knew how to diagnose the condition. 

Here are 5 things clinicians need to know about AGS.

 

1. People can develop AGS after being bitten by a tick, primarily the lone star tick (Amblyomma americanum), in the United States.

In the United States, AGS is primarily associated with the bite of a lone star tick, but other kinds of ticks have not been ruled out. The majority of suspected AGS cases in the United States were reported in parts of Arkansas, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Virginia. The lone star tick is widely distributed with established populations in Alabama, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. 

While AGS is associated with tick bites, more research is needed to understand the role ticks play in starting this condition, and why certain people develop AGS. Anyone can develop AGS, but most cases have been reported in adults. 

Know how to recognize the symptoms of AGS and be prepared to test, diagnose, and manage AGS, particularly in states where lone star ticks are found. 

 

2. Tick bites are only one risk factor for developing AGS. 

Many people are bitten by lone star ticks and will never develop AGS. Scientists are exploring the connection between other risk factors and developing AGS. A recent study has shown that people diagnosed with AGS may be more likely to have a family member who was also diagnosed with AGS, have another food allergy, have an allergy to stinging or biting insects, or have A or O blood types.³ 

Research has also shown that environmental risk factors could contribute to developing AGS,⁴ like living in an area with lone star ticks, remembering finding a tick on themselves, recalling multiple tick bites, living near a wooded forest, spending more time outside, or living in areas with deer, such as larger properties, wooded forests, and properties with shrubs and brush. 

Ask your patient questions about other allergies and history of recent tick bites or outdoor exposure to help determine if testing for AGS is appropriate.

 

3. Symptoms of AGS are consistently inconsistent.

There is a spectrum of how sensitive AGS patients are to alpha-gal, and reactions are often different from person to person, which can make it difficult to diagnose. The first allergic reaction to AGS typically occurs between 1-6 months after a tick bite. Symptoms commonly appear 2-6 hours after being in contact with products containing alpha-gal, like red meat (beef, pork, lamb, venison, rabbit, or other meat from mammals), dairy, and some medications. Symptoms can range from mild to severe and include hives or itchy rash; swelling of the lips, throat, tongue, or eyelids; gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea; heartburn or indigestion; cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathing; dizziness or a drop in blood pressure; or anaphylaxis.

Consider AGS if a patient reports waking up in the middle of the night with allergic symptoms after eating alpha-gal containing products for dinner, if allergic reactions are delayed, or if a patient has anaphylaxis of unknown cause, adult-onset allergy, or allergic symptoms and reports a recent tick bite. 

 

4. Diagnosing AGS requires a combination of a blood test and a physical exam.

Diagnosing AGS requires a detailed patient history, physical exam, and a blood test to detect specific immunoglobulin E (IgE) antibodies specific to alpha-gal (alpha-gal sIgE). Tests for alpha-gal sIgE antibodies are available at several large commercial laboratories and some academic institutions. Skin tests to identify reactions to allergens like pork or beef may also be used to inform AGS diagnosis. However, a positive alpha-gal sIgE test or skin test does not mean a person has AGS. Many people, particularly those who live in regions with lone star ticks, have positive alpha-gal specific IgE tests without having AGS. 

Consider the test results along with your patient’s symptoms and risk factors.

 

5. There is no treatment for AGS, but people can take prevention steps and AGS can be managed.

People can protect themselves and their family from AGS by preventing tick bites. Encourage your patients to use an Environmental Protection Agency–registered insect repellent outdoors, wear permethrin-treated clothing, and conduct thorough tick checks after outdoor activities. 

Once a person is no longer exposed to alpha-gal containing products, they should no longer experience symptoms. People with AGS should also proactively prevent tick bites. Tick bites can trigger or reactivate AGS.

For patients who have AGS, help manage their symptoms and identify alpha-gal containing products to avoid.

Dr. Kersh is Chief of the Rickettsial Zoonoses Branch, Division of Vector-Borne Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, and disclosed no relevant conflicts of interest.

CDC resources:

About Alpha-gal Syndrome | Alpha-gal Syndrome | CDC 

Clinical Testing and Diagnosis for Alpha-gal Syndrome | Alpha-gal Syndrome | CDC 

Clinical Resources | Alpha-gal Syndrome | CDC 

References 

Thompson JM et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:815-820. 

Carpenter A et al. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72:809-814. Taylor ML et al. Ann Allergy, Asthma & Immunol. 2024 Jun;132(6):759.e2-764.e2. Kersh GJ et al. Ann Allergy, Asthma & Immunol. 2023 Apr;130(4):472-478.

NEW YORK, NY — Work over the past several years has reframed hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) as a large-field inflammatory process, a recharacterization that has immediate relevance to treatment strategies and goals, according to two investigators intimately involved in much of the recent progress.

“Success is being achieved by targeting multiple inflammatory axes in HS, and therapeutics are evolving rapidly,” reported James G. Krueger, MD, PhD, head of the Laboratory of Investigative Dermatology, Rockefeller University, New York, NY.

The activity of targeted anti-inflammatory therapies — bimekizumab just joined adalimumab and secukinumab as a third approved biologic for HS — is not news, but the degree to which inflammation is upregulated systemically, not just at areas of skin involvement, has changed the conceptualization of HS.

HS Is a Systemic Inflammatory Disease

Relative to psoriasis, for which there are many parallels, “HS is hugely more inflammatory in the systemic circulation,” Krueger said at the 27th Annual Winter Symposium — Advances in Medical and Surgical Dermatology (MSWS) 2024. Yet, HS is also more complex involving additional pathways that appear to include dysbiosis. The concept of follicular occlusion, once a common explanation for HS, has been left far behind.

“Unlike psoriasis, which we can treat really well by inhibiting a single pathway target, HS is just not that simple,” Krueger said. Although largely an inflammatory process, the cascade of inflammatory factors for specific manifestations, such as tunnels, means that optimal therapy in one case might have little benefit in another.

The relatively new evidence that HS activity is not confined to lesional skin might be the most important recent step toward new strategies to target disease. These studies were performed by Kristina Navrazhina, MD, PhD, now a resident in dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She received her PhD while studying HS activity in non-lesional skin. Her work has led her to conclude that the best chance for better outcomes in HS is early diagnosis and treatment. Although this is generally true of any pathology, the changes in the HS phenotype once fistulae form includes a poor response to conventional therapies. 

In fact, based on her work in evaluating HS activity in non-lesional skin, Navrazhina has shown that “many patients with modest lesions already have advanced disease.” Consistent with the premise that HS is a deeply systemic inflammatory process, nodules, considered an early manifestation, turn out to be “the tip of the iceberg.”

 

Non-Lesional HS Skin Is Inflamed

When she has employed RNA sequencing based on tape strip sampling from completely normal skin away from nodules, interleukin (IL)-17 and a broad array of other inflammatory markers were found to be upregulated. When she performed ultrasound to look for disease activity under the normal skin, she has often found tunnels already formed. Doppler ultrasound showed some of these tunnels were actively draining.

This might provide a partial explanation for why therapies are not always effective even when clinical signs of disease are modest. 

“Are we missing the opportunity for intervening?” Navrazhina asked, noting that early intervention has been limited traditionally by extremely long diagnostic delays. Citing the literature, Navrazhina said the average delay is 7 years for HS versus 1 year for psoriasis. Patients often cycle through 3 or 4 providers before the diagnosis is made, she said.

Awakening first-line clinicians to the signs and symptoms of HS, whether in the emergency room or primary care, is a critical message because of the incrementally difficult task to control disease once fistulae have formed. 

Krueger made the same appeal. For the neutrophilic inflammation that characterizes nodules, targeted therapies are often effective, but he agreed that available therapies are generally far less so once tunnels form.

 

Role Seen for Bacteria in HS Pathogenesis

One reason might be an interaction between anaerobic bacteria and the keratinocytes that form the tunnel walls, according to Krueger. Although HS is not typically considered an infectious disease, he reported that the interaction of these bacteria with keratinocytes is associated with expression of approximately 1000 inflammatory gene products. The process of tunnel formation is traced to how factors recruited by upregulated inflammation, such as chemokines, coordinate.

He described recent work pursing novel strategies such as highly targeted antibiotics or inhibitors of complement factor C5a, which has been proposed as a biomarker for HS, to intervene in preventing or reversing HS tunnels. 

While this work progresses, one of the most Important unmet needs in HS is an accepted measure of clinically meaningful improvement in advanced disease, particularly the impact of therapy on HS tunnels, according to Krueger. 

“There is no measure of tunnel activity that the FDA accepts in evaluating drugs,” he noted, which will be essential for approving therapies that offer this benefit. 

A phase 3 trials program for one of the promising drugs, sonelokimab, was announced early in 2024. A nanobody that targets IL-17A/A, IL-17A/F, and IL-17F/F, the small size of this molecule permits exceptional tissue penetration while the broad anti-IL-17 activity has a high degree of theoretical potential in late-stage HS, according to Krueger. 

There are numerous pieces of the HS puzzle that are still missing, but both Krueger and Navrazhina are enthusiastic about new targets and opportunities for disease control that are stemming from a better understanding of the underlying pathophysiology. Not least, both indicated that testing for inflammatory phenotypes will allow for individualized therapeutic choices with a maximum likelihood of response, particularly if earlier diagnosis permits earlier treatment. 

“Due to the heterogeneity of HS, it is hard to know who will respond to which treatment or which treatment should be started first,” Navrazhina said. She thinks that early measures of the inflammatory profile in nodules or even non-lesional skin might provide that guidance. 

Both Krueger and Navrazhina reported no financial relationships relevant to this work. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK, NY — Work over the past several years has reframed hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) as a large-field inflammatory process, a recharacterization that has immediate relevance to treatment strategies and goals, according to two investigators intimately involved in much of the recent progress.

“Success is being achieved by targeting multiple inflammatory axes in HS, and therapeutics are evolving rapidly,” reported James G. Krueger, MD, PhD, head of the Laboratory of Investigative Dermatology, Rockefeller University, New York, NY.

The activity of targeted anti-inflammatory therapies — bimekizumab just joined adalimumab and secukinumab as a third approved biologic for HS — is not news, but the degree to which inflammation is upregulated systemically, not just at areas of skin involvement, has changed the conceptualization of HS.

HS Is a Systemic Inflammatory Disease

Relative to psoriasis, for which there are many parallels, “HS is hugely more inflammatory in the systemic circulation,” Krueger said at the 27th Annual Winter Symposium — Advances in Medical and Surgical Dermatology (MSWS) 2024. Yet, HS is also more complex involving additional pathways that appear to include dysbiosis. The concept of follicular occlusion, once a common explanation for HS, has been left far behind.

“Unlike psoriasis, which we can treat really well by inhibiting a single pathway target, HS is just not that simple,” Krueger said. Although largely an inflammatory process, the cascade of inflammatory factors for specific manifestations, such as tunnels, means that optimal therapy in one case might have little benefit in another.

The relatively new evidence that HS activity is not confined to lesional skin might be the most important recent step toward new strategies to target disease. These studies were performed by Kristina Navrazhina, MD, PhD, now a resident in dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She received her PhD while studying HS activity in non-lesional skin. Her work has led her to conclude that the best chance for better outcomes in HS is early diagnosis and treatment. Although this is generally true of any pathology, the changes in the HS phenotype once fistulae form includes a poor response to conventional therapies. 

In fact, based on her work in evaluating HS activity in non-lesional skin, Navrazhina has shown that “many patients with modest lesions already have advanced disease.” Consistent with the premise that HS is a deeply systemic inflammatory process, nodules, considered an early manifestation, turn out to be “the tip of the iceberg.”

 

Non-Lesional HS Skin Is Inflamed

When she has employed RNA sequencing based on tape strip sampling from completely normal skin away from nodules, interleukin (IL)-17 and a broad array of other inflammatory markers were found to be upregulated. When she performed ultrasound to look for disease activity under the normal skin, she has often found tunnels already formed. Doppler ultrasound showed some of these tunnels were actively draining.

This might provide a partial explanation for why therapies are not always effective even when clinical signs of disease are modest. 

“Are we missing the opportunity for intervening?” Navrazhina asked, noting that early intervention has been limited traditionally by extremely long diagnostic delays. Citing the literature, Navrazhina said the average delay is 7 years for HS versus 1 year for psoriasis. Patients often cycle through 3 or 4 providers before the diagnosis is made, she said.

Awakening first-line clinicians to the signs and symptoms of HS, whether in the emergency room or primary care, is a critical message because of the incrementally difficult task to control disease once fistulae have formed. 

Krueger made the same appeal. For the neutrophilic inflammation that characterizes nodules, targeted therapies are often effective, but he agreed that available therapies are generally far less so once tunnels form.

 

Role Seen for Bacteria in HS Pathogenesis

One reason might be an interaction between anaerobic bacteria and the keratinocytes that form the tunnel walls, according to Krueger. Although HS is not typically considered an infectious disease, he reported that the interaction of these bacteria with keratinocytes is associated with expression of approximately 1000 inflammatory gene products. The process of tunnel formation is traced to how factors recruited by upregulated inflammation, such as chemokines, coordinate.

He described recent work pursing novel strategies such as highly targeted antibiotics or inhibitors of complement factor C5a, which has been proposed as a biomarker for HS, to intervene in preventing or reversing HS tunnels. 

While this work progresses, one of the most Important unmet needs in HS is an accepted measure of clinically meaningful improvement in advanced disease, particularly the impact of therapy on HS tunnels, according to Krueger. 

“There is no measure of tunnel activity that the FDA accepts in evaluating drugs,” he noted, which will be essential for approving therapies that offer this benefit. 

A phase 3 trials program for one of the promising drugs, sonelokimab, was announced early in 2024. A nanobody that targets IL-17A/A, IL-17A/F, and IL-17F/F, the small size of this molecule permits exceptional tissue penetration while the broad anti-IL-17 activity has a high degree of theoretical potential in late-stage HS, according to Krueger. 

There are numerous pieces of the HS puzzle that are still missing, but both Krueger and Navrazhina are enthusiastic about new targets and opportunities for disease control that are stemming from a better understanding of the underlying pathophysiology. Not least, both indicated that testing for inflammatory phenotypes will allow for individualized therapeutic choices with a maximum likelihood of response, particularly if earlier diagnosis permits earlier treatment. 

“Due to the heterogeneity of HS, it is hard to know who will respond to which treatment or which treatment should be started first,” Navrazhina said. She thinks that early measures of the inflammatory profile in nodules or even non-lesional skin might provide that guidance. 

Both Krueger and Navrazhina reported no financial relationships relevant to this work. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

NEW YORK, NY — Work over the past several years has reframed hidradenitis suppurativa (HS) as a large-field inflammatory process, a recharacterization that has immediate relevance to treatment strategies and goals, according to two investigators intimately involved in much of the recent progress.

“Success is being achieved by targeting multiple inflammatory axes in HS, and therapeutics are evolving rapidly,” reported James G. Krueger, MD, PhD, head of the Laboratory of Investigative Dermatology, Rockefeller University, New York, NY.

The activity of targeted anti-inflammatory therapies — bimekizumab just joined adalimumab and secukinumab as a third approved biologic for HS — is not news, but the degree to which inflammation is upregulated systemically, not just at areas of skin involvement, has changed the conceptualization of HS.

HS Is a Systemic Inflammatory Disease

Relative to psoriasis, for which there are many parallels, “HS is hugely more inflammatory in the systemic circulation,” Krueger said at the 27th Annual Winter Symposium — Advances in Medical and Surgical Dermatology (MSWS) 2024. Yet, HS is also more complex involving additional pathways that appear to include dysbiosis. The concept of follicular occlusion, once a common explanation for HS, has been left far behind.

“Unlike psoriasis, which we can treat really well by inhibiting a single pathway target, HS is just not that simple,” Krueger said. Although largely an inflammatory process, the cascade of inflammatory factors for specific manifestations, such as tunnels, means that optimal therapy in one case might have little benefit in another.

The relatively new evidence that HS activity is not confined to lesional skin might be the most important recent step toward new strategies to target disease. These studies were performed by Kristina Navrazhina, MD, PhD, now a resident in dermatology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York. She received her PhD while studying HS activity in non-lesional skin. Her work has led her to conclude that the best chance for better outcomes in HS is early diagnosis and treatment. Although this is generally true of any pathology, the changes in the HS phenotype once fistulae form includes a poor response to conventional therapies. 

In fact, based on her work in evaluating HS activity in non-lesional skin, Navrazhina has shown that “many patients with modest lesions already have advanced disease.” Consistent with the premise that HS is a deeply systemic inflammatory process, nodules, considered an early manifestation, turn out to be “the tip of the iceberg.”

 

Non-Lesional HS Skin Is Inflamed

When she has employed RNA sequencing based on tape strip sampling from completely normal skin away from nodules, interleukin (IL)-17 and a broad array of other inflammatory markers were found to be upregulated. When she performed ultrasound to look for disease activity under the normal skin, she has often found tunnels already formed. Doppler ultrasound showed some of these tunnels were actively draining.

This might provide a partial explanation for why therapies are not always effective even when clinical signs of disease are modest. 

“Are we missing the opportunity for intervening?” Navrazhina asked, noting that early intervention has been limited traditionally by extremely long diagnostic delays. Citing the literature, Navrazhina said the average delay is 7 years for HS versus 1 year for psoriasis. Patients often cycle through 3 or 4 providers before the diagnosis is made, she said.

Awakening first-line clinicians to the signs and symptoms of HS, whether in the emergency room or primary care, is a critical message because of the incrementally difficult task to control disease once fistulae have formed. 

Krueger made the same appeal. For the neutrophilic inflammation that characterizes nodules, targeted therapies are often effective, but he agreed that available therapies are generally far less so once tunnels form.

 

Role Seen for Bacteria in HS Pathogenesis

One reason might be an interaction between anaerobic bacteria and the keratinocytes that form the tunnel walls, according to Krueger. Although HS is not typically considered an infectious disease, he reported that the interaction of these bacteria with keratinocytes is associated with expression of approximately 1000 inflammatory gene products. The process of tunnel formation is traced to how factors recruited by upregulated inflammation, such as chemokines, coordinate.

He described recent work pursing novel strategies such as highly targeted antibiotics or inhibitors of complement factor C5a, which has been proposed as a biomarker for HS, to intervene in preventing or reversing HS tunnels. 

While this work progresses, one of the most Important unmet needs in HS is an accepted measure of clinically meaningful improvement in advanced disease, particularly the impact of therapy on HS tunnels, according to Krueger. 

“There is no measure of tunnel activity that the FDA accepts in evaluating drugs,” he noted, which will be essential for approving therapies that offer this benefit. 

A phase 3 trials program for one of the promising drugs, sonelokimab, was announced early in 2024. A nanobody that targets IL-17A/A, IL-17A/F, and IL-17F/F, the small size of this molecule permits exceptional tissue penetration while the broad anti-IL-17 activity has a high degree of theoretical potential in late-stage HS, according to Krueger. 

There are numerous pieces of the HS puzzle that are still missing, but both Krueger and Navrazhina are enthusiastic about new targets and opportunities for disease control that are stemming from a better understanding of the underlying pathophysiology. Not least, both indicated that testing for inflammatory phenotypes will allow for individualized therapeutic choices with a maximum likelihood of response, particularly if earlier diagnosis permits earlier treatment. 

“Due to the heterogeneity of HS, it is hard to know who will respond to which treatment or which treatment should be started first,” Navrazhina said. She thinks that early measures of the inflammatory profile in nodules or even non-lesional skin might provide that guidance. 

Both Krueger and Navrazhina reported no financial relationships relevant to this work. 

 

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mannkind expects to submit a request for a supplemental new drug application meeting to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its inhaled human insulin (Afrezza Inhalation Powder). Currently indicated to improve glycemic control in adults with diabetes, the company announced 6-month results from its phase 3 INHALE-1 study of inhaled human insulin in children and adolescents aged 4-17.

METHODOLOGY:

• INHALE-1 is a 26-week, open-label clinical trial that randomized 230 subjects aged 4-17 years with type 1 or type 2 diabetes to either inhaled pre-meal insulin or multiple daily injections (MDI) of rapid-acting insulin analog, both in combination with basal insulin.
• The primary endpoint was a noninferior change in hemoglobin A1c levels, compared with MDI after 26 weeks.
• A 26-week extension phase in which all remaining MDI patients were switched to inhaled insulin is ongoing.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the full intent-to-treat (ITT) population analysis, the between-group difference in mean A1c change over 26 weeks exceeded the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 0.4% (0.435%), but this was largely driven by the variability of a single patient who didn’t adhere to the study protocol.
• A modified ITT analysis excluding that person did not exceed the predetermined threshold of 0.4% (0.370%), thereby establishing noninferiority of inhaled insulin with MDI.
• Over 26 weeks of treatment, there were no differences in lung function parameters between the treatment groups, with mean forced expiratory volume at 1 second (FEV1) at baseline vs 26 weeks of 2.901 liters (99.6% of predicted) vs 2.934 L (96.6%) in the inhaled insulin group and 2.948 L (102.3%) vs 2.957 (98%), respectively, in the MDI group.
• There were no differences between groups or concerns in other safety measures, including hypoglycemia.

IN PRACTICE:

“It was exciting to partner with MannKind and help lead this study to potentially expand the use of inhaled insulin, which is currently used successfully by many adults with diabetes, to a population that hasn’t had a treatment option other than injectable insulin in the history of their care,” said INHALE-1 investigator Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD, founder of the Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida.

“The 6-month results are clinically meaningful and show Afrezza as a potential future treatment option for a growing pediatric population living with type 1 and type 2 diabetes,” Beck added.

 

SOURCE:

The results of the study were announced at a Mannkind press release on December 16, 2024.

SAFETY INFORMATION:

Inhaled insulin is not recommended for the treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis or in patients who smoke or have recently stopped smoking.

Warning: Risk for acute bronchospasm in patients with chronic lung disease

• Acute bronchospasm has been observed in Afrezza-treated patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
• Afrezza is contraindicated in patients with chronic lung disease such as asthma or COPD
• Before initiating Afrezza, perform a detailed medical history, physical examination, and spirometry (FEV1) to identify potential lung disease in all patients
• Most common adverse reactions are hypoglycemia, cough, and throat pain or irritation.
•  

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by MannKind.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mannkind expects to submit a request for a supplemental new drug application meeting to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its inhaled human insulin (Afrezza Inhalation Powder). Currently indicated to improve glycemic control in adults with diabetes, the company announced 6-month results from its phase 3 INHALE-1 study of inhaled human insulin in children and adolescents aged 4-17.

METHODOLOGY:

• INHALE-1 is a 26-week, open-label clinical trial that randomized 230 subjects aged 4-17 years with type 1 or type 2 diabetes to either inhaled pre-meal insulin or multiple daily injections (MDI) of rapid-acting insulin analog, both in combination with basal insulin.
• The primary endpoint was a noninferior change in hemoglobin A1c levels, compared with MDI after 26 weeks.
• A 26-week extension phase in which all remaining MDI patients were switched to inhaled insulin is ongoing.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the full intent-to-treat (ITT) population analysis, the between-group difference in mean A1c change over 26 weeks exceeded the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 0.4% (0.435%), but this was largely driven by the variability of a single patient who didn’t adhere to the study protocol.
• A modified ITT analysis excluding that person did not exceed the predetermined threshold of 0.4% (0.370%), thereby establishing noninferiority of inhaled insulin with MDI.
• Over 26 weeks of treatment, there were no differences in lung function parameters between the treatment groups, with mean forced expiratory volume at 1 second (FEV1) at baseline vs 26 weeks of 2.901 liters (99.6% of predicted) vs 2.934 L (96.6%) in the inhaled insulin group and 2.948 L (102.3%) vs 2.957 (98%), respectively, in the MDI group.
• There were no differences between groups or concerns in other safety measures, including hypoglycemia.

IN PRACTICE:

“It was exciting to partner with MannKind and help lead this study to potentially expand the use of inhaled insulin, which is currently used successfully by many adults with diabetes, to a population that hasn’t had a treatment option other than injectable insulin in the history of their care,” said INHALE-1 investigator Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD, founder of the Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida.

“The 6-month results are clinically meaningful and show Afrezza as a potential future treatment option for a growing pediatric population living with type 1 and type 2 diabetes,” Beck added.

 

SOURCE:

The results of the study were announced at a Mannkind press release on December 16, 2024.

SAFETY INFORMATION:

Inhaled insulin is not recommended for the treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis or in patients who smoke or have recently stopped smoking.

Warning: Risk for acute bronchospasm in patients with chronic lung disease

• Acute bronchospasm has been observed in Afrezza-treated patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
• Afrezza is contraindicated in patients with chronic lung disease such as asthma or COPD
• Before initiating Afrezza, perform a detailed medical history, physical examination, and spirometry (FEV1) to identify potential lung disease in all patients
• Most common adverse reactions are hypoglycemia, cough, and throat pain or irritation.
•  

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by MannKind.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Mannkind expects to submit a request for a supplemental new drug application meeting to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its inhaled human insulin (Afrezza Inhalation Powder). Currently indicated to improve glycemic control in adults with diabetes, the company announced 6-month results from its phase 3 INHALE-1 study of inhaled human insulin in children and adolescents aged 4-17.

METHODOLOGY:

• INHALE-1 is a 26-week, open-label clinical trial that randomized 230 subjects aged 4-17 years with type 1 or type 2 diabetes to either inhaled pre-meal insulin or multiple daily injections (MDI) of rapid-acting insulin analog, both in combination with basal insulin.
• The primary endpoint was a noninferior change in hemoglobin A1c levels, compared with MDI after 26 weeks.
• A 26-week extension phase in which all remaining MDI patients were switched to inhaled insulin is ongoing.

TAKEAWAY:

• In the full intent-to-treat (ITT) population analysis, the between-group difference in mean A1c change over 26 weeks exceeded the prespecified non-inferiority margin of 0.4% (0.435%), but this was largely driven by the variability of a single patient who didn’t adhere to the study protocol.
• A modified ITT analysis excluding that person did not exceed the predetermined threshold of 0.4% (0.370%), thereby establishing noninferiority of inhaled insulin with MDI.
• Over 26 weeks of treatment, there were no differences in lung function parameters between the treatment groups, with mean forced expiratory volume at 1 second (FEV1) at baseline vs 26 weeks of 2.901 liters (99.6% of predicted) vs 2.934 L (96.6%) in the inhaled insulin group and 2.948 L (102.3%) vs 2.957 (98%), respectively, in the MDI group.
• There were no differences between groups or concerns in other safety measures, including hypoglycemia.

IN PRACTICE:

“It was exciting to partner with MannKind and help lead this study to potentially expand the use of inhaled insulin, which is currently used successfully by many adults with diabetes, to a population that hasn’t had a treatment option other than injectable insulin in the history of their care,” said INHALE-1 investigator Roy W. Beck, MD, PhD, founder of the Jaeb Center for Health Research, Tampa, Florida.

“The 6-month results are clinically meaningful and show Afrezza as a potential future treatment option for a growing pediatric population living with type 1 and type 2 diabetes,” Beck added.

 

SOURCE:

The results of the study were announced at a Mannkind press release on December 16, 2024.

SAFETY INFORMATION:

Inhaled insulin is not recommended for the treatment of diabetic ketoacidosis or in patients who smoke or have recently stopped smoking.

Warning: Risk for acute bronchospasm in patients with chronic lung disease

• Acute bronchospasm has been observed in Afrezza-treated patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)
• Afrezza is contraindicated in patients with chronic lung disease such as asthma or COPD
• Before initiating Afrezza, perform a detailed medical history, physical examination, and spirometry (FEV1) to identify potential lung disease in all patients
• Most common adverse reactions are hypoglycemia, cough, and throat pain or irritation.
•  

DISCLOSURES:

This study was funded by MannKind.

A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

TOPLINE:

Muscle-building dietary supplement (MBS) use among young men substantially increases the odds of subsequent anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) initiation. Users of MBS showed elevated odds of incident AAS use within 1-5 years, supporting the gateway hypothesis for escalating risk-taking behaviors to increase muscularity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Analysis included data from two Growing Up Today Study prospective cohorts spanning 14 years (2007-2021).
• Participants included 4073 cisgender boys and young men aged 10-27 years at baseline (mean age, 20.3 years).
• Demographics showed 92.8% White participants and 7.2% other races or ethnicities.
• Researchers assessed past-year substance use for muscle building, including protein supplements, creatine, amino acids, hydroxymethylbutyrate, and dehydroepiandrosterone.

TAKEAWAY:

• Initial survey results showed 11.1% of respondents reported past-year muscle-building supplement use, and 0.4% reported AAS use.
• Over the study period, 37.7% of respondents reported any past-year muscle-building supplement use, while 0.5% reported any past-year AAS use.
• Analysis revealed muscle-building supplement users had (odds ratio [OR], 8.31; 95% CI, 2.59-26.73) higher odds of initiating AAS use by the next survey wave than nonusers.
• Age (adjusted OR [AOR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.85-1.12) and cohort (AOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.30-2.32) were not statistically significant factors.

IN PRACTICE:

“The health risks of MBS use are well documented, as inadequate federal regulation has resulted in a US MBS marketplace rife with inaccurate labeling and adulteration with toxic ingredients. Clinicians, coaches, and parents should counsel against MBS use. Future studies with larger and more diverse samples are needed,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Abigail Bulens, Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital in Boston. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a wide CI around the OR, potentially affecting the precision of the risk estimates. Additionally, the sample lacked diversity, with 92.8% of participants being White, which may limit the generalizability of findings to other racial and ethnic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

One coauthor received support from grant 1F32MDO17452-01 from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Another coauthor received support from training grant T76-MC-00001 from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services. The cohorts were supported by National Institutes of Health grants HD045763, HD057368, DK46834, and HLO3533. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, or publication decision.

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

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

TOPLINE:

Muscle-building dietary supplement (MBS) use among young men substantially increases the odds of subsequent anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) initiation. Users of MBS showed elevated odds of incident AAS use within 1-5 years, supporting the gateway hypothesis for escalating risk-taking behaviors to increase muscularity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Analysis included data from two Growing Up Today Study prospective cohorts spanning 14 years (2007-2021).
• Participants included 4073 cisgender boys and young men aged 10-27 years at baseline (mean age, 20.3 years).
• Demographics showed 92.8% White participants and 7.2% other races or ethnicities.
• Researchers assessed past-year substance use for muscle building, including protein supplements, creatine, amino acids, hydroxymethylbutyrate, and dehydroepiandrosterone.

TAKEAWAY:

• Initial survey results showed 11.1% of respondents reported past-year muscle-building supplement use, and 0.4% reported AAS use.
• Over the study period, 37.7% of respondents reported any past-year muscle-building supplement use, while 0.5% reported any past-year AAS use.
• Analysis revealed muscle-building supplement users had (odds ratio [OR], 8.31; 95% CI, 2.59-26.73) higher odds of initiating AAS use by the next survey wave than nonusers.
• Age (adjusted OR [AOR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.85-1.12) and cohort (AOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.30-2.32) were not statistically significant factors.

IN PRACTICE:

“The health risks of MBS use are well documented, as inadequate federal regulation has resulted in a US MBS marketplace rife with inaccurate labeling and adulteration with toxic ingredients. Clinicians, coaches, and parents should counsel against MBS use. Future studies with larger and more diverse samples are needed,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Abigail Bulens, Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital in Boston. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a wide CI around the OR, potentially affecting the precision of the risk estimates. Additionally, the sample lacked diversity, with 92.8% of participants being White, which may limit the generalizability of findings to other racial and ethnic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

One coauthor received support from grant 1F32MDO17452-01 from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Another coauthor received support from training grant T76-MC-00001 from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services. The cohorts were supported by National Institutes of Health grants HD045763, HD057368, DK46834, and HLO3533. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, or publication decision.

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

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

TOPLINE:

Muscle-building dietary supplement (MBS) use among young men substantially increases the odds of subsequent anabolic-androgenic steroid (AAS) initiation. Users of MBS showed elevated odds of incident AAS use within 1-5 years, supporting the gateway hypothesis for escalating risk-taking behaviors to increase muscularity.

METHODOLOGY:

• Analysis included data from two Growing Up Today Study prospective cohorts spanning 14 years (2007-2021).
• Participants included 4073 cisgender boys and young men aged 10-27 years at baseline (mean age, 20.3 years).
• Demographics showed 92.8% White participants and 7.2% other races or ethnicities.
• Researchers assessed past-year substance use for muscle building, including protein supplements, creatine, amino acids, hydroxymethylbutyrate, and dehydroepiandrosterone.

TAKEAWAY:

• Initial survey results showed 11.1% of respondents reported past-year muscle-building supplement use, and 0.4% reported AAS use.
• Over the study period, 37.7% of respondents reported any past-year muscle-building supplement use, while 0.5% reported any past-year AAS use.
• Analysis revealed muscle-building supplement users had (odds ratio [OR], 8.31; 95% CI, 2.59-26.73) higher odds of initiating AAS use by the next survey wave than nonusers.
• Age (adjusted OR [AOR], 0.98; 95% CI, 0.85-1.12) and cohort (AOR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.30-2.32) were not statistically significant factors.

IN PRACTICE:

“The health risks of MBS use are well documented, as inadequate federal regulation has resulted in a US MBS marketplace rife with inaccurate labeling and adulteration with toxic ingredients. Clinicians, coaches, and parents should counsel against MBS use. Future studies with larger and more diverse samples are needed,” wrote the authors of the study.

SOURCE:

The study was led by Abigail Bulens, Division of Adolescent and Young Adult Medicine, Boston Children’s Hospital in Boston. It was published online in JAMA Network Open.

LIMITATIONS:

The study had a wide CI around the OR, potentially affecting the precision of the risk estimates. Additionally, the sample lacked diversity, with 92.8% of participants being White, which may limit the generalizability of findings to other racial and ethnic groups.

DISCLOSURES:

One coauthor received support from grant 1F32MDO17452-01 from the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. Another coauthor received support from training grant T76-MC-00001 from the Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Health Resources and Services Administration, Department of Health and Human Services. The cohorts were supported by National Institutes of Health grants HD045763, HD057368, DK46834, and HLO3533. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation, manuscript preparation, or publication decision.

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

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

In preparation for a future international treaty aimed at reducing plastic pollution, the French Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices presented the conclusions of a public hearing on the impact of plastics on various aspects of human health.

Increased Global Plastic Production

Philippe Bolo, a member of the French Democratic Party and the rapporteur for the public mission on the health impacts of plastics, spoke about the latest round of treaty negotiations, held from November 25 to December 1 in South Korea, attended by leading French and global experts about the impact of plastics on human health.

The hearing highlighted a sharp increase in plastic production. “It has doubled in the last 20 years and is expected to exceed 500 million tons in 2024,” Bolo said. This is about 60 kg per person. According to projections from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, on its current trajectory, plastic production will reach 750 million tons by 2040 and surpass 1 billion tons before 2050, he said.

 

Minimal Plastic Waste Recycling

Around one third (32%) of plastics are used for packaging. “Therefore, most plastic production is still intended for single-use purposes,” he said. Plastic waste follows a similar growth trajectory, with volumes expected to rise from 360 million tons in 2020 to 617 million tons by 2040 unless action is taken. Very little of this waste is recycled, even in the most countries that are most advanced in terms of collection, sorting, and processing.

In France, for example, in 2018, only 0.6 million tons of the 3.6 million tons of plastic waste produced was truly recycled. This is less than one fifth (17%). Globally, less than 10% of plastic waste is recycled. In 2020, plastic waste that ended up in the environment represented 81 million tons, or 22% of the total. “Beyond waste, this leads to pollution by microplastics and nanoplastics, resulting from their fragmentation. All environments are affected: Seas, rivers, soils, air, and even living organisms,” Bolo said.

 

Methodological Challenges

However, measuring the impact of plastics on health faces methodological difficulties due to the wide variety of composition, size, and shape of plastics. Nevertheless, the French Standardization Association (Association Française de Normalisation) has conducted work to establish a characterization standard for microplastics in water, which serves as an international reference.

“It is also very difficult to know what we are ingesting,” Bolo said. “A study conducted in 2019 estimated that the average human absorbs 5 grams of plastics per week, the equivalent of a credit card.» Since then, other studies have revised this estimate downward, but no consensus has been reached.

A recent study across 109 countries, both industrialized and developing, found significant exposure, estimated at 500 mg/d, particularly in Southeast Asian countries, where it was due mainly to seafood consumption.

A study concluded that plastic water bottles contain 240,000 particles per liter, 90% of which are nanoplastics. These nanoparticles can pass through the intestinal barrier to enter the bloodstream and reach several organs including the heart, brain, and placenta, as well as the fetus.

 

Changes to the Microbiome

Microplastics also accumulate in organs. Thus, the amount of plastic in the lungs increases with age, suggesting that particles may persist in the body without being eliminated. The health consequences of this are still poorly understood, but exposure to plastics appears to cause changes in the composition of the intestinal microbiota. Pathobionts (commensal bacteria with harmful potential) have been found in both adults and children, which could contribute to dysbiosis of the gut microbiome. Furthermore, a decrease in butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid beneficial to health, has been observed in children’s intestines.

Inhaled nanoplastics may disrupt the mucociliary clearance mechanisms of the respiratory system. The toxicity of inhaled plastic particles was demonstrated as early as the 1970s among workers in the flocking industry. Some developed lung function impairments, shortness of breath, inflammation, fibrosis, and even lung cancer. Similar symptoms have been observed in workers in the textile and polyvinyl chloride industries.

A study published recently in The New England Journal of Medicine measured the amount of microplastics collected from carotid plaque of more than 300 patients who had undergone carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery disease. It found a 4.53 times higher risk for the primary endpoint, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, among individuals with microplastics and nanoplastics in plaque compared with those without.

 

Health Affects High

The danger of plastics is also directly linked to the chemical substances they contain. A general scientific review looked at the health impacts of three chemicals used almost exclusively in plastics: Polybromodiphenyl ethers (PBDEs), used as flame retardants in textiles or electronics; bisphenol A (BPA), used in the lining of cans and bottles; and phthalates, particularly diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), used to make plastics more flexible.

The review highlighted strong epidemiological evidence linking fetal exposure to PBDEs during pregnancy to low birth weight and later exposure to delayed or impaired cognitive development in children and even a loss of IQ. Statistically significant evidence of disruption of thyroid function in adults was also found.

BPA is linked to genital malformations in female newborns exposed to BPA in utero, type 2 diabetes in adults, insulin resistance, and polycystic ovary syndrome in women. BPA exposure also increases the risk for obesity and hypertension in both children and adults, as well as the risk for cardiovascular disease in adults.

Finally, the review established links between exposure to DEHP and miscarriages, genital malformations in male newborns, delayed or impaired cognitive development in children, loss of IQ, delayed psychomotor development, early puberty in young girls, and endometriosis in young women. DEHP exposure also has multiple effects on cardiometabolic health, including insulin resistance, obesity, and elevated blood pressure.

The economic costs associated with the health impacts of these three substances have been estimated at $675 billion in the United States.

Bolo said that the solution to this plastic pollution is necessarily international. “We need an ambitious and legally binding treaty to reduce plastic production,” he said. “The damage is already done; we need to act to protect human health,” he concluded. The parliamentary office has made nine recommendations to the treaty negotiators.

This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In preparation for a future international treaty aimed at reducing plastic pollution, the French Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices presented the conclusions of a public hearing on the impact of plastics on various aspects of human health.

Increased Global Plastic Production

Philippe Bolo, a member of the French Democratic Party and the rapporteur for the public mission on the health impacts of plastics, spoke about the latest round of treaty negotiations, held from November 25 to December 1 in South Korea, attended by leading French and global experts about the impact of plastics on human health.

The hearing highlighted a sharp increase in plastic production. “It has doubled in the last 20 years and is expected to exceed 500 million tons in 2024,” Bolo said. This is about 60 kg per person. According to projections from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, on its current trajectory, plastic production will reach 750 million tons by 2040 and surpass 1 billion tons before 2050, he said.

 

Minimal Plastic Waste Recycling

Around one third (32%) of plastics are used for packaging. “Therefore, most plastic production is still intended for single-use purposes,” he said. Plastic waste follows a similar growth trajectory, with volumes expected to rise from 360 million tons in 2020 to 617 million tons by 2040 unless action is taken. Very little of this waste is recycled, even in the most countries that are most advanced in terms of collection, sorting, and processing.

In France, for example, in 2018, only 0.6 million tons of the 3.6 million tons of plastic waste produced was truly recycled. This is less than one fifth (17%). Globally, less than 10% of plastic waste is recycled. In 2020, plastic waste that ended up in the environment represented 81 million tons, or 22% of the total. “Beyond waste, this leads to pollution by microplastics and nanoplastics, resulting from their fragmentation. All environments are affected: Seas, rivers, soils, air, and even living organisms,” Bolo said.

 

Methodological Challenges

However, measuring the impact of plastics on health faces methodological difficulties due to the wide variety of composition, size, and shape of plastics. Nevertheless, the French Standardization Association (Association Française de Normalisation) has conducted work to establish a characterization standard for microplastics in water, which serves as an international reference.

“It is also very difficult to know what we are ingesting,” Bolo said. “A study conducted in 2019 estimated that the average human absorbs 5 grams of plastics per week, the equivalent of a credit card.» Since then, other studies have revised this estimate downward, but no consensus has been reached.

A recent study across 109 countries, both industrialized and developing, found significant exposure, estimated at 500 mg/d, particularly in Southeast Asian countries, where it was due mainly to seafood consumption.

A study concluded that plastic water bottles contain 240,000 particles per liter, 90% of which are nanoplastics. These nanoparticles can pass through the intestinal barrier to enter the bloodstream and reach several organs including the heart, brain, and placenta, as well as the fetus.

 

Changes to the Microbiome

Microplastics also accumulate in organs. Thus, the amount of plastic in the lungs increases with age, suggesting that particles may persist in the body without being eliminated. The health consequences of this are still poorly understood, but exposure to plastics appears to cause changes in the composition of the intestinal microbiota. Pathobionts (commensal bacteria with harmful potential) have been found in both adults and children, which could contribute to dysbiosis of the gut microbiome. Furthermore, a decrease in butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid beneficial to health, has been observed in children’s intestines.

Inhaled nanoplastics may disrupt the mucociliary clearance mechanisms of the respiratory system. The toxicity of inhaled plastic particles was demonstrated as early as the 1970s among workers in the flocking industry. Some developed lung function impairments, shortness of breath, inflammation, fibrosis, and even lung cancer. Similar symptoms have been observed in workers in the textile and polyvinyl chloride industries.

A study published recently in The New England Journal of Medicine measured the amount of microplastics collected from carotid plaque of more than 300 patients who had undergone carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery disease. It found a 4.53 times higher risk for the primary endpoint, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, among individuals with microplastics and nanoplastics in plaque compared with those without.

 

Health Affects High

The danger of plastics is also directly linked to the chemical substances they contain. A general scientific review looked at the health impacts of three chemicals used almost exclusively in plastics: Polybromodiphenyl ethers (PBDEs), used as flame retardants in textiles or electronics; bisphenol A (BPA), used in the lining of cans and bottles; and phthalates, particularly diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), used to make plastics more flexible.

The review highlighted strong epidemiological evidence linking fetal exposure to PBDEs during pregnancy to low birth weight and later exposure to delayed or impaired cognitive development in children and even a loss of IQ. Statistically significant evidence of disruption of thyroid function in adults was also found.

BPA is linked to genital malformations in female newborns exposed to BPA in utero, type 2 diabetes in adults, insulin resistance, and polycystic ovary syndrome in women. BPA exposure also increases the risk for obesity and hypertension in both children and adults, as well as the risk for cardiovascular disease in adults.

Finally, the review established links between exposure to DEHP and miscarriages, genital malformations in male newborns, delayed or impaired cognitive development in children, loss of IQ, delayed psychomotor development, early puberty in young girls, and endometriosis in young women. DEHP exposure also has multiple effects on cardiometabolic health, including insulin resistance, obesity, and elevated blood pressure.

The economic costs associated with the health impacts of these three substances have been estimated at $675 billion in the United States.

Bolo said that the solution to this plastic pollution is necessarily international. “We need an ambitious and legally binding treaty to reduce plastic production,” he said. “The damage is already done; we need to act to protect human health,” he concluded. The parliamentary office has made nine recommendations to the treaty negotiators.

This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

In preparation for a future international treaty aimed at reducing plastic pollution, the French Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices presented the conclusions of a public hearing on the impact of plastics on various aspects of human health.

Increased Global Plastic Production

Philippe Bolo, a member of the French Democratic Party and the rapporteur for the public mission on the health impacts of plastics, spoke about the latest round of treaty negotiations, held from November 25 to December 1 in South Korea, attended by leading French and global experts about the impact of plastics on human health.

The hearing highlighted a sharp increase in plastic production. “It has doubled in the last 20 years and is expected to exceed 500 million tons in 2024,” Bolo said. This is about 60 kg per person. According to projections from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, on its current trajectory, plastic production will reach 750 million tons by 2040 and surpass 1 billion tons before 2050, he said.

 

Minimal Plastic Waste Recycling

Around one third (32%) of plastics are used for packaging. “Therefore, most plastic production is still intended for single-use purposes,” he said. Plastic waste follows a similar growth trajectory, with volumes expected to rise from 360 million tons in 2020 to 617 million tons by 2040 unless action is taken. Very little of this waste is recycled, even in the most countries that are most advanced in terms of collection, sorting, and processing.

In France, for example, in 2018, only 0.6 million tons of the 3.6 million tons of plastic waste produced was truly recycled. This is less than one fifth (17%). Globally, less than 10% of plastic waste is recycled. In 2020, plastic waste that ended up in the environment represented 81 million tons, or 22% of the total. “Beyond waste, this leads to pollution by microplastics and nanoplastics, resulting from their fragmentation. All environments are affected: Seas, rivers, soils, air, and even living organisms,” Bolo said.

 

Methodological Challenges

However, measuring the impact of plastics on health faces methodological difficulties due to the wide variety of composition, size, and shape of plastics. Nevertheless, the French Standardization Association (Association Française de Normalisation) has conducted work to establish a characterization standard for microplastics in water, which serves as an international reference.

“It is also very difficult to know what we are ingesting,” Bolo said. “A study conducted in 2019 estimated that the average human absorbs 5 grams of plastics per week, the equivalent of a credit card.» Since then, other studies have revised this estimate downward, but no consensus has been reached.

A recent study across 109 countries, both industrialized and developing, found significant exposure, estimated at 500 mg/d, particularly in Southeast Asian countries, where it was due mainly to seafood consumption.

A study concluded that plastic water bottles contain 240,000 particles per liter, 90% of which are nanoplastics. These nanoparticles can pass through the intestinal barrier to enter the bloodstream and reach several organs including the heart, brain, and placenta, as well as the fetus.

 

Changes to the Microbiome

Microplastics also accumulate in organs. Thus, the amount of plastic in the lungs increases with age, suggesting that particles may persist in the body without being eliminated. The health consequences of this are still poorly understood, but exposure to plastics appears to cause changes in the composition of the intestinal microbiota. Pathobionts (commensal bacteria with harmful potential) have been found in both adults and children, which could contribute to dysbiosis of the gut microbiome. Furthermore, a decrease in butyrate, a short-chain fatty acid beneficial to health, has been observed in children’s intestines.

Inhaled nanoplastics may disrupt the mucociliary clearance mechanisms of the respiratory system. The toxicity of inhaled plastic particles was demonstrated as early as the 1970s among workers in the flocking industry. Some developed lung function impairments, shortness of breath, inflammation, fibrosis, and even lung cancer. Similar symptoms have been observed in workers in the textile and polyvinyl chloride industries.

A study published recently in The New England Journal of Medicine measured the amount of microplastics collected from carotid plaque of more than 300 patients who had undergone carotid endarterectomy for asymptomatic carotid artery disease. It found a 4.53 times higher risk for the primary endpoint, a composite of myocardial infarction, stroke, and all-cause mortality, among individuals with microplastics and nanoplastics in plaque compared with those without.

 

Health Affects High

The danger of plastics is also directly linked to the chemical substances they contain. A general scientific review looked at the health impacts of three chemicals used almost exclusively in plastics: Polybromodiphenyl ethers (PBDEs), used as flame retardants in textiles or electronics; bisphenol A (BPA), used in the lining of cans and bottles; and phthalates, particularly diethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), used to make plastics more flexible.

The review highlighted strong epidemiological evidence linking fetal exposure to PBDEs during pregnancy to low birth weight and later exposure to delayed or impaired cognitive development in children and even a loss of IQ. Statistically significant evidence of disruption of thyroid function in adults was also found.

BPA is linked to genital malformations in female newborns exposed to BPA in utero, type 2 diabetes in adults, insulin resistance, and polycystic ovary syndrome in women. BPA exposure also increases the risk for obesity and hypertension in both children and adults, as well as the risk for cardiovascular disease in adults.

Finally, the review established links between exposure to DEHP and miscarriages, genital malformations in male newborns, delayed or impaired cognitive development in children, loss of IQ, delayed psychomotor development, early puberty in young girls, and endometriosis in young women. DEHP exposure also has multiple effects on cardiometabolic health, including insulin resistance, obesity, and elevated blood pressure.

The economic costs associated with the health impacts of these three substances have been estimated at $675 billion in the United States.

Bolo said that the solution to this plastic pollution is necessarily international. “We need an ambitious and legally binding treaty to reduce plastic production,” he said. “The damage is already done; we need to act to protect human health,” he concluded. The parliamentary office has made nine recommendations to the treaty negotiators.

This story was translated from Medscape’s French edition using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication. A version of this article appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved tapinarof cream, 1% for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older.

An aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist, tapinarof cream, 1% was first approved in May 2022 for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults.

According to a press release from the manufacturer, Organon — which markets tapinarof cream, 1%, under the brand name VTAMA — the new indication for AD is based on results from the ADORING pivotal studies. In ADORING 1, the proportion of patients in the tapinarof cream, 1% treatment group who achieved a score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and a minimum 2-grade improvement from baseline at week 8 on the Validated Investigator Global Assessment for AD was 45.4%, compared with 13.9% of patients who received vehicle alone. ADORING 2 yielded similar results (46.4% vs 18.0%, respectively; P < .0001 for both associations).

Secondary endpoints measured at week 8 also significantly favored the treatment group over the vehicle group, including the Eczema Area and Severity Index score improvement of at least 75% from baseline and achievement of a ≥ 4-point improvement in the patient-reported Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale from baseline.

The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥ 1%) were upper respiratory tract infection (12%), folliculitis (9%), lower respiratory tract infection (5%), headache (4%), asthma (2%), vomiting (2%), ear infection (2%), pain in extremity (2%), and abdominal pain (1%), according to the release.

Among 728 patients in the ADORING studies who enrolled in an open-label 48-week extension trial (ADORING 3), 378 entered with or achieved complete disease clearance and discontinued treatment. In this subset of patients, the mean duration of the first treatment-free interval was approximately 80 consecutive days, according to the release.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved tapinarof cream, 1% for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older.

An aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist, tapinarof cream, 1% was first approved in May 2022 for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults.

According to a press release from the manufacturer, Organon — which markets tapinarof cream, 1%, under the brand name VTAMA — the new indication for AD is based on results from the ADORING pivotal studies. In ADORING 1, the proportion of patients in the tapinarof cream, 1% treatment group who achieved a score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and a minimum 2-grade improvement from baseline at week 8 on the Validated Investigator Global Assessment for AD was 45.4%, compared with 13.9% of patients who received vehicle alone. ADORING 2 yielded similar results (46.4% vs 18.0%, respectively; P < .0001 for both associations).

Secondary endpoints measured at week 8 also significantly favored the treatment group over the vehicle group, including the Eczema Area and Severity Index score improvement of at least 75% from baseline and achievement of a ≥ 4-point improvement in the patient-reported Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale from baseline.

The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥ 1%) were upper respiratory tract infection (12%), folliculitis (9%), lower respiratory tract infection (5%), headache (4%), asthma (2%), vomiting (2%), ear infection (2%), pain in extremity (2%), and abdominal pain (1%), according to the release.

Among 728 patients in the ADORING studies who enrolled in an open-label 48-week extension trial (ADORING 3), 378 entered with or achieved complete disease clearance and discontinued treatment. In this subset of patients, the mean duration of the first treatment-free interval was approximately 80 consecutive days, according to the release.

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

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved tapinarof cream, 1% for the treatment of atopic dermatitis (AD) in adults and pediatric patients 2 years of age and older.

An aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonist, tapinarof cream, 1% was first approved in May 2022 for the topical treatment of plaque psoriasis in adults.

According to a press release from the manufacturer, Organon — which markets tapinarof cream, 1%, under the brand name VTAMA — the new indication for AD is based on results from the ADORING pivotal studies. In ADORING 1, the proportion of patients in the tapinarof cream, 1% treatment group who achieved a score of clear (0) or almost clear (1) and a minimum 2-grade improvement from baseline at week 8 on the Validated Investigator Global Assessment for AD was 45.4%, compared with 13.9% of patients who received vehicle alone. ADORING 2 yielded similar results (46.4% vs 18.0%, respectively; P < .0001 for both associations).

Secondary endpoints measured at week 8 also significantly favored the treatment group over the vehicle group, including the Eczema Area and Severity Index score improvement of at least 75% from baseline and achievement of a ≥ 4-point improvement in the patient-reported Peak Pruritus Numerical Rating Scale from baseline.

The most common adverse reactions (incidence ≥ 1%) were upper respiratory tract infection (12%), folliculitis (9%), lower respiratory tract infection (5%), headache (4%), asthma (2%), vomiting (2%), ear infection (2%), pain in extremity (2%), and abdominal pain (1%), according to the release.

Among 728 patients in the ADORING studies who enrolled in an open-label 48-week extension trial (ADORING 3), 378 entered with or achieved complete disease clearance and discontinued treatment. In this subset of patients, the mean duration of the first treatment-free interval was approximately 80 consecutive days, according to the release.

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

Discussion

Given the patient’s recent dietary changes, particularly his switch to a ketogenic diet, he was diagnosed with prurigo pigmentosa and treated with doxycycline, which cleared the rash. Prurigo pigmentosa is a rare inflammatory dermatosis characterized by net-like or reticulated pink, and later hyperpigmented, papules and plaques. Although the condition predominantly affects young women of East Asian descent, cases have been reported worldwide, highlighting the importance of considering this diagnosis in diverse populations, including children. Here, we describe a case of prurigo pigmentosa in a young male who had recently adopted a ketogenic diet for weight loss.

The association between prurigo pigmentosa and dietary changes, particularly ketosis, is becoming increasingly recognized. This condition is strongly linked to ketosis, a metabolic state marked by the production of ketone bodies (e.g., beta-hydroxybutyrate and acetoacetate) during carbohydrate restriction, fasting, or ketogenic diets, as seen in our patient. These ketone bodies may act as irritants or trigger oxidative stress and inflammatory cascades in the skin.

Ketoacidosis, particularly in prolonged or intense ketosis, is thought to alter the local skin microenvironment, promoting activation of inflammatory cytokines and immune cells. The ketogenic state is believed to generate oxidative stress through increased free fatty acid oxidation, leading to the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS). ROS can induce apoptosis of keratinocytes and inflammation in the epidermis, which is predominantly mediated by neutrophilic infiltration, as seen in histopathological findings. Elevated levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin-8 (IL-8) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), have been implicated in neutrophil recruitment and activation. IL-8 is particularly important for guiding neutrophils to areas of injury.

Secondary hyperpigmentation, a hallmark of this condition, is thought to result from melanin-laden macrophages and persistent melanocyte activation in response to inflammation at the dermo-epidermal junction.

The condition progresses in three stages. In the early stage, lesions appear as pruritic, urticarial plaques. These evolve into crusted erythematous papules and papulovesicles in the middle stage, as observed in our patient. Finally, in the late stage, the lesions mature into smooth, hyperpigmented plaques. Each stage of prurigo pigmentosa has distinct histopathological features.

 

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for prurigo pigmentosa includes several conditions that may present similarly. Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) can initially mimic the erythematous papules of prurigo pigmentosa, but the absence of a clear allergen exposure and failure to improve with avoidance measures makes ACD less likely. Psoriasis is another possibility, as its erythematous plaques may overlap with prurigo pigmentosa. However, the lack of silvery scales and chronicity makes psoriasis less likely in this case. Eczema, or atopic dermatitis, typically presents with pruritic, ill-defined plaques, often in flexural areas, which were not observed in this patient. Flagellate dermatitis, often caused by exposure to bleomycin or consumption of shiitake mushrooms, can present with linear erythematous lesions resembling prurigo pigmentosa. However, the absence of relevant exposures and a flagellate pattern in this patient rules out this diagnosis.

This case highlights the growing recognition of prurigo pigmentosa in the context of dietary trends, especially ketogenic diets, which have become popular for weight loss and other health benefits. Pediatric populations, in particular, may adopt such diets for various reasons and require careful monitoring, as their physiological responses may differ from those in adults. Prurigo pigmentosa has also been reported in a teenager girl with a history of anorexia nervosa, who was in a ketotic state.

Treatment options for prurigo pigmentosa include antibiotics such as minocycline or doxycycline, or macrolides for 4–10 weeks. Other treatment modalities include dapsone, Q-switch Nd:YAG laser, narrow-band ultraviolet B (UVB) phototherapy, and topical treatments like crisaborole and tacrolimus.

Early recognition of this condition is crucial to avoid unnecessary interventions and to allow for resolution through dietary modification. Dermatologists and pediatricians should maintain a high index of suspicion for prurigo pigmentosa in patients presenting with characteristic eruptions and a history of dietary ketosis.

Catalina Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego.

Suggested Reading

1. Mufti A et al. Clinical Manifestations and Treatment Outcomes in Prurigo Pigmentosa (Nagashima Disease): A Systematic Review of the Literature. JAAD Int. 2021 Apr 10:3:79-87. doi: 10.1016/j.jdin.2021.03.003.

2. Yang J et al. Use of Minocycline for the Treatment of Prurigo Pigmentosa with Intraepidermal Vesiculation: A Case Report. J Int Med Res. 2021 May;49(5):3000605211015593. doi: 10.1177/03000605211015593.

3. Capucilli P et al. Prurigo Pigmentosa: An Itchy, Urticarial Eruption Confused for Food Allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018 Jul-Aug;6(4):1381-1382. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2018.02.033.

Discussion

Given the patient’s recent dietary changes, particularly his switch to a ketogenic diet, he was diagnosed with prurigo pigmentosa and treated with doxycycline, which cleared the rash. Prurigo pigmentosa is a rare inflammatory dermatosis characterized by net-like or reticulated pink, and later hyperpigmented, papules and plaques. Although the condition predominantly affects young women of East Asian descent, cases have been reported worldwide, highlighting the importance of considering this diagnosis in diverse populations, including children. Here, we describe a case of prurigo pigmentosa in a young male who had recently adopted a ketogenic diet for weight loss.

The association between prurigo pigmentosa and dietary changes, particularly ketosis, is becoming increasingly recognized. This condition is strongly linked to ketosis, a metabolic state marked by the production of ketone bodies (e.g., beta-hydroxybutyrate and acetoacetate) during carbohydrate restriction, fasting, or ketogenic diets, as seen in our patient. These ketone bodies may act as irritants or trigger oxidative stress and inflammatory cascades in the skin.

Ketoacidosis, particularly in prolonged or intense ketosis, is thought to alter the local skin microenvironment, promoting activation of inflammatory cytokines and immune cells. The ketogenic state is believed to generate oxidative stress through increased free fatty acid oxidation, leading to the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS). ROS can induce apoptosis of keratinocytes and inflammation in the epidermis, which is predominantly mediated by neutrophilic infiltration, as seen in histopathological findings. Elevated levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin-8 (IL-8) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), have been implicated in neutrophil recruitment and activation. IL-8 is particularly important for guiding neutrophils to areas of injury.

Secondary hyperpigmentation, a hallmark of this condition, is thought to result from melanin-laden macrophages and persistent melanocyte activation in response to inflammation at the dermo-epidermal junction.

The condition progresses in three stages. In the early stage, lesions appear as pruritic, urticarial plaques. These evolve into crusted erythematous papules and papulovesicles in the middle stage, as observed in our patient. Finally, in the late stage, the lesions mature into smooth, hyperpigmented plaques. Each stage of prurigo pigmentosa has distinct histopathological features.

 

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for prurigo pigmentosa includes several conditions that may present similarly. Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) can initially mimic the erythematous papules of prurigo pigmentosa, but the absence of a clear allergen exposure and failure to improve with avoidance measures makes ACD less likely. Psoriasis is another possibility, as its erythematous plaques may overlap with prurigo pigmentosa. However, the lack of silvery scales and chronicity makes psoriasis less likely in this case. Eczema, or atopic dermatitis, typically presents with pruritic, ill-defined plaques, often in flexural areas, which were not observed in this patient. Flagellate dermatitis, often caused by exposure to bleomycin or consumption of shiitake mushrooms, can present with linear erythematous lesions resembling prurigo pigmentosa. However, the absence of relevant exposures and a flagellate pattern in this patient rules out this diagnosis.

This case highlights the growing recognition of prurigo pigmentosa in the context of dietary trends, especially ketogenic diets, which have become popular for weight loss and other health benefits. Pediatric populations, in particular, may adopt such diets for various reasons and require careful monitoring, as their physiological responses may differ from those in adults. Prurigo pigmentosa has also been reported in a teenager girl with a history of anorexia nervosa, who was in a ketotic state.

Treatment options for prurigo pigmentosa include antibiotics such as minocycline or doxycycline, or macrolides for 4–10 weeks. Other treatment modalities include dapsone, Q-switch Nd:YAG laser, narrow-band ultraviolet B (UVB) phototherapy, and topical treatments like crisaborole and tacrolimus.

Early recognition of this condition is crucial to avoid unnecessary interventions and to allow for resolution through dietary modification. Dermatologists and pediatricians should maintain a high index of suspicion for prurigo pigmentosa in patients presenting with characteristic eruptions and a history of dietary ketosis.

Catalina Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego.

Suggested Reading

1. Mufti A et al. Clinical Manifestations and Treatment Outcomes in Prurigo Pigmentosa (Nagashima Disease): A Systematic Review of the Literature. JAAD Int. 2021 Apr 10:3:79-87. doi: 10.1016/j.jdin.2021.03.003.

2. Yang J et al. Use of Minocycline for the Treatment of Prurigo Pigmentosa with Intraepidermal Vesiculation: A Case Report. J Int Med Res. 2021 May;49(5):3000605211015593. doi: 10.1177/03000605211015593.

3. Capucilli P et al. Prurigo Pigmentosa: An Itchy, Urticarial Eruption Confused for Food Allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018 Jul-Aug;6(4):1381-1382. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2018.02.033.

Discussion

Given the patient’s recent dietary changes, particularly his switch to a ketogenic diet, he was diagnosed with prurigo pigmentosa and treated with doxycycline, which cleared the rash. Prurigo pigmentosa is a rare inflammatory dermatosis characterized by net-like or reticulated pink, and later hyperpigmented, papules and plaques. Although the condition predominantly affects young women of East Asian descent, cases have been reported worldwide, highlighting the importance of considering this diagnosis in diverse populations, including children. Here, we describe a case of prurigo pigmentosa in a young male who had recently adopted a ketogenic diet for weight loss.

The association between prurigo pigmentosa and dietary changes, particularly ketosis, is becoming increasingly recognized. This condition is strongly linked to ketosis, a metabolic state marked by the production of ketone bodies (e.g., beta-hydroxybutyrate and acetoacetate) during carbohydrate restriction, fasting, or ketogenic diets, as seen in our patient. These ketone bodies may act as irritants or trigger oxidative stress and inflammatory cascades in the skin.

Ketoacidosis, particularly in prolonged or intense ketosis, is thought to alter the local skin microenvironment, promoting activation of inflammatory cytokines and immune cells. The ketogenic state is believed to generate oxidative stress through increased free fatty acid oxidation, leading to the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS). ROS can induce apoptosis of keratinocytes and inflammation in the epidermis, which is predominantly mediated by neutrophilic infiltration, as seen in histopathological findings. Elevated levels of pro-inflammatory cytokines, such as interleukin-8 (IL-8) and tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-α), have been implicated in neutrophil recruitment and activation. IL-8 is particularly important for guiding neutrophils to areas of injury.

Secondary hyperpigmentation, a hallmark of this condition, is thought to result from melanin-laden macrophages and persistent melanocyte activation in response to inflammation at the dermo-epidermal junction.

The condition progresses in three stages. In the early stage, lesions appear as pruritic, urticarial plaques. These evolve into crusted erythematous papules and papulovesicles in the middle stage, as observed in our patient. Finally, in the late stage, the lesions mature into smooth, hyperpigmented plaques. Each stage of prurigo pigmentosa has distinct histopathological features.

 

Differential Diagnosis

The differential diagnosis for prurigo pigmentosa includes several conditions that may present similarly. Allergic contact dermatitis (ACD) can initially mimic the erythematous papules of prurigo pigmentosa, but the absence of a clear allergen exposure and failure to improve with avoidance measures makes ACD less likely. Psoriasis is another possibility, as its erythematous plaques may overlap with prurigo pigmentosa. However, the lack of silvery scales and chronicity makes psoriasis less likely in this case. Eczema, or atopic dermatitis, typically presents with pruritic, ill-defined plaques, often in flexural areas, which were not observed in this patient. Flagellate dermatitis, often caused by exposure to bleomycin or consumption of shiitake mushrooms, can present with linear erythematous lesions resembling prurigo pigmentosa. However, the absence of relevant exposures and a flagellate pattern in this patient rules out this diagnosis.

This case highlights the growing recognition of prurigo pigmentosa in the context of dietary trends, especially ketogenic diets, which have become popular for weight loss and other health benefits. Pediatric populations, in particular, may adopt such diets for various reasons and require careful monitoring, as their physiological responses may differ from those in adults. Prurigo pigmentosa has also been reported in a teenager girl with a history of anorexia nervosa, who was in a ketotic state.

Treatment options for prurigo pigmentosa include antibiotics such as minocycline or doxycycline, or macrolides for 4–10 weeks. Other treatment modalities include dapsone, Q-switch Nd:YAG laser, narrow-band ultraviolet B (UVB) phototherapy, and topical treatments like crisaborole and tacrolimus.

Early recognition of this condition is crucial to avoid unnecessary interventions and to allow for resolution through dietary modification. Dermatologists and pediatricians should maintain a high index of suspicion for prurigo pigmentosa in patients presenting with characteristic eruptions and a history of dietary ketosis.

Catalina Matiz is a pediatric dermatologist at Southern California Permanente Medical Group, San Diego.

Suggested Reading

1. Mufti A et al. Clinical Manifestations and Treatment Outcomes in Prurigo Pigmentosa (Nagashima Disease): A Systematic Review of the Literature. JAAD Int. 2021 Apr 10:3:79-87. doi: 10.1016/j.jdin.2021.03.003.

2. Yang J et al. Use of Minocycline for the Treatment of Prurigo Pigmentosa with Intraepidermal Vesiculation: A Case Report. J Int Med Res. 2021 May;49(5):3000605211015593. doi: 10.1177/03000605211015593.

3. Capucilli P et al. Prurigo Pigmentosa: An Itchy, Urticarial Eruption Confused for Food Allergy. J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract. 2018 Jul-Aug;6(4):1381-1382. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2018.02.033.