Search

Introduction: On 4 February, 2020, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services declared a public health emergency related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), and on 27 March, 2020 declared circumstances existed to justify the authorization of the emergency use of drug and biological products (hereafter, "drugs") for COVID-19. At the outset of the pandemic with uncertainty relating to the virus, many drugs were being used to treat or prevent COVID-19, resulting in the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) need to initiate heightened surveillance across these drugs., Objective: We aimed to describe the FDA's approach to monitoring the safety of drugs to treat or prevent COVID-19 across multiple data sources and the subsequent actions taken by the FDA to protect public health., Methods: The FDA conducted surveillance of adverse event and medication error data using the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System, biomedical literature, FDA-American College of Medical Toxicology COVID-19 Toxicology Investigators Consortium Pharmacovigilance Project Sub-registry, and the American Association of Poison Control Centers National Poison Data System., Results: From 4 February, 2020, through 31 January, 2022, we identified 22,944 unique adverse event cases worldwide and 1052 unique medication error cases domestically with drugs to treat or prevent COVID-19. These were from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (22,219), biomedical literature (1107), FDA-American College of Medical Toxicology COVID-19 Toxicology Investigator's Consortium Sub-registry (638), and the National Poison Data System (32), resulting in the detection of several important safety issues., Conclusions: Safety surveillance using near real-time data was critical during the COVID-19 pandemic because the FDA monitored an unprecedented number of drugs to treat or prevent COVID-19. Additionally, the pandemic prompted the FDA to accelerate innovation, forging new collaborations and leveraging data sources to conduct safety surveillance to respond to the pandemic., (© 2022. This is a U.S. Government work and not under copyright protection in the US; foreign copyright protection may apply.)

Objective: We sought to describe skin injuries associated with unapproved topical mole and skin tag removers containing concentrated salicylic acid, Sanguinaria canadensis , or other caustic agents., Methods: We identified skin injuries associated with unapproved non-device topical mole and skin tag removers reported to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) through October 30, 2021 or described in Amazon consumer product reviews between 2019 and 2021., Results: We identified 38 cases, including 30 from Amazon consumer product reviews and eight reported to the FDA. Twenty-eight were from 2021. The most common reason for use was for mole and/or skin tag removal. Listed ingredients included salicylic acid, Sanguinaria canadensis , botanicals (includes homeopathic products), and calcium oxide. Seven cases involved products without ingredients listed. Adverse events included burns, pain, and ulceration, some resulting in permanent scarring and disfigurement. There were 14 facial injuries, including four adjacent to the eye. Reported treatments included antibiotics, hospital care, wound care, and dermatology advice to have a skin graft., Limitations: Limitations include underreporting of adverse events to the FDA, limited clinical details and potential bias in consumer reviews, and poor replicability of review searches due to the dynamic nature of the Amazon website., Conclusion: Unapproved, non-device topical mole and skin tag removers are associated with serious skin injuries. We found Amazon consumer reviews to be a novel and useful data source for safety surveillance of these types of skin products. When dermatologists are consulted about skin injuries, exposure to these products should be considered in the differential diagnosis., Competing Interests: DISCLOSURES: The authors report no conflicts of interest relevant to the content of this article., (Copyright © 2023. Matrix Medical Communications. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Lopa Thambi, Karen Konkel, Ida-Lina Diak, Melissa Reyes, and Lynda McCulley have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this article.

Objective: To identify and characterize cases of chemical leukoderma, an underrecognized adverse event, associated with the methylphenidate transdermal system (MTS) reported to the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS)., Study Design: We searched the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System for reports of chemical leukoderma associated with MTS, received by the Food and Drug Administration from April 6, 2006 to December 23, 2014., Results: We identified 51 cases of chemical leukoderma reported with the use of MTS. The median age was 11 years; 43 cases reported leukoderma at or near the application site only, and 7 reported leukoderma at other parts of the body in addition to the application site; 1 case did not provide enough information to confirm the affected site. The time to onset ranged from 2 months to 4 years after the initiation of MTS. MTS was discontinued in 31 cases. Thirteen patients were prescribed treatment for repigmentation. Three cases reported continued spread of leukoderma after MTS was discontinued. Nineteen cases were diagnosed as vitiligo, including 5 cases reporting histologic features consistent with vitiligo. Leukoderma was persistent in all cases. The median follow-up interval after the discontinuation of MTS in 23 cases was 14 months., Conclusions: As outlined in recent changes to the prescribing information for MTS, health care professionals need to be aware of the potential risk of chemical leukoderma caused by MTS, especially given that chemical leukoderma is often misdiagnosed as idiopathic vitiligo. MTS should be discontinued at the earliest sign of pigment loss and other treatment options considered., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML), a rare, potentially fatal demyelinating disease, affects primarily immunocompromised individuals. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received reports of PML associated with efalizumab (Raptiva), a biologic agent approved for psoriasis. In July 2009, efalizumab was voluntarily withdrawn from the US market because of the risk of PML., Objective: To describe 3 cases of PML in psoriasis patients treated with efalizumab., Methods: The FDA's Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) database was searched for post-marketing reports of PML associated with biologic agents that are FDA approved for psoriasis (adalimumab, alefacept, efalizumab, etanercept, infliximab) from market approval to January 30, 2009., Results: Twelve cases suggestive of PML were identified: adalimumab (1), efalizumab (4), etanercept (3), and infliximab (4). Efalizumab was the only drug with cases reporting PML in the setting of psoriasis. All cases of PML in efalizumab-treated patients presented 3 years or more after treatment initiation and resulted in death. Cases of PML in patients treated with adalimumab, etanercept, or infliximab occurred in patients treated for conditions other than psoriasis and were confounded by the use of other immunosuppressive therapies or were not confirmed PML cases., Limitations: AERS data are limited because of an underreporting of spontaneous post-marketing adverse events and variable quality and quantity of information provided., Conclusions: These cases suggest that prolonged efalizumab therapy is a risk factor for PML. Although the cases reported treatment for longer than 3 years, a specific treatment duration that does not place patients at risk for PML has not been defined., (Copyright © 2010 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)